Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor Lens, Refurb, $165 shipped @ Adorama
 

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor Lens for DSLR Cameras - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A. $165, shipping included.

http://www.adorama.com/NK3518R.html

90 Day Warranty
Additional cashback possible via various sites.
Regular price for a new unit is $200 for comparison. Used copies sell for around this price.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens (Refurbished) $165 + Free shipping
 

Adorama has Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor Lens (Refurbished) for $165 + free shipping. Thanks deymo

This post can and should be edited by users like you :)
 

Price is now $175

NOW DEAD

Any idea if there is a similar deal on 50mm? Have been looking for one for quite sometime. Prices on these lens seldom come down. Great price for 35mm. Repped.

I want the lens but I want to wait for cameta to restock it as cameta includes a 1yr warranty...

This is a great price. When I got it, they were almost all out of stock at the retail $200.

I recommend this lens to every DSLR user. At the very worst, if you are crazy and don't like it, then you end up selling it a few months later for $10 less than you bought it.

will there be better deals on BF/CM?

Would this be good as a walk-around lens? Going to Europe next year, have a Nikon d5100 and am looking for a better walk around lens then the standard 18-55 I have.

what adapter do i need to get this on a nex?

No way in hell will this lens be cheaper. Besides, BF is more for camera bodies than lenses.

Yes. Up until the mid 1990's, when camera makers started making zoom lenses good enough, most cameras that you bought came with a normal perspective lens just like this. Basically, turn your 18-55mm lens to 35mm, and that's what you get with this lens. The difference is that you have better image quality, and it opens up to f/1.8, which allows you to blur the background.

What do you not like about the 18-55mm though? Optically, it's decent. I'd say that today, the 35mm complements the 18-55mm rather than replaces it. The convenience of so many focal lengths without changing lenses is just so nice!

Obviously, a Nikon to NEX adapter? Although, it's not really worth adapting. You lose autofocus, exif data, size, etc. You're better off if you're willing to invest, buying the 35mm f/1.8 E-mount that I was just clued in to. It's $450, because it was just announced. Until then, if you want, get yourself an LA-EA1 adapter and the Sony version of this lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pro...8_SAM.html
And you'll at least get to keep autofocus and stuff. Adapting lenses is best used for those focal lengths for which there is no native corollary.

is it should be a normal price?

Any deals on a Canon 35mm?

I've had a deal alert for this lens on here for months! Now I don't know if I need it, but I'm buying it :). It will be nice to have autofocus on a fast lens.

bokeh!!!! Anyway this isn't a huge deal on the lens especially after tax but is really a good len nevertheless with super sharp image quality.

Bar none my favorite lens for my Nikon D5100. I have the stock kit lens (no longer used), this 35mm prime lens being discussed, and the 55-200VR zoom lens. The ONLY thing I would add (and would pay for) would be VR on the 35mm, but that would drastically increase the price.

Super fast, very quick auto-focusing, and some of the most amazing night and dusk shots without flash you've ever seen. Most of the time for night shooting I'll keep the camera on auto without flash (one step below the normal auto setting). This forces the camera to readjust settings without compensating for a flash.

I'm not anywhere near a pro, but I can guarantee you a LOT of shots my wife and I take are borderline pro-caliber (and most if not all are done with the auto-setting and merely positioning our lighting and shots properly).

It is definitely a great lens for close photography, but as the only lens on the camera? Not in my opinion. You'll probably be doing lots of landscape and architectural shots (as well as people and close shots) so to me the perfect lens would be something like the Nikon 18-200mm VR, but of course you're talking >$800 for that puppy! No, my budget perfect setup is what I currently have:

-35mm (the item we're discussing) for close portrait shots and low-light shots

-55-200VR for everything else (~$250)

Those 2 lenses pretty much will cover 95% of the shots you'd want to take and with a little footwork you can make them work with 100% of the shots you need.

$400 for a near total spectrum of shots is INSANE in my opinion.

HTH

sales tax. damn it!!!!! thanks for the post anyway OP.

FYI - Almost every credit card you purchase an item with gives you an automatic 1 year warranty on the item beyond the manufacturers warranty. <Link [bankrate.com]>

Edit: I picked one up since you rarely see a quality Nikkor lens like this at any kind of reduced price, refurb'd or not. Nice find OP! T's and R's!

