I have one and really like it, but I don't do a whole lot of scenery shots. It's fast enough for me and is nice and sharp with good bokeh.
I also use it as my normal lens on my d1gital nikon body.
When I carry a 35mm film camera with four primes within the focal lengths you list, I choose between the following two options:
Based on my personal preferences and the lenses you have (20mm, 50mm, and 85mm), if I were in your place, I would keep the 20mm and the 85mm; trade the 50mm for a 35mm f/1.4 or f/2; and use a 3-lens line up of 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm.
Originally Posted by Soeren
As far as the Nikon 35mm 2.0 AF-D goes, I must disagree with some of the popular myths. I have one I purchased new last year and it is very sharp. It has absolutely no oil leak problem, and it is just as sharp as my manual focus Nikon 35mm 2.0 AIS. The major difference, other than the AF factor, is that the manual focus version is much better built. The manual focus version is mostly metal and glass, whereas the AF version is mostly plastic and glass (except for the metal lens mount).
Depending on your camera and shooting style, you would preffer one over the other. If you like the feel of shooting with a good manual focus lens, the AIS version is great. If you prefer AF shooting then the AF version would be the best choice.
The Nikon manual focus 35mm 2.0 AIS lives on one of my F3HP's, (the other has a 105mm 2.5) however my 35mm 2.0 AF-D lives on my D200. Ironicaly, I have a Nikon manual focus 24mm 2.8 AIS that lives on my Nikon D1X!
If you decide to get a new 35mm AFD, remember that it will still be under warranty. If you don't like it you can always return it.