1- It is a good goal. 2- Focus well, what it doesn't have is a focus stabilizer. What's up with it? That said, unless you're very stable or using a tripod, in a professional session like mine where people are, it's very difficult not to get the photo shaky. To do this you need to focus and be very focused and hopefully by the time you get home you will be a little focused. Of course, when it's focused it does it very well and you don't realize it's not an original brand. 3- My mother, who doesn't understand Reflex, took a picture (the one with the china basket) and it came out very focused and stabilized (which isn't the same). 4- The photos of the cat are indoors (clearly) at 800 ISO, with barbaric noise (typical of artificial light) and the only thing I did editing the .NEF (Raw-Nikon) was noise reduction with Photoshop Camera Raw what I say: if the photo is sharp, if you force a slight blur to reduce grain, if it's still sharp, if it's still sharp despite the low quality, the photo is fine, but on the other hand if a photo is already bad, reducing it is useless. 5- The photos of the pot are (obviously) outdoors at ISO 100 (the usual one) and have not been edited. Maybe they were just saved via PS to save like the others in JPG format (which isn't PNG, which even degrades the save quality). 6- In the last photo I leave you the proof of what it looks like and what it looks like on a Nikon D7100. In my opinion and summary: It's a good target but you have to set the TU stability as it doesn't have VR like the original Nikon models. That being said, if you get used to it, using the original (in my case I have the Nikon 50mm) the photos will be fantastic as you've sort of gone from the worst to the best. Arguments against this situation: You have to focus a lot and take a lot of photos, not in a series, but focus and be very aware of each shot as it approaches, so that when you get home and process it, you get a useful one. So far it has arrived today so I couldn't test it anymore but I had decided that I would return it if the comments complaining about the approaches, the noise (something that has nothing more than others), etc have, would apply. I plan to take some outdoor photos with people (who also breathe and have a pulse, who also move like you) to finish my tests and make a decision, but at the moment I don't see it bad enough, to return them. I'll update this review if I see anything different, but for now this is my humble opinion and I hope it will help many of you! [REVIEW UPDATE]: After a year of doing sporadic sessions and learning to use it, I've been able to clarify a few things: The lens, as I said at the time, once you get used to it, can do well focus, but the best focus is undoubtedly on stills and even burst shots. Another thing is that when you enlarge the photo to the maximum, the quality is low. It's like the camera had a slight shutter error but it's clearly in the lens range but so you have a reference. Back then I bought it for 97€, although I just saw that it went up and... Would you recommend it? Well, if your budget is low and you don't have another one like it happened to me, yes, but it clearly doesn't measure up to an original.

Cheap and cheerful I would call this product. It's by no means a standout optic. I wouldn't use this for serious photography but as a cheap pub lens? Secure. Image quality is passable, more than adequate for viewing on the web imo. Large format printing and looking through the pixels is sure to disappoint. AF consistency is fairly good at centralized points, but I did notice some big misses at the outer points (greater in size and frequency than any of my other lenses). Received this lens to fool around with and will probably gift to a friend, but was pleasantly surprised at how usable it is. If one were to build a very cheap prime kit the Nikon 50 and 85 would be a robust kit. ,

and was a bit skeptical as I had seen and read many reviews and videos about it. I think I have a kind of 2.0 - the foils on the bayonet side are easy to see and remove (on the front of the lens as well) the darkening on the edges (corners) is extremely limited, which was also a point that made me skeptical. The pictures are great, even when enlarged (the attached picture is about 1/8 of normal) - the bayonet is made of metal - overall the lens is very light, the AF sometimes reacts, although rarely not quite as I would like . So far, the lens has always been recognized - let's hope it stays that way. I noticed a slight bluish tint (minimal), but this may be due to the fact that I screw on a high-quality UV filter to protect the lens with all other lenses, I haven't had one on the YN35/f2 yet. The lens is definitely worth considering, especially if you're starting out with primes and aren't sure which one, or if you can handle it! (Image ISO 100 f7.1 1/200)

Got it today and would come back if it doesn't work on my Z6 with FTZ adapter. I couldn't find any reviews as to whether this is compatible with the Z mount, so I decided to give it a try. Well, AF works like native Nikon G lens on FTZ mount and I can't see any difference in AF speed compared to AFS 50mm 1.8G I have. I'm also very happy with the image quality considering how much I paid.