$198 for a brand new one @ Adorama
 

Why would anyone pay this price for the refurb. one? For $33 more you can have a brand new one. I paid $199 @ Amazon back in April, love this lens, especially the price, can't beat it for $200 !!!

http://www.adorama.com/NK3518UV.html

This is a PRIME lens. Considered by many as must-have lens for non full frame cameras such as the Nikon D40, D40x, D60, D5000, D5100, D3000, D3100, D3200, D7000, D80, D90, D200, D300 etc.

check out the reviews on amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-...s=35mm+1.8

This lens stayed on my D3000 for 99% of the time. I've now upgraded to the D5100 and it still stays on it all the time unless I need some zoom then I'll pull out the 55-200 VR lens. I got rid of the 18-55mm that came with the camera.

that CC extended warranty only works for new items not refurbished.

only for new items. amex doubles the warranty for refurbished items.

I'd second this, although I use an 18-200 instead of the 55-200. It's much heavier, and more expensive (I got it around $400 used), but it gives me that kit-lens range, too. I use the 35mm 80% of the time, and the 18-200 when I'm going to want the telephoto, but also the option of not using telephoto (walking around in nature, that sort of thing).

To clarify, for people who don't know, PRIME lens is as opposed to ZOOM lens. A zoom lens can change focal length (how long the lens is). A prime lens cannot - it's stuck at 35mm (so about halfway between zoomed out and in on your 18-55mm kit lens). To check if you want this, try walking around with your kit lens set to 35mm. If you find you'd rather be zooming in / out than walking around to get the shot framed, then think twice about this one. If you're fine walking, than this one offers superior image quality, wider aperture (can let in 4x the light, meaning much less noisy low light pictures), focus priority (you can manually and autofocus at the same time), and smaller size. The one thing it lacks, aside from a wider (18mm) and longer (55mm) focal range, is VR. VR is nice for slow shots, but since this thing can let in much more light, if you're willing to take a smaller focal plane (more out-of-focus area, which is often considered desirable these days), it's generally better for low light. The one place you'll really miss the VR is on video, but since you can't manually change the aperture on this lens, it's not ideal for video anyhow.

If you find your Nikon d3000/d3100/d3200/d5000/d5100 straining to take good shots indoors / at night, and those shots are right in front of you, in a "normal" focal length, then this is the lens for you. And this is a great price on it (and no, I wouldn't expect a particularly good price on black friday - Nikon never has any trouble selling these, and they've been selling them for years. Nikon lenses are like Apple products - they rarely go on the kind of significant sale slickdealers are used to seeing, so it's hard for us to recognize a better-than-normal price).

Imo, this and 18~105mm lens are perfect complements.get this

thanks, in ... didn't expect to be buying a lens this morning, but oh well ;)

now to find a good speedlight

Cause a Nikon factory refurb is basically as good as new, except for the warranty. I've never needed service on any of my Nikon lenses so the warranty is mostly for peace of mind.

I repect your opinion, I'm debating whether I should keep my car and home insurances or to cancel it, nah, too much to gamble :)

right....I guess you own a $200 house.

Ive got this lens for my d3100. Never use it, my 55-200 stays on the camera, but most of my shots are sports. Would like to get 18-200 or 250, and get rid of 18-55 and 55-200. Just picked up a 10-20 Sigma on CL for $300. That takes some cool interiors and landscapes. sorry for the threadjack- but I just struggle to find photos to take with a prime.

For NEX get Sigma 30mm F/2.8 [adorama.com]... While you can mount this Nikon lens on NEX with an adapter, it will not autofocus.

for anyone still considering this one... get it.:drool:

This one is a deal even at MSRP. you will not look back. i wish i got this one at this price. this lens may even go up in value once discontinued.

Pros:
-take 52mm filters/hoods (comes with hood)
-will behave as a "52mm" lens due to 1.5 crop. 50mm is about the same as the natural eye. (not to be confused with filter ring size).
-M/A allows autofocus and manual focus without flipping any switches.
-Metal mount is sturdier than cheapo plastic.
-Very light and small, great travel lens.
-Good low light performance. pretty good at 1.8 but i tend to shoot at f2 for sharpness.
-Can focus as close as a foot-foot and a half away.
-af-s focuses on all DX bodies
Bokeh!

Cons:
-no zoom (duh-fixed lens)
-a bit noisy at focus- doesn't really bug me
-focus isn't the quickest (on a d5000 maybe it's better on yours)
-Not "forward compatible" to FX bodies without DX Crop mode

This lens all but replaces my 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. I hardly ever put it back on with that and my 70-300vr f4/5.6 tele.

the 35 f/1.8 for any company is always good, I have never heard anything bad about these guys, i got mine for 200+ tax, and lens rarely ever go on sale. so this is a good deal.

not accepting orders...

Yep, OOS.

When are they discontinuing it?

How do you like your 70-300?? I'm looking to pick up a tele, but can't decide on which to get.

Really, you're comparing car insurance to a Nikon lens warranty? Are you the type to sell your Nikon lenses when they are out of warranty?

