Nikon D3300 camera and Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lens now shipping

Nikon-D3300-DSLR-camera-size Nikon-D3300-DSLR-camera-kit
The Nikon D3300 camera started shipping today and is currently in stock in Europe at Foto Hans Keuzekamp. In the US the stock status should be changed any moment (listed as "temporarily out of stock" on Amazon). The new Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lens should also be shipping today according to Nikon Japan (currently in stock at Amazon and B&H). The updated 18-55mm VRII kit lens is also now in stock.

Additional D3300 images:

Nikon-D3300-DSLR-camera-front Nikon-D3300-DSLR-camera-backNikon-D3300-DSLR-camera-bodyNikon-D3300-kit-lens
Nikon D3300 hands-on videos:

This entry was posted in Nikon D3300, Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Aldo

    I want that kit lens but don’t wanna pay 250 for it…

    • itznfb

      Buy the kit and sell the camera.

      • Aldo

        good idea… I wonder how much I can get for the d3300 body alone…

    • Alex

      Just get one off eBay. Plenty of 18-55s on there. Looks like you can get one for about $60.

      • Aldo

        you are right… but not the new one though… the VR 2

  • broxibear
    • Aldo

      Number 1 mistake I see parents do when they want to photograph their children is NOT going down to their level…

      • Definitely. A major mistake casual photographers make in general is shooting from their most convenient eye-level.

        • cppguy16

          And that is why I like the articulating LCD. If you have that, there’s no excuse.

          • I loved the articulating screen on my D5000 for taking shots from low angles, but not so much for taking shots of kids — very slow AF.

            • cppguy16

              Oh OK, makes sense. Nikon’s live view AF is not nearly as fast as OM-D EM-1.

            • MegaMo

              too bad you have to use Live View to shoot video, btw I focus manually.

        • Patrik

          How yeah! follow the rule! in the meanwhile steve mccurry…

          • Aldo

            I would just hand this kid a towel instead of taking a picture of him…

            • Patrik

              Der Zeit ihre Kunst / der Kunst ihre Freiheit

            • peterw

              that’s not the photographers job over there.

              why do you think sitting some where up west – like me -, the boy needs a towel?
              He is better of with a good photo.
              The photographer served him extremely well.

          • Jon Ingram

            There is no hard and fast rule regarding camera height compared to your subject. Generally speaking, compositions looking down on a person make them seem vulnerable; Compositions looking up at a person make them seem powerful; compositions taken at eye level allow you to relate to the subject more closely without the visual tension that height disparities create.

            • KnightPhoto

              Good observation Jon about height effect… Thanks

      • again

        you sound like a seminar now….

        • Aldo

          I should start charging then…

          • Paul

            do casual photographers care? that is the question. Once they start understanding composition and perspective and focal length impact, they cease to be a casual photographer. just a thought

            • Aldo

              I understand your point but I don’t think you watched the video and understand the message nikon is trying to send. You can take pro quality photographs using this d3300… However most people aren’t aware of the simple guidelines to make their pictures better. I think nikon is doing a good job with the lower end dslrs. They are integrating user friendly tips that pop on your screen so you can learn as you shoot. As far as “casuals” go, you’d be surprised the simple mistakes I see from even the ones who call themselves “pro”. Any photographer with a good eye can spot these mistakes, but they aren’t as obvious to everyone as you may think.

            • McNally

              Now you sound like Scott Kelby, before canon….

              but, agree – D3300 has better specs than pro D2

            • Paul

              I watched the video. thanks. I think most new photographers – myself included at one time – don’t have the energy to remember any tips. even the little easy ones. Its enough to just learn the new camera’s buttons.

              I am biased by my own experience, of course. I would say only 2 of my 7 close friends that own DSLRs, have actually taken tips from me, AND remembered them.

            • Aldo

              You are probably right for certain “tips”… but when parents spend 650 dollars on a camera because they want better pictures of their kids, they will remember to lower their cameras to get better pictures (should you tip them).

            • Paul

              i can agree with that.

            • what?

              Once they understand all that… they build a website or facebook page, and start charging others for ‘pro images. I did. : )

            • Aldo

              haha… so true… same here.

      • Marc W.

        Number 2, not knowing how to use their camera and what settings to use for the specific scenario.

  • Econ 101

    35mm f 1.8 is over price by $ 150.

    Price right, sell more. Price high, shelf high.

    • rich

      Agreed. I don’t understand why this should be so much more than the old 35 AF-D F2. Which I might buy instead.

      • Aldo

        I considered that 35mm.. but I read that is a bit soft. I can’t confirm this info though.

        • dang!

          soft? Cancelling my wish.

          With a 58 mm filter size and mostly plastic parts… expected soft. But, at 599… was hoping more.

          • Aldo

            Sorry.. i mean the older D version

          • You realize he’s referencing the old 35mm f2 when he says soft. Not the new 1.8. The new one may be many things, but soft wont likely be one of them. I use the 35mm DX lens on my D800, and its sharp as hell.

            • silmasan

              Yep, the new 35 1.8 ED seems to be sharper than the 1.4 at least in the center. Look to the review previously posted where the flares look better on it than on the 1.4. As long as you don’t expect Otus-level sharpness, chances are you’ll spend the extra over the 35/2D.

