Dpreview.com's take on the new 35 DX

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/page4.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/page4.asp</a></p>

<p>DPR's review seems to be similar to what Bjorn and Photozone concluded. Nice lens, good value for the money, etc. </p>

<p>But I still would like to see a comparison between the new 35mm f/1.8 and the older f/2.....</p>

 

<p>Sadly, it is worse than the good old 50mm, both in sharpness (where it is good enough for me), and in CA (which worries me). I have no need for the 50mm, but the 35mm would have been nice.</p>

<p>Depends on which test you read, Rene. And there may be some sample variation. But photozone's test report indicates the new 35/1.8 AF-S is equal in sharpness wide open to the most nearly comparable lenses, the 50/1.8D AF and 35/2D AF Nikkors. The high resolution photos I've seen from several sources indicate it's good wide open.</p>

<p>Unfortunately every test so far shows it has serious problems with purple fringing CA, corroborated by samples uploaded by photo.netters. That will make it less attractive to some photographers, especially those primarily interested in landscapes and "serious" stuff, but it wouldn't put me off. The worst examples I've seen so far in test photos are no worse than my various Olympus P&S digicams, all of which I still use because the CA is only noticeable in severe backlighting, high contrast situations, not in the vast majority of casual photos for which I use those cameras.</p>

<p>And I'm primarily interest in the 35/1.8 AF-S for available light candid people pix, so it probably won't matter to me. But since the 35/2D AF is cheap on the used market, nearly as good and will autofocus with my D2H, I might not bother with the new 35/1.8 just yet.</p>

<p>These reviews notwithstanding, I just ordered one. Now that I have a granddaughter to photograph, mostly indoors, and I am not satisfied with the AF on my Nikon AF primes on my D 300, I am going to give this lens a try. For the money I think it will serve me well. <br>

Joe smith</p>

<p>I read one source saying that if you use it with newer generation electronics (e.g. a D90 or D300 but not a D40/60/80/200) it reduces the CA. But I know a guy who took <a href="http://www.buchhofer.com/upload/files/DirtRoad_.jpg">this shot</a> with the 35DX and a D90 so I don't think I believe it. Does anybody know what the other reviewer would have been talking about? Is there a way to use some trick on a D90 to make the CA less annoying? I still think at this price it's killer for inexpensive cameras, but maybe people with better cameras should just be sticking with the 35/2.0D...</p>

<p>The CA / fringing is a real deal killer for me. I'll continue to use my 35/2 AIS... and that lens actually has a focus scale!</p>

<p>The glass is always half full or half empty. I have no intention to buy one, but I think the 35/1.8 is a pretty good deal; cheap, small and performance especially at large apertures is very good. There's probably a reason why CA is so high and that's because the latest cameras have CA reduction in software, so CA is not as big of a problem as it used to be and it's an incentive to buy a new body.<br>

OTOH the lens highlight a key weakness of the crop sensors: even normal lenses need to be retrofocal and one pays a penalty in performance for that. I've taken a liking to using 28 mm on DX, but it's a bit bothersome to suffer the image quality penalties compared with a 50.</p>

<p>Just back from Berlin. I took a D40x and the 35mm afs. Great combination. Well done Nikon.</p>

<p>So far, the attractiveness of this lens to me are these:</p>

<ol>

<li>resolution is above my expectations wide-open to peak (around f/4.5-5.6)</li>

<li>light weight</li>

<li>spherical aberrations are almost non-existent</li>

</ol>

<p>What I do not like and am still getting used to are these:</p>

<ol>

<li>bokeh --- looks a little weird and unnatural, even when stopped down</li>

<li>AF-S speed is quite slow even when hooked up to a D3</li>

<li>contrast is quite low for the outer zone of the image circle</li>

</ol>

<p>I have only tested it on a D300 and a D3. On other sensors, the images may differ due to the sensor as a contributing factor. And, my version is "Made in China".<br /> Here're 2 examples shot at f/1.8. Notice the peripheral light sources are maintained at an impressive level of roundness all the way to the edge. Well done, Nikon, for the efforts.</p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8813244-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8813244-md.jpg" alt="" /> </a> <br /> <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8813254-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8813254-md.jpg" alt="" /> </a><br>

<br /> Click on image to see larger version</p>

<p>Very nice, Arthur.</p>

<p>Yet another, from today, on a D60 at f/1.8.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the sample pix, folks. Arthur, that's exactly the type of scenario I'd use such a lens for and your results would be perfectly acceptable for my purposes.</p>

<p>I'm curious about the autofocusing speed. Is the AF-S actually slower than a comparable AF Nikkor?</p>

<p>Thank you for the samples from my part as well, especially Andrew for the DirtRoad-example image, it really made me realise the limitations and the possibilities of the lens. I was almost on my way to the shop, but now I'm a bit hesitant. I really need to re-evaluate my need for that lens (which is always a good thing) since the use of it seems to be somewhat limited to a certain situations (low/soft light) due to the CA.</p>

<p>So is the CA really that visible in all brighlty lit/high contrast pics, a lens feature that really can not be avoided? The DirtRoad is probably the worst-case-scenario, but it really scared me (I might even see some purple fringed nightmares tonight). I shoot mostly with D80 (and now again with D50, yeay!), and don't like to spend that much time doing PP to my pictures (I know, that's a flaw in me and I really should get over it), so CA might ba a real deal breaker for me.</p>

<p>My mind's divided on this. I took a walk-and-shoot yeterday and everything I shot that didn't have a strongly backlit, bare tree in it came out beautifully. I can get shots that have strong contrast in them and have no more CA than other lenses, like <a href="http://www.andylynn.net/Site/files/DSC_1964.jpg">this shot</a> and if the tree's not backlit I get something like <a href="http://www.andylynn.net/Site/files/DSC_1957.jpg">this</a> which is fine. Moderate situations like <a href="http://www.andylynn.net/Site/files/DSC_1941.jpg">this</a> also come out fine.</p>

<p>I think maybe some of us initially panicked after seing a few people's worst results - but I've got about 400 images in my 35mm lens folder, excluding the ones I deleted immediately because the exposure was way off, and most are keepers. Mixed in there are 3 shots with nasty CA. Not a huge deal.</p>

<p>Lex,<br>

>I'm curious about the autofocusing speed. Is the AF-S actually slower than a comparable AF Nikkor?<br>

IMHO, I think it is faster than the old screw-driver AF but slower than longer lens that have AF-S. But, there was not hunting, though. So, that's good. Noise level of this AF-S is very low so sometimes, you are not sure if it did move until you see the green Focused-light in the viewfinder.</p>

 

<p>AF speed is medium - it's good for consumer grade, accurate and doesn't hunt. If you're used to crazy fast sports shooting equipment or screw-drive AF on an F5 or something, it would seem slow. But it's also very quiet.</p>