I have the 55-200VR and am very impressed. Try out a 200mm first, and if you NEED the extra extension of a 300mm go for that. But I found that 200mm is good enough for my needs. And once you get past 200, without a VERY steady hand or a tripod, even with VR it's tough to take a steady shot. Just my 2 cents.

Ok, so then you prefer you 55-200 over the 300? How is image quality??

I disagree (if you are talking about the Nikon 18-105):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-105mm.htm

Maybe you are referring to a different 18-105, but the Nikon one is (IMO) junk for the price/quality.

For my needs (and my assumption that I shoot in a similar fashion to most regular folks) yes I prefer the 55-200 over the 70-300. IQ is even between the two. The big differences is cost (2X for the 300 compared to 200), extra bulk (not much of an issue but can make the camera want to tilt more during long shots), and difference in plastic (200) vs. metal (300) mount.

I just can't justify the price difference and slightly better build quality for extension that I rarely would ever need.

Arrrgg.. Just bought this lens monday from Amazon for $200. Oh well TU

This is my main lens on the d90. It is a very good, fast indoor and low light fixed lens. I mainly shoot portraits indoor. Kids etc. If you're on a vacation and will shoot sceneries during the day, stick to the 18-55 or the one I prefer 18-105.

"Nikon 90 Day USA Warranty"

They really stand behind their products ;)

WAY behind.

I love my 70-300 VR, and it's like pro lens sharp from 70-180, nice contrast too. Unfortunately I rarely use mine in that range, it's usually closer to 300mm, shooting wildlife, where it's not that sharp.

If you're primarily shooting at 300mm, like say, in Yellowstone NP, I think the competition (Tamron or Tokina?) makes better 70-300s.

Shite, left this page open and slept on it. Woke up & now OOS.

Oh well, after reading so many glowing reviews I wound up buying a new one on Amazon for $200.

still a good price for the lens, remember that this one is a refurb and for about $30 more, you have a brand new one

Not a bad price. Bought from JR.com back in Feb 2012 for $185 shipped.

I agree you should get it, but not for the appreciation...
 

With the move towards FX lenses, it's unlikely that the DX lenses will climb in value -> it's an excellent lens, but don't count on it going up...

The 35mm F/2D FX lens has held it's value very well, and is in fact seeing a price increase on the secondary market now that people are shifting to the D600 and seeing a future where full-frame is an affordable option. I wouldn't "invest" in DX lenses -> buy them and use them, but understand that long-term, the FX lenses will hold their value better.

A $35 5-year warranty is worth it for a new lens IMO. I would expect there is a small but significant chance any common lens problem could happen in that time: the AF-S motor could fail, the electrical contacts could short,or the lens could require focus readjustment. Given these are inexpensively produced in China and Nikon's high repair costs for out-of-warranty gear, I'd just go for new.

They also have Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S Nikkor Lens - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A for $179
http://www.adorama.com/NK5018GR.html

good price ?

Back again!!!
 

It is available now for shipping in the site! I just ordered mine. Repped!

^ I bit on it. I am sure lower prices are possible but i got tired of waiting.

Just ordered the 35mm, 50mm and D5100 kit. Gonna get rid of stock lens and replace it with 17-50mm. this should hold me over until i get past beginner level.

Back again!!!
 

Guys go for it... It is available now for shipping in the site! I just ordered mine. Repped!

good price, great lens...

back in stock!
I was able to order one a minute ago.
thnx OP

Went OOS in my cart, GRRR!

Paid about $215 for mine about a year and a half ago and I'd pay that all over again. Fantastic lens for taking portaits. I pretty much keep this lens on my camera as my everyday lens.

It was $200K, now only $200 :)

Wow this is a good price. Lowest I've seen is $189, but it was for new

You don't like 20% discounts? :confused:

Hi, I'm not a DSLR expert and would appreciate some input. My sister has a D3100 with the stock lens. What advantages does this lens provide over the stock one?

This may be a good deal, but I got mine from J&R brand new for $165.99 back then when I PM'd it to Best Buy maybe during April of this year.

This isn't the lowest price it's been at.

I would also like to know. I'm in the market for a prime lens and have been told by others to get a 50mm. What would others recommend in choosing between the two?

What the hell... just bought it. Had the kit lens for my d5100 for a year now. Not sure how I'll like the Prime lense for everyday use.

That's an FX lens, not DX for DX style cameras. Your image will be cropped.

This is great if you have kids or a baby, you can shoot indoors, without a flash or much light, plus you can get great shallow depth of field portrait-type shots. Blurring the background makes a person or baby stand out nicely in a photo.

50mm prime would do the same but is hard to use indoors, you'll find yourself backing up a lot.