            • Heidigger’s Dog

              Cut it with the logic Einstein. You’re slowing the inflow of posts… 🙂

            • ?


        • peterortphoto

          I have the 35 f2 and it is pretty soft on my D610 wide open, very much so in the corners. Of course it’s not as bad when I stop it down, but I can’t shoot everything at f8 lol

          • Aldo

            Yeah I’ve been on the market for a lightweight 35mm FF lens… I was hoping this new one would be priced a bit lower. I’m sure your lens is fantastic… I just don’t think it was designed for the monstrous resolutions that we deal with in today’s world.

            • Truth

              You know what we need? Pancake lenses.

            • broxibear

              Forget Pancake lenses…let’s just have pancakes, lol.

            • Aldo

              …that sounds good too

            • peterw

              Guess what, I just had pancakes today. We have some left.

              Optically I’m sure to love the 35 F1,8 AF-S ED over the F2 thought. It AF-D just doesn’t pop at F2. That’s what I bought it for. At F2,8 and above I find the 35-70 AF-D better.

              The weight of the 35 F2 Af-D is great thought. Can’t have it all…

              But still, there are some pancakes left.

            • Aldo


      • broxibear

        Hi rich,
        All the AF-S versions of the AF-D lenses are more expensive, but so far they’ve all been better lenses too.
        I had the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D , I had a chance to get the AF-S version and was astonished how much better it actually was. I was expecting it to be better but not by that much.
        I’m sure the new 35mm is way better than the 35mm f/2 AF-D…the price is the price…what can you do ?

        • Marc W.

          It better be better the AF-D version because it has it’s short comings. I’ve actually sold mine to get the AI-S for a fantastic price.

          • broxibear

            Hi Marc,
            Whenever someone mentions the Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D I think of Samuel Aranda’s World Press Photo of the Year 2011. He took that image with that 35mm and a D700. It may not be one of Nikon’s best lenses, but it’s not awful either…the new one will be better.
            Here’s Samuel Aranda’s photograph for anyone who’s not seen it before, stunning image…

            • Marc W.

              It’s a great lens, don’t get me wrong, but the soft edges annoyed me. The center was extremely sharp.

            • broxibear

              Hi Marc,
              I know what you mean.

    • Naval Gunfire

      Give it time and the price will drop.

    • Anton PupkIn

      That is starter price. Wait a little bit, it will be $150 cheaper. It can not be more expensive as Canon’s 35mm f/2 IS.

  • Rock Kenwell

    The dude is not really reviewing the new kit lens but shots are mixed with 58mm! Skip the kit lens like he showed in his review.

    • Joven

      I’m assuming you mean Chris from the TheCameraStoreTV. He’s not using the 58mm, he’s using the 85mm 1.8G. The 58G has a gold ring.

  • peterw

    Any one seen a hands-on review of the 35 F1,8? Is the focus ring like the 85mm F/1,8 AF-S, or more like the 28mm F/1,8 AF-S?

    • pj

      My 35/1.8G arrived today, I posted some thoughts on it earlier. The focus ring has some slop like the 28/1.8G, but it’s not quite as bad. I’d put it somewhere between the two lenses you asked about. Maybe a bit closer to the 85.

      Same for the overall feeling of quality. I probably shouldn’t say ‘build quality’ because I have no idea how these lenses are made inside, and which one is better. But the 35 feels a bit more solid than the 28 but not as solid as the 85.

      It’s a sharp lens, doesn’t seem to have any really bad habits and as I said before, it’s really close in quality to my zeiss 35/2, which costs more, is heavier, has no AF and no weather sealing.

      Also, I want to correct my previous post. The 35/1.8G is really not shorter than the Zeiss 35/2. When the zeiss is focused at infinity it’s maybe a mm or to longer than the Nikon.

  • pj

    My 35/1.8G arrived this morning. I have to say I’m impressed. I’d say the build quality is somewhere between the (very good) 85/1.8G and the (somewhat flimsy) 28/1.8G. It may be a tad closer to the 85. None of these are Leica build quality, but then again the price is also not comparable to Leica.

    I’ll just say that It’s not so lightweight that it feels flimsy. The focus ring has a tiny bit of slop or play in the mechanism, but not as much as my 28G and it’s pretty easy to focus manually with or without live view. Overall I’m happy with the lens. It’s shorter and lighter (but fatter) than my Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2.

    It’s very sharp in the center at all apertures. F/1.8 is usable for sure and it’s good in the corners too even on the D800E. I’m not a lens tester and not all that concerned about absolute sharpness…but this lens compares nicely with the more expensive Zeiss, which also lacks AF. The sharpness is really pretty close. The zeiss may have a tad more contrast, but also more vignetting and much more color fringing.

    One interesting point is that the Nikon 35/1.8G is definitely a bit shorter in focal length than the Zeiss 35/2 zf.2. The nikkor takes in a somewhat wider field of view. I’m not sure if the Zeiss is longer than 35 or if the Nikon is shorter.

    The new 35G in a totally different league from the 35/2D. And it’s good enough that I don’t care to do side-by-side testing with the sigma or nikon 35/1.4s.

    • peterw


  • the987

    wil it be released in India??????

  • Back to top