New Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX Lens Announced:

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by eajames, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/0209_nikkor_01.htm
     
  2. wow! that's great I guess... several years too late though. While I want it for my D40 and D200 at the moment, I'd have to think seriously about buying anymore DX lenses. Sometimes I wonder what nikon is thinking. If this was a proper 35mm f2 full frame I'd be all over it!
     
  3. Kind of slow to come out. Great news for the DX format family especially for the D40 and D60 users. I did not catch the price but since it's targeted as the normal lens maybe it will not be very expensive.
     
  4. bmm

    bmm

    Good news for the DX crew as long as it is cheap enough. I can imagine that paired with a D60 it would make for a nice, compact normal focal-length setup.
     
  5. [​IMG]
    Why isn't it an FX lens?
     
  6. bmm

    bmm

    Now youve done this though Nikon, time to get serious and give us a good FX 20mm or 24mm f/1.8 or so prime
     
  7. waste of time and money on Nikon's part, IMO.
     
  8. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I wonder why Nikon themselves has "Nikon's first DX-format 35mm single-focal-length lens" as a secondary title. Don't they realize that their first DX prime (single-focal-length-lens) was the 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye?
    This is the first AF-S DX prime, though. I guess DX isn't going away any time soon. And at least they are not giving us yet another 18-xxx zoom.
    As I pointed out last September, the 50mm/f1.4 AF-S was merely Nikon's opening bid for more AF-S primes. Expect more of those to come in 2009. The worldwide recession is not helping, though.
     
  9. DX. You must be kidding. Tell me it`s somebody`s typo. please.
    Or maybe there is a FX 35 1.4 behind it. You all heard it here first.
     
  10. I saw $199 US as the price on another site. I would have loved this lens 4 years ago... Still it will be a great addition for all the D40/D60 users who wouldn't have AF with the 35 f2.
     
  11. The MSRP of $199.99 is pretty sweet. It should be an excellent little lens for candid shooting on a D40, not to mention the combo can probably fit in a jacket pocket. It probably has some potential to affect the sales figure of both the 50 f/1.4G and the 35 f/2D. The lack of FX coverage is somewhat unfortunate, for that it's cheap and fast. But for $200, one can;t complain too much. It lacks a focusing scale, but does seems to be better built than most lenses within its price range. The optical formula is very interesting for that it has 8 elements, including an aspheric one...
     
  12. That's crazy. Why not just make it an FX? Make it a 35mm f/1.4 FX and I'd be interested. Probably sharp as a tack though.
     
  13. Well, it's about dang time!
    I can't see DX going away any time soon. Only 3 of 9 digital bodies Nikon makes are FX; or 2 of 8 if you don't consider the D3X separate from the D3. I can't afford to step to FX anytime soon anyway, so this will be my next lens purchase.
     
  14. FX is where Nikon makes the numbers and a lot of the money. And this lens is the fast cheap normal lens targeted to the amateur market. The same people who 10-20 years ago would had bought a 50 mm 1.8 in addition to their 28-xxx kit zoom.
     
  15. sorry guys, dx is here to stay and there are still a lot of people who can't afford the fx systems. the 35mm f/1.4 will make a lot of amateurs and hobbyists happy.
     
  16. >> "the 35mm f/1.4 will make a lot of amateurs and hobbyists happy."
    It can make a lot of pros happy too (and unhappy for its lack of FX coverage). For example this lens on a compact DX body is not only much more affordable than a 50 on a D700, but it's also far less obstrusive, which's good for street photography. I don't think FX ownership and usage is mandatory for pro work.
     
  17. "That's crazy. Why not just make it an FX? Make it a 35mm f/1.4 FX and I'd be interested."
    DX lenses are a bit smaller, and cheaper, too. My 35/2 and 35/1.4 AiS lenses are noticeable bigger than the 50/1.4 AiS. This lens looks to be a bit smaller than the new 50AFS. Make this lens with a bigger diameter (like 58mm filter thread) and you`ll have a 35/1.4... is matter of time, I think. BTW, this one has two more elements than the 35/2AFD :)
    I bet that this lens will be a better performer on a D300 than the 50AFS on a D700.
    I wonder why to be stucked to 35mm... for a DX lens makes more sense to me a 30mm focal lenght.
     
  18. Nice, with aspherical glass too so it should be a better performer than the 35/2 AF-D. Too bad about the DX since I don't care for 35mm on DX (I want a 24mm).
     
  19. Would this work on my my Pronea S without corner shading?
     
  20. Personally thats exactly what i have wanted for a long time. I am more likely to stay with DX than go FX as I like the smaller cameras (have a d80).
    I know I could have got a 35mm f2 but its an old design, this announcement have saved me from buying the sigma 30mm though!
     
  21. I must say that Nikon sure seems late on it's last couple announcements: the 50mm f1.4 was outdone by the sigma, and now this, which is a couple years late compared to the sigma 30mm f1.4. It seems strange that they would bother to make DX lens' still. Since FX lens' work on DX cameras and not the other way around, i would have assumed that these days they would have embraced a more trickle down sort of approach, but i guess not.
    The MSRP is nice though, that is, if it ships anytime soon...
     
