> Could anybody please comment on the performance of both lenses? Alexander, I have both lenses. While I have not done any side by side comparisons (yet), here are some general impressions: Sharpness: The 35/2 is *very* sharp at all apertures, my sample produces images which have a beautiful crisp look. The 28/2.8 is also very sharp, however my lens sometimes seems to lack crispness. Contrast: Both lenses are very contrasty, with good resistance to flare even without a hood, and excellent color saturation. My general impression is that the 35/2 is slightly better. This impression may be due to the subject matter I've used with these lenses, intend to do a side-by-side comparison to check this out. Light fall-off: At wide apertures the 35/2 has light fall-off at the corners which is sometimes noticeable when shooting evenly lit subjects such as the sky. The 28/2.8 also has some light fall-off at wide apertures, but for a wide angle lens it is very well controlled. Distortion: the 35/2 has barrel distortion - straight lines near the edges of the frame bow out - not serious. Distortion on the 28/2.8 is very well controlled. Bokeh: The 35/2 tends to produce background blur which is blocky and contrasty, with doubling of out of focus lines. Personally, I prefer a smoother look. The AIS 28/2.8 has slightly smoother bokeh. Macro: The 28/2.8 has CRC and focuses extremely close - to 0.2m, for 1/4 life size - allows for some interesting closeup shots. The AIS 35/2 does not focus as close, but performs very well at minimum focus distance. Build quality: excellent, like most manual focus nikkors. Hope this helps Roland