Not sure what you mean, an FX lens works fine on DX, but a DX lens will be cropped on an FX body.

50mm is better for shooting people outdoors, or in a big room. I find the cheap Nikon 50mm has harsh bokeh though, for 50mm I'd get the Sigma if you can afford it.

Why not to pay $30 more for a new one with 5 YEAR warranty?

Dang, out of stock.

Oos :(

Its a good walk-around lens if you're used to the confines of a prime. How I tried it was setting my 18-55, and never touching the zoom. If you can't get used to that, then this won't be fun.

What, no Canon deals?

please someone tell me how is this 35mm 1.8g lens compare to 50mm 1.8g? is 50mm much better or slightly better? i am not an expert as you can tell

That depends, are your car and home insurance 15% of the cost of your home and car? If a 200,000 home had an insurance cost of 30,000 to give you insurance for one year instead of 90 days, how many people do you think would get insurance?

You'll be stepping down in image quality with the 18-200mm and 28-300mm, although the autofocus will be faster. Superzoom lenses do not compare favorably to dedicated telephoto lenses. Save yourself headache, and go fall in love with the Tamron 70-300mm VC, or get yourself an f/2.8 lens like the Sigma 50-150mm OS, Sigma 70-200mm OS, or the new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC. Although all of those lenses are in the $900-$1,400 range, they are the last sports lens you'll ever need to buy. The 50-150mm/70-200mm range is THE workhorse for sports photography.


They aren't, that's nonsense.

The Nikon lineup:
- Nikon 55-200mm VR. Good lens optically, but so-so build and slow autofocus
-Nikon 55-300mm VR. Basically the same as the 55-200mm VR, but with an extra 100mm "tacked on" the end of it.
-Nikon 70-300mm VR. Has an ultrasonic motor, so great fast autofocus, but not as good optically as the 55-300mm VR. As mentioned, soft past 200mm, which is annoying.
-Tamron 70-300mm VC. My personal favorite. Great image quality, image stabilization, fast autofocus. You'd be hard pressed to find a better deal in this lens. Better optically than the Nikon version, at least as good if not better than the 55-300mm VR, and it has that lightning fast autofocus that is just such a pleasure to use.

I use a 55-200mm VR, but that's because I shoot more static subjects in that range. I also like it because it's small, and a good backup lens to my 300mm f/4. I'd recommend the Tamron 70-300mm VC for most people, it's the hands-down winner for most situations.


Ken Rockwell is a self-confessed troll, who says nonsensical things to:
-Get people talking about his outlandish statements, so that they visit his website and earn him $
-Convinces noobs to buy the lowest-end gear, because they're more willing to part with their money, and he gets money from affiliate links
Don't listen to any of his opinions. The 18-105mm is Nikon's best midrange lens except for the 16-85mm (and the idiotic $1,400 Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8, but lets leave that behemoth out of the equation for now).
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--ni...81053556vr
http://www.bythom.com/nikon-dx-lens-summary.htm


Oh, great, so you know of a company that offers more than 90 day warranty on refurbs? I'm all ears!

This is not true. The FX 35mm f/1.4 lens and the DX 35mm f/1.8G lens both give the same angle of view. For your situation, you can ignore crop factor. It is only a factor meant to allow comparison with different systems. Using the same camera, 35mm is 35mm is 35mm is 35mm is 35mm, regardless of what system the lens was originally designed for.

I'd like to know this as well. I have a 50mm prime that I love, but my wife hates if because she always wants to zoom out more. What would the 35 give me that the 50 doesn't besides just a tad bit wider angle shot?

Dead...dead

Yes, just wider.

Any zoom lens with a comparable f-stop (1.8) and you are looking at $$$$$.

I bought a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom lens for about $400. Anything Nikon brand will be at least double that.

Or 4 times as much.....
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pro..._2_8G.html

I got a new j-1 and am only familiar with point and shoot, does this work with the j-1? Thanks

I am going to Vietnam in December and I am planning to pick up this lens to go with the D40 with the 18-55 lens. Should I buy this lens?

no no...:shake:

the 50mm 1.8g af-s is also compatible with FX and DX bodies whereas this 35mm is ONLY DX.

nope. you'll have to get an adapter.

You need Nikon lenses for the 1 mount

well.... technically DX lenses work on FX bodies perfectly fine. they just crop the sensor to DX size.

Otherwise you'll get a nice round image, with crazy dark corners.

someone said the deal is dead but even at MSRP of 200 this is a great lens that's more than worth it.

the quality is far superior to the kit lens.

if i were you, i'd leave the 18-55 home and if you wanted to carry a second lens, go with a telephoto. otherwise, i wouldn't carry both since they overlap range and the 35 is smaller, lighter, better quality and better in low light making it a win across the board. vs the kit lens you can usually make up the zoom with a few steps forward or back, anyway.