  22. the nikon 35/1.8 is (apparently) $200 cheaper than the sigma and far less obtrusive. those two factors alone will push tons of d40/d60 owners into prime-land. too late if you've already got a sigma 30, but it would be interesting to see which is sharper at wider apertures. i'll bet the sigma has better bokeh, though, it has an 8-bladed design compared to the nikon's 7.
     
  23. The bokeh in the sample image from the Nikon site looks ok. Hard to compare with just that one shot to go on though!
    http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_35mmf_18g/img/sample_l.jpg
     
  24. Nice, but even a Nikon nut as myself struggles to justify this over Sigma's 30/1.4
    Now, if they were to offer a 24/2.0 DX I'd be in heaven (still miss my 24/2.8 which got made redundant by the 17-55)
     
  25. I guess the market is the D40/60 crowd but it sure is a bit late out of the gate. As one who never was comfortable with the 50mm on a DX body, it is nice to see Nikon finally offering an AF-S 'normal' prime for DX bodies but did the lens really have to be DX specific?
    I doubt it will compare favorably to the Sigma 30/1.4 but it should be more than good enough for most Nikon users who are D40/60 buyers. IMO a more interesting comparison will be how this new lens matches up against the current 35mm f/2 prime which is a great normal lens on a DX body (D80 and up) and a wonderful wide angle on film/FX.
     
  26. I'll be getting one of these for a friend of mine who needs a normal lens for DX for portraits in available light. Good thing to have happened but I am puzzled why Nikon has a higher priority to update their normal lenses (which always performed well on digital) but not their wide angle primes, which are much more in need of optical redesign.
     
  27. It's good to see even though I have gone FX. Nikon is finally looking at its line of primes and I believe this is a very big hole they have filled. IMHO it is a great alternative to Sigma.
     
  28. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The Sigma 30mm/f1.4 is $439 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381616-REG/Sigma_300306_30mm_f_1_4_EX_DC.html
    And at best, the Sigma gets very mixed reviews. The new Nikon 35mm/f1.8 AF-S is listed at $199 and the final "street price" will probably a bit lower. One way or another, it is less than half the price of the Sigma and about 2/3 of a stop slower. However, f1.8 is plenty fast on mondern DSLRs that you can use higher ISOs.

    Sometimes having f1.4 or even f1.2 is a burden. To make a lens work decently well wide open at f1.4, the lens design involves a lot more compromises. A simplier, smaller f1.8 can be a major advantage for a lot of people, especially at less than half the cost of the Sigma. For those who buy a $400 body, a $200 lens is far more appealing.
    I never understand why people have the notion that the DX format would go away any time soon. In terms of number of cameras sold, well over like 90% are DX while FX is a small minority. (Recall that when the D3 and D300 were originally announced, Nikon was making 8K D3 and 70K D300 a month, and that hadn't included the D80/D90, D60 and D40 yet.) And once people get lenses such as the 18-200, 16-85, etc. that aren't exactly cheap, you simply can't just tell those people that they cannot upgrade to new cameras that support those lenses. Doing so would be almost as bad as a lens mount change and would certainly chase a lot of angry customers to other brands. Therefore, once you introduce a new format that becomes popular, you'll have to support it for a long long time to come. I think that was why Canon was initially very reluctant to introduce the DX-like EF-S lenses.
    And I totally agree that Nikon should have introduced this 35mm/f1.8 DX a few years sooner. But it is better late than never.
    Again, expect a lot more AF-S primes (mostly FX) to come in the next few years.
     
  29. I was planning on a 35mm f2.0 D lens for my D200 but now I think I will wait for some reviews to see how this little lens will perform. For $199.00 it seems to be priced to sell..It also makes me feel that Nikon is committed to the DX sensor which works for me since I am invested in the system.
     
  30. Shun wrote: "In terms of number of cameras sold, well over like 90% are DX while FX is a small minority. When the D3 and D300 were originally announced, Nikon was making 8000 D3's and 70,000 D300's a month."
    Very interesting. I did not know that, and it explains a lot.
     
  31. 7-bladed diaphragm for nice sunstars, too.
    I also have been pining for a 35 f2 for my D50, and maybe this year a D90. This fits the bill, the price is great... I can't wait! Hopefully, it will test nicely. We'll see.
     
  32. Although I think the 35mm DX is a good move from Nikon, especially with the price announced, it opens up another can of worms: should Nikon update the wide angle primes to AF-S and make two versions of each: one FX and one DX? If they don't, an isolated 35mm or 50mm prime doesn't necessarily make that much of a difference in what people will use.
    I use my 35mm and 28mm f/2 quite often for people photography (with FX) and sometimes I need the maximum aperture to make a useable image. Just yesterday I took pictures of people lighting candles at a church and the light towards the end allowed me 35mm f/2 1/125s at ISO 3200. My 28mm and 35mm lenses are manual focus and frankly it would be very useful to have such lenses in AF-S. But I would be very disappointed if Nikon starts spreading their efforts by making separate lenses for both formats. If the lens is well designed it can work well on both formats. A lot of people use both formats, should they have to buy both sets to get the best results? I can understand that a few DX primes are made (i.e. add a 18mm f/2 or 18mm f/2.8 DX) but I would prefer if Nikon kept most lenses capable of rendering a good image on FX.
     