Very good quality

*For the cost* (very important) this lens does everything you need a cheap, fast 35 f/2 to do. The build quality and feel are surprisingly good. The focus ring is satisfyingly tactile — smooth and large enough for my fingers to have an easy, snug grip, unlike my Nikkor D lenses. It's not the widest aperture for a 35, but for less than $100 you get functionality and value. We use this lens to film vlogs indoors with cheap studio lighting and it works well enough for our needs. It's soft all the way to the edges at F2 and difficult to focus with. The AF is quite slow but seems accurate enough. I plan to try this lens for astrophotography but don't have high hopes due to the lack of sharpness at F2, but I'll keep an open mind until I test it. However, when attenuated to f/2.8, clarity and sharpness improve significantly. We shoot our indoor vlogs at f3.2 for that extra depth of field, but would have no problem dropping down to 2.8 if needed, and the improved sharpness is nice at 3.2. I've attached two files — a full-size image of a section of tree, unprocessed at f/2 (1/4000th of a second to eliminate motion blur) and a cropped version of that file to show the poor sharpness right in the center of the frame. The lens is a nice size. Slightly larger than my Nikkor 50mm but smaller than my Rokinon 85mm. It works well with my Nikon D500 and when the focus is where you need it the images look good. It also focuses close enough for close-up macro photography, so that's nice. That sucks compared to other more expensive 35s out there, but these lenses cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars more. So I give it a 4/5. It's a great lens for getting the feel of a 35mm lens, but I wouldn't recommend it at all for professional use. + Good workmanship Inexpensive close-up focus - Slow autofocus, not sharp at f/2

Great little lens despite what others post. I have no hesitation in using this lens professionally whenever a 35mm lens is required. Sharp from the center with the face wide open to the edges. Works perfectly with my Nikon D750. Slower to focus than the Nikon 50mm G but then that doesn't really matter on a 35mm and there's so much depth of field anyway. I use the Nikon AF 35mm 1.8 G corrections in Lightroom and the images come out clean just fine. Lightroom doesn't have settings for Yongnuo lenses. Good buy.

The first photo was taken straight out of the box at ISO 3200, f/8.0, 1/60 second with flash. The lens produces clear, sharp RAW images (Nikon NEF) and shows little distortion. The second photo was taken through a layer of Plexiglas. The lens is good for portrait, landscape and macro. At 35mm f/2.0, it's fast enough and wide enough for underwater and astrophotography. When you capture RAW images, Adobe Lightroom doesn't recognize the lens, but it does profile it if you enter the information manually. This is a great addition to any photographer's kit. Being inexpensive is an added bonus.

Good image quality for the price you pay, if you like photography and are not a pro it's a very good buy, there are people complaining about the quality of the lenses but I imagine they are comparing a lens that is 4 or 5 times the price of this one as well as they complain about the noise of the motor but I think they want to compare it to a latest generation silent motor lens so I guess they never have a lens with mechanical motor (old) and in reality they don't know what a noisy lens is.

Let's get straight to the point that this is obviously a VERY commercial goal, bordering on gift, having said that I was pleasantly surprised by this. The construction is plastic but sturdy, when you hold it in your hand it looks like a toy (and therefore it weighs little and is very important for those who carry a lot of lenses), but... if you Once it's assembled, you'll find that the autofocus works quite well, the brightness is spectacular and there aren't any bad photos even at full aperture. The focal length is great as a full frame all rounder and perfect for portraits on APSC, the blur is nice and unless you're a pro you won't notice the difference to the Nikon which costs at least 4x. Once you've developed the photos, you'll notice that when it's wide open, it's a little soft, especially around the edges, but when you close it a few stops, it becomes a blade. In summary it is a real best buy, certainly not the best lens in the world but if you want to try the lens it will not disappoint and you might also find that you are selling the Nikon and using it for that keep less weight. I also have a 50mm older brother but in my opinion this one performs better.