Open your ears, smartass.

http://www.cameta.com/olympus-refurbished.cfm

"All items include a 1-Year Warranty."

Even though this went OOS, everyone should recognize the Nikon normally offers a 5 year warranty on their lenses. Degrading that to 90 days just to save $30 should be seriously considered.

will this lens work on the nikon 1

If I shot DX, I'd be all over this. Just adding my agreement with the others, that if you don't have any prime lenses, start here. A 35mm on a DX will be a comfortable focal-length (I used to find 50mm on a DX just a little "long" for general use, esp. indoors), and once you get a taste for wide apertures, it's hard to go back (even f/2.8 often feels "too slow" after using f/1.4 or f/1.8).

I just wish the (full-frame) 35mm f/1.4 lens was on sale. Or that this one was a full-frame f/1.8 lens. :(

Thanks for helping me out, much appreciated

Which is more better for D5100??? 35mm AF-S or 50mm AF-S??? Considering both Indoor & Outdoor Portraits and Landscapes??? Please suggest.

and besides, even though this lens is compact, it'll be huge on that tiny J1

love it. it's compatible on FX too. what others say about sharpness fall off near edges (@300) is not as noticeable on DXs since they crop. I use it almost exclusively at 70 or 300. rarely stopping in the middle.

It is a bit intimidating extended + the hood. you'll look like a paparazzi with it and it is pretty much at the limit of being impractically large when extended. you'll want a beefy tripod for use at the 300mm (450mm equivalent with crop factor).

then again you have a "prosumer" grade lens for under $500 that is "future proof" and with nearly 500mm range what more could you want?

even wide open, on a DX body, i am just a step or two farther than i feel comfortable with for directing people in portraits. just something to keep in mind.

the VR is incredibly helpful. if you set it to active, you can actually see the image steady in the viewfinder when you depress the shutter button halfway.

this is the one i'm referring to: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

Price went up to $175 FYI. I'm glad I got in on $165... was looking for a prime lens and have heard nothing but praise for this one!

Heard people say with 50mm you get a nice bokeh!
But for indoors it might be little difficult in a small room.

One last comment on the warranty - I've had a $300 lens fail post-warranty, and getting it fixed costs almost as much as the lens.

The primary makes a neat magnifying glass, but the body doesn't work at all as a doorstop.

With the FT1 adapter yes, but keep in mind it'll be like a 70mm lens on the Nikon 1, which isn't that useful except as a portrait lens. It won't be wide like on DX.

What's better, a Mustang or an F-150? They're different lenses. The 35mm is a normal perspective, similar to what your eye sees, while the 50mm is a telephoto lens, *almost* portrait. Take your 18-55mm lens, zoom it to 35mm, and then walk around and take photos for 20 minutes. Then, zoom it to 50mm, and walk around and take photos for another 20 minutes. The difference between your 18-55mm and these lenses is that they have better image quality, and a larger aperture, so you get soft blurry backgrounds and can take pictures in darker light.

Have you heard about the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4? It's $900, just announced. I'd love to have that, but too expensive for my DX body.

Gotcha. I'm a crop sensor shooter, so I forget about that sometimes....

i'm totally getting that lens. several months after release....

I forgot that Sigma always overinflates their MSRP - if it's like $550 street, maybe I can get it.

I love my 50mm Sigma but I use my 35mm Nikon more.

My all time favorite lens is a Nikon 50mm f/1.4. Possibly the best lens available and only at around 300 bucks. Tack sharp and low light capabilities. Truly legendary. Excellent for flashless indoor portraits and general carrying around. And since it’s an FX, you can still use it when you step up to the D600 or even D4. I use it on a D200 (DX) and a D700 (FX). Now you know my secret. Research this baby before you go with a 35mm f/1.8. Yes, I also have a 35mm f/1.4 FX, but I rarely use it.

Hmmm... No, I hadn't, but I'll check into it. I have a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth for Sigma lenses. My Sigma 85mm f/1.4 had to get sent in for warranty work (bad communication with body), and it's still not 100% right. Nice images, and probably I couldn't justify the extra $800 to get the Nikon version, but it's a bit frustrating. In short, I'll wait until it's been out for a while before jumping on one (so they can get manufacturing bugs worked out and reviewers have had some "quality time" with it).

As for the expense, I hear you. I'm not trying to be a "pusher", but I've found few photography purchases that I was happy with long-term more than good lenses. They usually retain value well (a bit less so with third-party lenses, but still pretty good) and make the biggest difference in image quality (aside from improving your technique :) ). If you think there's a chance you'll move to FF at some point reasonably soon, save yourself the hassle of selling your DX lens and just go with this. OTOH, there is also the added weight, which is an important consideration (though on a 35mm I don't know how much that is).