  33. RE the "why didn't they just make it an FX lens" comments - it would be more expensive if it were FX, since the whole point of DX lenses is that in addition to being smaller using less glass makes them cheaper to produce, and anyway, why the complaining? There's a 35mm F2D and a 50mm F1.4 AF-S, both of which are excellent and FX.
    Until this hits stores there's no Nikkor prime lens for D40/D60, just the too-expensive Sigma, which only gets away with being too expensive because it's the only option. This is an obvious hole in Nikon's product line and it's good that they're filling it, but all you guys want to do is bitch and moan. If you have a D3, go shoot some photos with it and don't begrudge the D60 users an affordable prime lens.
     
  34. Andrew.
    I agree, but there is the 50mm f1.4 AF-S that just came out recently, I think you meant that now there's a STANDARD prime for those cameras.
    For those who want an FX lens, this is Nikon making a lens at a price that makes sense for those buying the lower end DX cameras. It's a great step. You can't make everybody happy all the time, but my goodness the grumbling. The 35mm f2 probably works just as well (on FX) as this would for most every shot. And none of those FX bodies require AF-S lenses.
     
  35. You are correct, I should have said standard prime with AF.
     
  36. I hope the MTF is much better than the Sigma 30mm/1.4 because of I am quite sick of this lens when shooting wide-open.
    The aspherical element should help in correcting aberrations but I am not sure about keeping the bokeh smooth.
    Will have to wait and see the images of the early adopters.
     
  37. I was considering picking up a Sigma 1.4 soon (wasn't set on the 50 or 30)...but I think I can hold out for this lens. I already have a 50 1.8, but really want a fast normal prime with a focusing motor.
    Thanks for the news!
     
  38. It figures. After years of shooting DX cameras and wanting prime lenses- not a fisheye- I bought a D700.
    I'm transitioning back into FF cameras and and would buy a revamped FF 35mm f/2.0 or f/1.4 in an AFS-G mount in a second. Now, Nikon rolls out a 35mm prime and its a DX lens?
     
  39. I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised by Nikon with this release - they actually do know their market, its not a lens that's aimed at their pro segment, and I suspect that's whos complaining here. As a few have already pointed out, there are far more DX users than FX users right now, and FX users have just seen the release of a very nice 'normal' lens. Serious DX users have had to make do with pro-level fast zooms or less robust entry level zooms to get anything in the way of speed or (hopefully) clarity like what they just produced. And the fact that Sigma has had a rough equivalent in the 30mm for a while now means nothing if it can't compete on price and/or performance, which apparently it can do neither.
    You've got to keep in mind that today's economy will probably not support a large quantity of pro-level glass at least in the near term, however people are not going to stop taking pictures. For the masses who do know a little about what a lens will do for them, this is a very good lens.
    For me, I'll pick one up and stick it on my D40 or D300 - which is still, BTW, a very good camera.
    --Rich
     
  40. Would this work on my my Pronea S without corner shading?​
    Probably. The size of APS-C film is almost identical to DX.
     
  41. I was considering the AFS 50mm, and now, another one for my consideration. ha ha.
    Not only that they are slow in replacing or coming out with new lenses, they never fail to surprise me.
    I guess they are just wanting to capture more D40/D60 users. Now it makes me consider getting a D40/D60.
    It's so much cheaper, and it really seems like there are more on the way...
     
  42. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    To Ralph Jensen: about a year ago, I read some statistics that some over 95% of all Canon DSLRs sold had a 1.6x sensor. Keep in mind that at that time, Canon was already on its 3rd generation 1Ds Mark III, the "affordable" FF 5D had already been available for 2+ years, and Canon's sports DSLR has been the 1.3x 1D series.
    Now Nikon also has the fairly popular D700 and the D3X, I think saying that over 90% of Nikon DSLRs sold are DX is being quite conservative. If you go to stores such as Costco, you'll see stacks after stacks of D60 or D90 boxes with a couple of kit lenses. That is how a lot of DX DSLRs are sold nowadays.
    Of course most DX bodies are consumer grade. Therefore, having a lot of DX lenses around $150 to $300 makes plenty of sense. The 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX is just a good addition to that category and it can AF with the D40/D60.
     
  43. WOW! DX primes coming our way! I think that is good news. I just don't understand why people tend to hate the DX format. It has its advantages! So DX will be with us for another decade! Cool! but we knew that already, otherwise Nikon would had called the D700 D400. But they left room for a D400/500 DX format!
     
