Nikon 35mm f/1.8 vs Canon 35mm f/2.0

[mikko0]

I've noticed that Canon 35mm is more expensive than the Nikon 35mm. I can't seem to find the quality differences in physical structure and the photos it produces. I use Canon Rebel XS and still trying to learn to shoot properly by training by eyes. I might be missing something here, but what truly bothers me is the difference in the price. Canon 35mm f/2.0 is $420(can) and Nikon is $200+(can). I don't know the exact price for the Nikon 35mm, but a friend of mine has it and told that it cost him around low-mid $200s.

I love shooting portraits, but I also like making HDR pictures with cityscapes. I currently own 50mm f/1.8 as well as 18-55mm(which is basic).

May I please have a professional opinion on this?
Other than the physical structure of the 35mm, the quality is good, according to some websites I've been to.
I'd like to know have your comment on this please!

[jdepould]

The Nikon 35 is a crop (DX) lens, which cuts down on cost.

[OsmosisStudios]

The Nikon 35mm f/2 (for full-frame, like the Canon one you mention) is currently at $400 at Henry's (399.99).

[mikko0]

Would you recommend Canon 35mm f/2 to anybody? Cause based on this website (Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Lens Review) the 35mm isn't so great. Do you think this'll be great on my XS? I do shoot landscapes by the way.

[autofocus]

The opposite is true when you look at the 24-70...Canon's version is about $200-$300 less than the equal Nikon

[RichardTaylor]

I own the Canon 35 F2.
It meets my needs for a hand held low light shooting (usually with a 5D)
I feel it would be a bit long for a lot of landscapes on your crop camera and I feel your kit lens should be ok for that any way.
It would be OK as a fast low light lens if 35mm meets your needs.

Some examples (larger versions are on my flickr stream.

(1) Hand held on a 5D (F2)


(2) and again. (F2)


(3) on a 5D (F4.5)


(4) on a 5D (F2)