I hope that's the case, but the 85mm has held value.

my most used lens is the 24-105mm f4.

but when I'm getting paid or I'm out doing something specific I start using the rest of the collection. and this 35mm would mean no more renting the canon 35mm. especially if I pick it up used. used Sigma lenses are fantastic deals.

I had both the f/1.4 and the f/1.8 at one point, and I just couldn't justify the extra expense of the f/1.4, so I sold it and kept the f/1.8. Not trying to incite a flame-war, just pointing out that if people have a tight budget, a f/1.8 can be had for less than half of the f/1.4, and it will be (to most eyes) equally sharp and useful (for portraits, low light, etc.).

I hear you! But twice the price!

Absolutley, it'll work with D40, fast, sharp lens, GREAT in low light, change your setting to A then adjust to f1.8, you'll be amaze with the pictures, especially with the "light" in Saigon, if you are in doubt, buy it from Amazon for $200, don't like it? You know what to do. Or you can Google it like "Nikon 35mm f1.8 pictures" you find out more.

Must resist. My wife would kill me if I spent any more money on lenses.

I have an older D40. Will this be fine on that body? Will the auto focus work? I have a 50mm 1/8 where the auto focus doesn't work.

AF-S lenses have the auto focus motor, so stick with those (otherwise you can only manual focus).

This is an AF-S lens.

Not likely. He's just noting that it is such a good workhorse lens that it will hold its value as time goes on and value will go up if it is ever discontinued.

I just bought the d5100 with 18-55mm lens kit. What the difference between this lens and the 18-55mm?

haha, I AM talking about 18-105mm Nikon lens. I don't know about the $400 price tag mentioned in your link, but i'm sure that if you look around like i did, a lot of people are selling it around 200 dollars. I got mine from Craigslist for 175 dollars (sold my 18-55 mm for $70) and imo, this lens is the best walk around zoom lens for cheap.

18-55 mm is nice for the price (people are selling it for ~100) but lacks zoom when you need it.
18-70 mm is like a BMW for kit lens (extra ED elements, and metal mount) but it comes at a price. 250 bucks on average. Heavy too. (i have one)
18-105 mm lens is very similar to the 18-55, but with more zoom. Sure, the optics and the aperture are not the best with soft corners @ 18 mm. But hey, you can that extra 3X zoom. it's a trade off.
18-200 mm, expensive, and heavy. Good optics for super zooms on a budget, still damn expensive though.

Kenrockwell is a good reviewer, but you should look at the street price. Perhaps you dont have a lot of people using craigslist around your area, which is understandable. Also, you should look at other reviewer besides Kenrockwell. I started photography checking out reviews from kenrockwell as well, but I have grown to look for second opinions like thom hogan or legit youtube reviewers.

I think it was worth it if i bought it for 200 bucks or 210, but 400? Any one knows that for 400 bucks, money will be better spent on a non-kit lens.

Cheers

50 mm also available
 

Adorama also has the wonderful Nikon 50mm 1.8g refurbished for 180$. I just bought that yesterday with 10% additional cashback (5% from Discover and 5% from upromise)

I have been looking for this quite a while for my D3100. I ran across cameta and found this:
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-35mm-...-43469.cfm
(Having a filter will be a plus.)
I only have a lens pen at this moment, so with the cleaning kit might make the deal as well. For the price, should I get this instead this refurb deal?

Pay $30 more and buy a brand new! 5 year Nikon USA warranty vs 90 day.
I would get a brand new

The 35mm is a PRIME lens so you'll first notice much sharper photos.

The 35mm has a f1.8 so it'll have a larger aperture, more sensitive to light giving you the ability to shoot better in low light.

Attached photos were grabbed from my Facebook account so you'll notice a loss in quality.

Zoom and non zoom lens. You have the option to zoom between 18mm and 55mm on the kit lens while the 35mm is a fix. Like some previous post said, you might find yourself have to walk closer to the subject in order to take the shot. ( If you are taking portrait photos, a fix 35mm would be better than the kit.)
Also you are looking at f1.8 compare to f3.5. Which it allows more light to go into your lens that would effect the blur of your background. For example, you found a lot of portrait photos usually have a blurry background because they use a low f-stop like f1.8.
It also a better lens than the kit lens for low light or night photography.
Like other said, it would be nice to have the VR on this lens, but the price will bring up at least a double.
I am also new to photography as well (got myself a D3100 for like half a year), hope I didn't mess things up LOL.