  44. Like the godfather said:"It's strictly business." :)
    For those with a pipe-dream about a certain 24mm/1.4G AF-S ASPH and 35mm/1.4G AF-S ASPH, I would say ... keeping puffing. It may take some time unless the global economy perks up after Q3 2009.
    Having said that, this new lens is a good replacement for the Sigma 30mm/1.4 since the official MTF says it can resolve better at f/1.8. The edge resolution is a welcomed piece of information and this is something that will encourage me to give it a try.
    Nikkor 35mm/1.8G AF-S
    Sigma 30mm/1.4DC HSM
    PS: Obviously, this is not an apple to apple comparison since the Sigma's MTF was computed based on f/1.4.
     
  45. I take back what I said earlier (comparing to the Sigma 30/1.4), if I can get one for £150 or less then the credit card is ready and waiting :)
     
  46. It is worthy to note that the hybrid aspherical element really boosted the edge correction for spherical aberrations. Take a look at the official sample image with point light sources near the upper right quadrant. They are almost impressively circular.
    Nice work, Nikon!
    Official sample image
    PS: Image shot at f/2.8, though. Urghhhh!!!
     
  47. I think I might start crying. It's a dream come true.
     
  48. yup!..i am a DX user and I can't be more happier than this. I have been eyeing 35/2.0D and now I have better option of a lens with better optic, faster aperture, and SWM motor in lighter and more compact package. After all, it's cheaper!!!
    I think I am start crying too.
     
  49. Whew! I just sold my D80 to my co-worker who is selling his D40 because the lenses he wanted wouldn't AF on the latter. The 35mm was one of them.
    This 35/1.8DX is a perfect lens for those who got into the DSLR game (D40/x, D60) in the first place to shoot pictures of their babies/kids and lamented that the kit zooms were too slow, and the fast 2.8 zooms were too expensive/heavy.
     
  50. >> "should Nikon update the wide angle primes to AF-S and make two versions of each: one FX and one DX?"
    I think a 35 f/1.8 DX and a 35 f/1.8 FX would be very different lenses. The first is a fast, but not unusual normal lens for the smaller format; the latter is a very (almost) fast wide angle prime.
    >> "Until this hits stores there's no Nikkor prime lens for D40/D60, just the too-expensive Sigma, which only gets away with being too expensive because it's the only option."
    There are actually quite a few AF-S Nikkor primes out there before the announcement of the new 35 f/1.8 DX: the 50 f/1.4G, the 60 Micro, the 105 micro VR, plus the two Sigmas (30 and 50). All of Nikon's superteles (current versions) also work seamlessly on the D40/D40X/D60.
    It's interesting how people believe that the DX format is obsolete, while thinking compact cameras with much smaller sensors priced in the D40 price range are "perfectly good". The physical advantage of FX is obvious, but it's also an advantage DX has over the vast majority of cameras made today.
     
  51. My 2 cents:
    I'm happy that the lens has a 52mm filter carrying on the old Nikon standard.
     
  52. Nikon has just provided the FX people with a 50mm f1.4 AFS, now it's providing the equivalent, slightly cheaper version for the DX people, that's all.
     
  53. I also spotted the 30cm minimum focusing distance - takes me back to the days of the Pentacon 1.8 50mm that focused at 33cm (I missed that close focusing capability when I changed to Pentax K mount 20+ years ago).
     
  54. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Shuo, of course the very first AF-S lenses were all single-focal-length super-teles. I still own two of those. However, the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S is the first AF-S "prime" that is DX and is the second DX prime overall. The 10.5mm/f2.8 DX is an AF-D lens that uses screwdriver AF.
     
  55. Kinda nice, but I don't feel the need for it. What is needed is an updated 24 mm FX lens, perhaps a 28 too.
     
  56. Interesting, the mix of happiness and disdain this announement has been greeted with.
    Here is 2 cents worth from a user of the D200 & the D60.
    I currently use the 35mm f/2 AF on both bodies. Of course, it does not AF on the D60. That is not crucial, since the lense being a "pre-digital" lense, has a usable focus ring.
    Anyway,
    The new DX 35mm is never-the-less slightly tempting for my little D60. The 35mm f/2 is my most used lense on my digital bodies. My D60 is my "daily carry" camera(w/ the 35mm f/2), and AF would be handy in dim conditions.
    I actually have 2 of the 35mm f/2 AF's. One lives on my D60. The other is in the bag my D200 is in. I have always been a sucker for "normal" lenses. The normal was my most used lense on 4x5 & 6x7, and still is for my 6x6. I also have 50mm manual Nikkors in f/2, f/1.4, and f/1.2.
    That said, it will have to test better as far as IQ though, than my 35mm f/2's, for me to get it, even at $200. The F/2 is very sharp, even to the edges (comparatively) and has very low CA. Check out the test at photozone.de. If it tests better (which would mean rivaling say, the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF), i will want one.
     
  57. Its good that Nikon is addressing its lack of product in the sub f2 market. Whats not so good is that we have been served up a plasticky DX lens with no aperture ring and this prevents it being used on older cameras. What happened to Nikons policy of backwards and forwards lens compatibility.
    I also think its in response to Sigma and Tokina grabbiling a share of Nikons market. But I am glad I kept all my well built AIs and AF-D lenses.
     
