Without great interest to me, eventually.

More specifically, in my case, all testing medium opening produced results rather lower than those obtained with my 16-85 under the same conditions.

Furthermore, the use of large openings has also proved disappointing.

When it comes to getting shallow depth of field (for a portrait, for example), I find that 35mm is a too short focal length, making it difficult to control the content of the background. The camera angle is so wide that, excluding studio, we always end up with undesirable elements that blur can not make aesthetic. The 50 / 1.8 or 85 / 1.8 are, for me, much more relevant in this case.

When it comes to operate in low light without flash, the absence of stabilization did not achieve better results than those of 16-85 on static scenes (church interiors or nocturnal cityscapes, for example). In the case of dynamic scenes, there is indeed a niche where the 35 / 1.8 is the best solution, but this market is narrow because the advantage over the zoom is only two IL. For indoor family celebrations, a remote flash pointed at the ceiling is a more convincing solution and, to my surprise, almost as discreet.

My conclusion is certainly not that the 35 / 1.8 DX is a wrong goal: I have nothing in particular to complain about.

But I do not agree with what we often read about it. For me, it offers absolutely not an exceptional dive, this is definitely not the ultimate weapon for the portrait, and its ability to replace a flash is at best relative.