Just paid $199 on Amazon for New with 5 year warranty and awesome Amazon return policy, not to mention FREE 2 day shipping, all worth the extra $25 to me. Not slick, but thanks for bringing my attention to this lens! I needed something new to play with to get back into my camera!

What is up promise 5%? How to get it?

I rather buy new and get the 5 years warranty.

Can thif fit on Canon T3i?
Noob question but some one please reply.

Upromise is a cashback website (upromise.com). You can register for free and then search for Adorama in their seller list to see the 5% cashback.

Thanks OP. I opted for the new lens for $30 more, but this is a very good deal nonetheless.

Sorry no. Doesn't hurt to ask right?

I have the 70-300 VR and love it. Oddly, I found it to be sharper image quality than the 55-200. If you like to do outdoor and wildlife shots, I highly recommend it. Of course, it does need decent light. My walk around kit includes the Sigma 10-20, Nikon 28-105 and the 70-300. Throw in a carbon fiber monopod that doubles as a walking stick and it pretty much covers everything I could encounter on a day in the woods & fields.

Ditto. The 50mm 1.8 is one of the most popular Nikon lenses due quality and value. Every kit should have one.

What would you guys suggest? 50 1.8 or 35 1.8?

Camera people, does anyone know of a good site that explains lenses for beginners? I have a D3100 and am very new to it

is the deal dead!??!

http://digital-photography-school.com/
Here, you should find most of the information from this site. I learnt a lot from them as well.

Buy Canon Lens for Canon.

Buy Nikon Lens for Nikon. ;)

You're talking used and I was talking new (from Amazon). Since this is a thread about a refurb 35mm I understand the confusion (sorry about that). I'm sure you can find a whole host of awesome lenses for cheap used on Craigslist (or a second hand photography store locally), but I was referring to new prices (and Amazon is relatively competitive).

My main site for reviews is dpreview.com, but they do not have a site review for this particular lens. I might have jumped the gun on that particular lens because others have posted on Ken Rockwell's credibility. I'm not here to insight a flame-war and am definitely on the composition side of things compared to hardware reviews when it comes to taking good pictures. I just wanted people to realize that if they are like me (on a tight budget, want NEW components if possible, and want to be able to take awesome shots of 90% of normal events) that this prime and a 55-200VR is tough to argue against!

oh not sure which to get now.

Expired....

The next 35 f1.8 is seriously out of stock. It may take months even years if lucky to get one. Just look at how hard to find the nex 24f1.8 .

They're close enough, I probably would jump on a deal for either if you had the chance. 35 will feel a bit better on a DX camera (IMHO), but also keep in mind the 35 can *only* be used on a DX body, so if you think you'll go to a full-frame at some point (which many/most don't, since you're in the $2000 price neighborhood then), the 50 may be a better choice.

FYI: The 50mm f/1.8G (the newest version) is on sale (refurb) right now:
http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/8...efurbished

I have the previous version, the f/1.8D, which has always been rock-solid for me (and can be bought for around 1/2 to 2/3 of what the f/1.8G usually goes for). Amazon has it for about $120 right now (new):
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-...n+f%2F1.8d

If you're picky, it would depend on what your subjects are. If its scenery, then go with the 35mm. If its indoor in a small room, again, go with the 35mm. However, since shooting people's faces with a 35mm forces you to stand closer to the subject than with a 50mm, those faces would be a little distorted. For portraits, I prefer to step back a little with a 50mm for a more normal looking face. It would be somewhat equivalent to professionals shooting portraits with full frame sensor cameras using 85mm lenses. Do what the professionals do and do a little experimentation on your own. Photography can be a highly enjoyable hobby. However, if your friends and relatives start to ask you to photograph their weddings, you’ll start to sweat bullets.

Damn, both this and the 50mm are OOS :mad:

I've been especially waiting for this lens to go on sale and I missed out :(

Cameta throws in a 1 year extended on theirs... they get them for around this price now and then, although they go OOS quickly.

The Nikon Part is 90 days... and really on a lens... they either work or they don't... and 9 times out of 10 when they don't it's because someone dropped it.

I used to work IT for a High School district, and cameras was one of the things we serviced (or really, we sent out to Nikon for repair). I can tell you out of hundreds of cameras, I think I sent back dozens of lenses back, and all but one was a physical damage (but Nikon usually would fix it for a fairly low cost...) The one was suspect, but Nikon fixed it anyhow under warranty as it was only a couple months old.

I'd walk into the classrooms and see kids balancing the cameras on the lenses, (it's not their $800 Camera... why take care of it?), and the teachers didn't care, they figured that way they can get a newer model when the kid broke them.