  58. My next purchase. I can't wait.
     
  59. I can hardly wait. Will be great for the D200s I just picked up.
     
  60. Hmm. Half the price of the successful Sigma 30mm f1.4, similar specs. Doubtful it's as well built, but that may not matter for most. Nikon may not be so crazy after all. I still find the Sigma more attractive, overall though.
    Kent in SD
     
  61. I don't think Nikon made this lens to compete with Sigma's 30mm prime per se. Build-wise, I expect it to be more along the lines of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Image-wise, it will be interesting to see how it matches up with the current 35/2.
    In any case, it is the least expensive way for D40/60 users to get a 'normal' view prime with AF and for that it should work just fine. For others with DX who want that 'normal' feel but don't want to spend the bigger bucks on the 35/2, now they have a less expensive alternative as well.
     
  62. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    "Whats not so good is that we have been served up a plasticky DX lens with no aperture ring and this prevents it being used on older cameras. What happened to Nikons policy of backwards and forwards lens compatibility."​
    Stephen, the new 35mm/f1.8 AF-S is a DX lens. Its image circle is not going to cover the entire 24x36mm 35mm film frame. What is the point to make the lens compatible with those old film cameras anyway?
    Things have changed a lot since 1959 (when Nikon introduced the original Nikon F and F mount lenses) or even 2000. Today, by far the majority of SLRs are digital with a DX sensor. You can't keep holding on the ancient way of doing things and those way-out-of-date mantra or your competition will leave you in the dust.
     
  63. Nikon has just provided the FX people with a 50mm f1.4 AFS, now it's providing the equivalent, slightly cheaper version for the DX people, that's all.​
    Agree. This is not what FX users should be upset about.
     
  64. I'm a huge fan of the great little 50mm f1.8 lens, so the news that Nikon is introducing a similar 'normal' prime for us DX users is awesome news. I think Nikon is going to sell quite a few of these.
     
  65. Thinking about it a bit more...
    The FX low cost prime is the 50/1.8 at about $100. Now, Nikon gives the DX folks a low cost fast prime for $200. That's a nice increase of price and margin for Nikon. And I bet the 50/1.8 won't be around much longer, thusly pushing the FX folks toward the 50/1.4 G. If the FX folks get a fast 35 or 28, I'm betting it's a $500-$700 lens, much more if it's a 1.4 lens. In other words, the prices are going up significantly, but Nikon is being smart by doing it with new lens releases, and not simply increasing prices of old lenses.
     
  66. Dan, if nikon makes 35/1.4 with SWM and nano coating for FX, I bet it won't be any cheaper than 35/1.4 AIS. It could be around $900 at least.
    Just look the recent 50/1.4G AFS..the price almost double the D version.
     
  67. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
     
  68. No ZZzzzZZZs for DX ... the DX format is a tool and it can make interesting images given the right circumstance ...
    [​IMG]
    D2X; 14secs; 17-55mm/2.8G
    Light came from moon only.
    Click image to see larger version
     
  69. looking at this thread alone, nikon made the right move. they still know the market. they didn't make a tiny part of it happy, but they sure did the bigger chunk of it.
     
  70. ...they didn't make a tiny part of it happy...​
    They will get their turn...after nikon earns enough revenue from this high volume selling to finance their costly FX lenses...R&Ds and initial production cost.
     
  71. My 50 f/1.4 AFS is STILL on backorder, so if you want this new 35mm lens anytime soon, you better pre-order now.
    BTW, those who want new 20 and 24 primes, Nikon already makes the updated version: it's called the 14-24 :)
     
  72. Good point Toby. Some folks are calling for a fast 24mm or 28mm lens but, (as someone one who uses wides for landscapes) I don't see the utility. Perhaps that will change as my eyes age.
    No ZZZZZ for sure Arthur - pretty shot!
     
  73. Really good news... It seems that Nikon won't dismiss the DX line-up for a long time and they realized that some folks still like simple and unobstrusive equipment. If the way to go would be the full frame monsters, I may consider the Oly/Pano offerings, but I much prefer to stay with Nikon.
    I'm very pleased to see that Nikon returns to the small standar filter size (52 mm) for their entry lenses, that are cheaply built but very good optically.
    I'd never buy the Sigma 30, a standard FX lens ridiculously big... but that's a completely different product, the right size and the right price. Nikon did it again, they're not the first to come but when they do something, they do it better.
     
  74. By the way, I think this shows a trend for the future:
    1.- No more constant 2.8 DX zooms
    2.- The D90 will be the last DX affordable body with AF built-in motor
    3.- There will be a cheap replacement for the 12-24
    4.- The DX lenses will have 2 standards: filter size 52 for the entry line, 67 for the expert ones
     
  75. BTW, those who want new 20 and 24 primes, Nikon already makes the updated version: it's called the 14-24 :)
    there is always a demand for lighter (compact/less obtrusive), faster, and cheaper lens than the 14-24.
    In primes world, f/2.8 is not exactly fast. It's considered slow.

    there is always an application to use big aperture even in landscape shot. If the subject beyond infinity, i can use f/1.4 as good as f/4, f/8. like arthur's shot above.
     
