Excellent lens but focussing is very slow.

The title says it all really. Highly recommended unless you need fast focussing for action.

Ideal lens for digital, but the aperture is disappointing

35mm is a bit of an unusual lens for a 135 size SLR. 28mm is the 'standard' wide-angle lens, although many photographers have opted for the slightly wider 24mm in recent years. This may explain Nikon's reluctance to really invest in this length of lens - the relatively slow f2 aperture compares poorly with Nikon's 50mm offerings, and even the 28mm is available - for a price - at f1.4.

Everything changes, though, with the advent of digital SLRs. Nikon's D1, D2, D75 and D100 all use a CCD which is the same size as APS rather than 135 film. The result is that all lenses behave as if they were about 1/3 longer. The humble 35mm is thus the equivalent of a 55mm, which is as close to the 50mm 'normal' length as makes no difference - at least until Nikon come up with a 33mm lens.

'Normal' lenses are the least exciting but most ubiquitous, and if you only intend to own one prime lens, you probably owe it to yourself to make it that one.

So how about this lens? I personally found the f2 maximum aperture to be more of an annoyance than a problem. I grew up on f1.8 lenses, and was never willing to shell out the extra for an f1.4. f2 really isn't that much slower - it just feels like it is.

For the rest, this is a nice, light compact lens with internal focusing so your polarising filter doesn't go spinning round when you don't want it to. In common with its 135 size 50mm equivalent, it gives a picture which is very close to what the eye sees. We found that its shortest focal distance was attractively close, although this isn't, of course, a macro lens.

One other benefit of using this with a digital Nikon SLR is that the smaller CCD size reduces the effect of aberrations, and this is therefore a 'better' lens on digital than on 135.

The alternative is to go with a Nikkor ED (extra-low dispersion) zoom. In principle the quality of a prime lens like this should always be better than any zoom. In practice Nikon's ED glass is so good that you don't see much difference. However, this lens is markedly better than my budget Nikkor 24-120 which I got with the camera (and don't really use much any more). If you can afford money, the ED zoom is probably worth it. If you are on a budget, though, and want to max out on quality with flexibility, this is a good buy, despite the disappointing aperture.

The Nikon Su-4 Slave Flash Review

This is an excellent simple to use piece of equipment. It features a rotating base for the flash unit and a light sensor on a swivelling barrel allowing great freedom of placement for the secondary flash. A diffuser for the built-in flash of the Nikon D50 allows a softer light emisson although the SU-4 is at its best with the SB 800 as the master unit and the SB 600 mounted on the Su-4 itself. Although the SB800 and SB600 flash units feature the TTL integrated lighting system the Su-4 takes all the hard work away from adding a second or third flash unit

Does exactly what it says on the tin

Simply charges the battery, in under two hours, no questions asked. Works a dream and is amazingly quick.

Beautiful, exciting and affordable

This is a beautiful, exciting and affordable lens with specifications only marginally less than the much more expensive Nikkor 85 f/1.4D Af.

This is a different lens depending on whether you are shooting film or digital. On film, it is at the short end of portrait lengths, suitable for head and shoulders or wider shots. On digital, which crops the lens by 1.5, it is at the long end of portraits, suitable for head shots, or for head and shoulders at a greater distance. On digital it also qualifies as a sports lens.

This, and the 1.4 cousin, are firm favourites for digitial portraits, and here is why:

First, the measured quality of both these lenses puts them among the best that Nikon (or anyone) has ever produced at any length. The 1.4 measures marginally better, but only marginally.

Second, the relative speed of these lenses gives much more control over depth of focus than the fastest zoom lens: even professional zooms only manage f/2.8. Again, the 1.4 gives a little bit more, but the 1.8 is still substantially ahead of other options.

Third, the length is exactly right for digital portraits. One of the results of the smaller size of the digital sensor is that you get more depth of focus than with the equivalent length of lens for film. Therefore, in order to get the same reduced depth of focus which is often used for portraits, you need a longer lens. The traditional lens lengths for film were 85-105mm for portraits, which would equate to 57-70mm on the digital sensor _in terms of field of view_. Going further out, to 85mm as this lens does, recovers the deliberately shallow depth of focus.

Fourth, this lens (and its cousin) give a very bright viewfinder picture, which also assists autofocus. If you spend half a day peering through the f/4-5.6 of a typical zoom lens, and then you look through this lens, it's like switching the lights on or cleaning your glasses. This is a _very_ enjoyable lens to photograph with, and also gives you a much better picture of what you are going to get.

Finally, this is ideal for grainy, moody portraits shot in available light, just because it does let so much light through.

I love this lens -- it's small, unobtrusive, and very light, and at a very competitive price. True, you could probably have lots of fun with a zoom lens for the same money, but you would not achieve the same scorchingly beautiful, razor sharp next to beautifully blurred that this lens provides. If you do have about twice as much money to spend, you would be advised to look at the f/1.4 as well, but you might still decide that, in terms of bang for your pound, this lens won't be beaten.