FYI: If you are my age and learned to take photos on a 35mm film camera (Good Old days), a 35mm is the same as the 50mm "walk around" lenses we used to use (it's very close to the naked eye, which is one of the great things about it). Due to the sensor sizes, the 35mm Digital is simular to a 50mm (film), and a 50mm is similar to the 70mm Film that's the standard for portraits.

Basically if you own a Nikon DLSR, I recommend the 18-55 zoom you got with the camera most likely, a 35mm, a 50mm, and a 50-200 (or somewhat near that focal length) zoom. for 98% of you, that will cover everything out there. =-). You'll find the 35mm is the goto lens to "capture" the scene, as like I said it's near the view of the eyes. It's also a fast piece of glass, therefore it works great in low light conditions... you'll find that many times you won't need a flash, and that allows you to get a more "natural" looking picture.

So basically, if you don't own this lens yet... get it!

just fell heir to a D-200 and need a couple of good lenses to get started with. from the comments and my reading it looks like either a 35mm or 50mm would be a good bet for a fixed lens, but what would you recommend for a zoom? i've shot with a F2s up to now so this is new territory for me.

Congratulations, that's the camera I use! If you weren't an F2s user, I'd recommend you selling it to get something newer/lower end, but even with your film experience, you're going to find it a daunting camera. It still takes great photos, but the sensor is noticeably aging, as you probably want to stay under ISO 400 or 800 to keep the noise in check, but other than that, it's a peach!

You can use your F2s lenses, as long as they are Ai or Ais. The easiest way to tell is if they have holes in the little rabbit ears, for light to pass through. Otherwise, the earlier lenses, usually labelled with a letter like Nikkor-P, Nikkor-H, Nikkor-O, etc will damage the camera if you try to mount them.

As for lenses to pick up, since the sensor is smaller, you just have to calculate an apparent crop factor to the lenses. Other than that, I assume you know which lenses you want! A 35mm is a good normal lens. A 50mm, using the 1.5 crop factor, would act like a 75mm lens while mounted on your camera, which I find to be not very usable. For my own uses, it's too long for general photography, and too short for telephoto photography, so I'd skip it. As for a midrange zoom lens, if you want good image quality, your best choices are the 18-105mm or the older 18-70mm if you're on a budget and want Nikon, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 if you want something faster (non-VC version. This is the lens I personally use, and I think it's far and away the best choice for our camera, with the only downside being that it doesn't autofocus on lower-end Nikons), or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS if you want an f/2.8 zoom with image stabilization. After that, consider one of the great macro lenses (Nikon 60mm, Tamron 60mm, or any of the Tamron/Tokina/Sigma/Nikon lenses between 85-105mm). If you want a portrait lens, grab yourself the Voigtlander 58mm or the Tamron 60mm.


Feel free to message me if you want more information, so that we don't clog up this thread. But yeah, get this 35mm lens. It should be a staple of EVERY Nikon digital shooter's kit.

This lens is really nice! When I'm trying to shoot in daylight with a minimal kit, I'll go out with just my 18-55, and maybe my 55-200 for reach. With my 18-55, I tend to shoot at the extremes of the range rather than 35mm, so I don't really prefer the 35mm as my main walkaround. But if I want versatility, I bring my 11-16 and my 35mm instead of the 18-55. Definitely, if it's going to get dark, the 35mm is the way to go.

For the price, it's a really nice lens. It's not strictly superior to the 18-55, both are good in different situations, so you might as well get both and give yourself the flexibility. When you choose your kit, even if you're like me and shoot at many lengths, just remember that you don't need to cover every focal length. As long as you don't have gaps much greater than 2x, you're pretty good, because these cameras have plenty of resolution and you can always crop down instead of zooming.

There are pros and cons. Pros, it's light, very sharp and you can shoot without a flash in low-light. A really great travel fit for the lightweight d5100. Image quality is superior to the kit lens. Con is you have to walk around to compose the shot, and the field of view is not very wide. You'll never get big things (landscapes, cathedrals, etc) inside the frame.

I traveled 8 months through Mexico this year with the d5100 and 35mm combo. I loved it - great shots, small, light-weight, stealthy. Great cam, great lens. And there is a solution for when you're faced with something big that you want to capture - take multiple exposures and stitch them together after. Its more work, but the results are great:

http://static.panoramio.com/photo...136479.jpg
http://static.panoramio.com/photo...245847.jpg
http://static.panoramio.com/photo...107359.jpg

I also recommend adding a Black-Rapid style sling strap for the perfect DSLR travel rig. These straps are amazing with the D5100 and 35mm. Walk around all day without feeling the camera weight at all, and the camera hangs by your side, out of the way and unnoticed until you bring it up to shoot. Chinese Ebay knockoffs are cheap and just as good.