  76. In view of Nikon's tendency to reveal a bunch of new goodies at a time - I do hope this is not all they have to show at the upcoming PMA.. There are quite a few new lenses and upgrades of old ones I'm still wishing for..and a 35mm DX certainly wasn't one of them.. :(
     
  77. Mats, think about all the money you save if Nikon only introduces stuff that you don't need ;-)
     
  78. Arthur, a very nice shot! I'm thinking about going to Monument Valley this July.
    But: what is it about the shot that requires DX specifically - I don't understand?
     
  79. I'm bummed because I literally just bought the sigma 30 and haven't even received it yet. There does seem to be a number of posters that really do not like the sigma, which has me worried. Anyway I think I'd be more upset if the new nikon was a 25mm.
     
  80. Wow - I had the D40X when I bought the 50 mm 1.8/f. Since I wasn't happy with the manual focus on the 40X I bought a D80 just to use that lens with auto focus. Now with this 35 mm 1/8 AF-S I can actually auto-focus on the 40X too and also get a wider field of view (the 50 mm on a DX camera is not wide enough and I have to move a fair distance back to get a reasonable shot). Since this is not too expensive I may buy this but it'll be 3rd or 4th in my camera stuff purchase priority list :)
     
  81. Thanks, Eric.
    Ilkka,
    I was trying to say that DX is just another tool. It can work just as well as FX and it is not a 2nd class citizen.
     
  82. Brien,
    I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and I really like it. It's great for indoor/low-light use in particular.
    I think you could legitimately feel a bit bummed because the Nikon 35 f/1.8 may be cheaper, but then 30 != 35 and f/1.4 != f/1.8 and Sigma != Nikon, so don't feel too offended. I'm sure you'll love the results you get with your new Sigma.
    Martin
     
  83. Thank you, Nikon, for making a prime AF lens for my camera (D60).
    I think I take reasonable photographs (I've had paid commissions by camera magazines), so there's nothing amateurish about DX, or the D40/60 range.
    The camera manufacturers will decide whether we move to FX or not, same as when they decided to halt all research into film technology, to 'encourage' us to go digital. They won't be able to do so until they've reduced the size of the FX cameras, though. The smallest DX DSLRs are still bigger than the film cameras we used to use (Pentax ME Super, Olympus OM-1). The only one that comes close is the Olympus E420.
    DX will be around for a fair while.
    I may buy this lens, depending on how the price converts into sterling.
     
  84. Nikon Canada has their pricing up; MSRP $279.95
    I think this plus an SB-900 is just the ticket to improve my indoor 'family/kid' shots.
     
  85. $279 CAD... well, I can't say I wasn't expecting that, though I was hoping for a lower price. On the other hand, it's still less than half the price of the Sigma 30/1.4.
     
  86. IIlkka :
    >> Although I think the 35mm DX is a good move from Nikon, especially with the price announced, it opens up another can of worms: should Nikon update the wide angle primes to AF-S and make two versions of each: one FX and one DX? If they don't, an isolated 35mm or 50mm prime doesn't necessarily make that much of a difference in what people will use. <<
    I fully agree... Just to add, considering the large number of DX users which seems content with poorly open variable aperture zooms with very ide range (the 18-200mm is the epitome of the genre) as their main equipment, I sincerly doubt this relatively fast prime will be a commercial record success... Sigma 30mm is produced to fit quite a number of mounts with the same optical formula, including brands which doesn't produce full format sensors in their range, so Sigma's move was quite logical.
    It seems to me these days Nikon marketing department is trying to emulate what other brands produces in a vain (and unnecessary) attempt to show what Nikon is able to do... This is true for this lens and is probably to a great extent true for the D3x... The quality of the resulting products notwithstanding.
    >> I use my 35mm and 28mm f/2 quite often for people photography (with FX) and sometimes I need the maximum aperture to make a useable image. Just yesterday I took pictures of people lighting candles at a church and the light towards the end allowed me 35mm f/2 1/125s at ISO 3200. My 28mm and 35mm lenses are manual focus and frankly it would be very useful to have such lenses in AF-S. <<
    Not so sure of that Ilkka, at least for the 28mm... But a 35mm f/1.4 (or even more open) AF will certainly be welcome.
    >> But I would be very disappointed if Nikon starts spreading their efforts by making separate lenses for both formats. <<
    I heartily concur... It would be a sheer nonsense. Some years ago, when FX format didn't exist, I suppose pro DX camera users languished for fast primes and fast fixed macimum aperture zooms... In fact most of the fast fixed aperture zooms they could use were full format and almost no prime (except a fisheye) covered the all too specific wide to very wide range. Then it should have been wise for nikon to issue such lenses in strictly DX dedicated form.
    Nowadays, as FX will surely become more and more affordable as the generations will pass, I see no point in dedicated pro oriented DX lenses.
    >> If the lens is well designed it can work well on both formats. <<
    Yes, but as you once indicated to extract the same level in image quality form a DX format sensor one must have a higher definition from the lens... Hence a lens which will certainly cost more than if it was primarily FX dedicated. One reason why I sincerly doubt DX format will stay as a component of the pro - semi-pro line of Nikon bodies... It is an all different problem for the amateur range... At least as long as FX sensor cost won't allow prices similar to the present DX amateur cameras.
    The real forte of DX format in the pro-advanced amateur world is the apparent superior magnification of a given tele-lens... But all pro level tele-lens (Nikon classes into the "super-tele" category) are in fact FX capable. Add to this fast AF is more than a comfort for sports and wildlife photographers so the Ai-Ai'ed lens compatibility is of limited importance for these lenses, and I don't see why a pro or an advanced amateur can't use a D90 as a dedicated super-tele body when these activities are only secondary (as most most professional sports or wildlife photographers will accept to pay for a longer lens on an FX format body to obtain the same magnification). So the interest for a successor to the D300 seems to me extremely limited. And I only D300 users as "massive" potential buyers of the new DX 35mm lenses...
    >> A lot of people use both formats, should they have to buy both sets to get the best results? <<
    Most of the present (yet limited) advantages (seeing the things in the semi-pro - pro range) of DX format will almost certainly be negated in a near future. The eventual successor of the D700 will probably be no more costly to afford than the present D300 body. Nikon will certainly improve its existing FX compatible lenses as they will gradually implement G mount to all of them, and moderately open (f/4 or f/4.5) long tele-lenses for casual users will probably be part of the program. I doubt a 300mm f/4 will cost more than the splendid 200mm F/2 AF VR... And with high ISO available aplenty I don't see a casual user discontent with an f/4 300mm (may be VR) instead. And, already, unless you go for low amateur range bodies the compactness brought about by using DX format instead of FX is more than debatable. Finally brand new pro-oriented lenses in DX format will have to be obtained new for a while, which will cost far more than buying second hand lenses compatible with FX format at their nominal FOV. Sure the D300 (and before the D200) were able to operate properly with TTL metering most old Ai/Ai'ed lenses, but as manual focus lenses are more useful in the wide angle range, the reduction of the field of view engendered by the DX format is surely a handicap to use these old dirt cheap second hand beauties.
    IMHO, Nikon should restrain to develop pure DX format lenses except - perhaps - for very wide primes.
    A revision of existing primes, compatible with FX format seems to me far more urgent. And if they really want to have a competing range of lenses, why don't they re-issue manual focus fast ide angle primes optimized for FX format ? Scale focusing is very interesting with such lenses.
    >> I can understand that a few DX primes are made (i.e. add a 18mm f/2 or 18mm f/2.8 DX) but I would prefer if Nikon kept most lenses capable of rendering a good image on FX . <<
    Sure, and I will add a new trans-standard zoom for FX would be welcome with a tad less capability in the wide angle range and a tad more on the tele side ! And why not a 35-85 f/2 (from small group to true portrait with a really fast lens !)...
    FPW
     
  87. >> "In primes world, f/2.8 is not exactly fast. It's considered slow."
    Primes that are either wide or long are generally slower, or are more expensive and difficult to be designed and made with a fast aperture. Any 200 mm prime that's faster than f/2.8, any 300 mm prime that's faster than f/4, any 400 mm prime that's faster than f/5.6, any 85 mm prime that's faster than f/1.8, and any 50 mm that's faster than f/1.4 are generally disproportionally expensive if not exotic. Among the wide angle primes, Nikon's old 28 f/1.4 and Canon's 24 f/1.4L are two of the fast ones. But the typical primes in the wide angle range are generally f/2.8, if not slower. Most ultra-wides (wider than 20 mm equivalent) and fisheyes are not faster f/2.8 neither.
     
  88. The following is a public service announcement for FX camera users:
    Quit complaining and go take some photos.
    Thank you.
    This has been a public service announcement for FX camera users.
     
  89. ...we now return you to your regularly scheduled program:
    http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00F/00FCiC-28092884.jpg
     
  90. Shuo, yes, I should have said that fisheye and long tele would be the exclusion...
     
  91. I CANT WAIT - Although I will, so that market forces determine a more competitive price, perhaps in 6-12 months when hopefully supply will be better as well. (why do Nikon & others insist on launching products they can't deliver relative to demand?). Anyway, I am happy that Nikon is at last improving their prime offering, people are at last recognizing the superior optical and visual qualities of prime photography (something Pentax understands) over the plethora of zoom lenses that all offer quality compromises unless you are prepared to spend megabucks! This lens is a welcome addition, I will certainly be looking for one in the near future.
     
  92. To me this is great news... I am a advanced amateur who likes to walk around with my camera and a small lens. I am using the AF 35mm f/2 D with my D40X mostly, and focusing manually. For freaks like me this is a great chance to have AF in a small body. Anyway, I don't think I am reresenting the bulk of entry level users.
    Or may be Nikon is also thinking in pros that use D300 extensively and need a revamped normal lens to use whe they want to travel light.
    D300+35mm f/1.8 - That looks like a killer combo to me. Just around 2lb.
     
  93. Breogan why are you using your 35mm f/2 manually? Doesn't the D40x allow autofocusing with that lens?
     
  94. Ken, the D40, D40X and D60 series have no in-body autofocus motor. You need to have a motor in the lens (AF-I, AF-S, HSM, etc.) or focus manually.
    I think a lightweight kit could consist of a D60, 35/1.8 DX, 60/2.8 AF-S Micro, but what about wide angle? The 12-24/4 DX is a good lens but it's quite expensive. A Zeiss 18mm is what I have in this focal length range and it works great but it isn't the easiest to focus thanks to the f/3.5 aperture, and it's pricey. It's not hopeless to make a lightweight kit based on a D40/D60 but for someone who needs autofocus and wants top quality it's not going to be especially cheap - the cost of lenses will dwarf the cost of the camera body itself.
    I will probably be recommending the 35/1.8 DX to people who want to get into DSLRs and prefer to travel with a small kit, but I don't know what to say about wide angle. The 11-16 Tokina would be a possibility. But requires at least a D80/D90 to autofocus. T Many of these people who want to get into DSLRs would think the 12-24/4 DX is just too expensive.
    Just one DX AF-S wide angle (FL 18mm or 20mm) prime would make the kit complete and this would make Nikon entry-level DSLRs very attractive for people who 1) want to take pics of their kids indoors, 2) want to travel light, and 3) don't have a lot of money. Many families whose kids are young are in this situation. The fast apertures are needed as the kit needs to produce superior results in low light compared to the best compact cameras, otherwise there's not enough incentive for the bigger camera. Anyway, thinking aloud.
     
  95. Ilkka writes "Just one DX AF-S wide angle (FL 18mm or 20mm) prime would make the kit complete and this would make Nikon entry-level DSLRs very attractive for people who 1) want to take pics of their kids indoors, 2) want to travel light, and 3) don't have a lot of money." I'll bet the vast majority of those people are just fine with a D40 or D60, 18-55 zoom, and the built-in flash, if not a simple Canon P&S. Only folks who are slightly more advanced photogs are going to go for this lens imho. I want one for my D50 (D90 someday soon?), but don't see myself recommending it to friends who want a simple "step up from P&S" DSLR.
     
  96. I'd be interested in this lens on my D40 inspite of the fact I own the Sigma 30mm f1.4. While the Sigma does produce lovely bright shots in low light it is (in my experience) terrible at focusing. Many's the time I'll be waiting for it to focus as it 'skips' just either side of being in focus only for the subject to disappear / miss the moment etc. If the Nikon focuses quickly and accurately (like my 18-200) I'd happily swap.
     
  97. I think it's terrific Nikon is offering this lens; it's sure to be a constant companion with my snapshot D80. I have a 17-55/2.8 DX, 35/2 AF-D, and a 35/1.4 AIS, but I'm still excited to add this lens to my kit.
     
  98. it will for sure go into my everyday-carry bag with the 18-70mm mounted on a d40. a welcome addition. i'm also sure that it will play a big role in my professional shoots. good thing i didn't have the money for the sigma 30mm.
     
  99. Peter, that hasn't been my experience. If they're fine with pop-up flash pictures, there is no reason to get a DSLR, and people know that. What they want to do is use available light for their pictures indoors, and natural light outdoors. "I hate flash" and "I won't be using flash" is the most common comment I hear when I discuss equipment choices. There are of course people who do use direct flash and are happy with it but they're usually not looking into DSLRs since they've seen what these machines can do with available light.
    For a lot of the time in the Finnish winter, there are only two options to get reasonably sharp pictures without flash - one is to use a tripod and the other is to use fast glass. This January, my mean exposure time for outdoor nature pics has been around 1/2 s (in daylight, of course), and for hand-held shooting of people, I have used ISO 1600-6400 out of necessity, at f/2-f/2.8. How then could one take a picture with a f/4-5.6 lens with a camera that can produce good results up to ISO 800, hand-held? Basically not at all. Want to not photograph during the winter at all? That is always an option, but most people who are about to invest in a DSLR want to shoot year around.
    But your mileage may vary.
     
  100. Nikon is offering yet another affordable option for their huge customer base of DX camera owners.
    1) SB-600 flash
    2) Telephoto lens with VR
    3) Fast normal lens
    They only need a small fraction of their customers to buy one of these every year to generate significant cash flow.
     
  101. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I missed the DPReview article Bruce mentioned earlier: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021002nikoninterview.asp
    Here are what I think are the important parts of that quote in a discussion with a product manager from Nikon Europe:
    "It's about price, size and weight. We wanted this to be a lens for the entry-level. If we'd tried to make an FX 35mm F1.4 it might cost €1400, rather than €200, and we wanted to make sure it was an affordable lens."
    "The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them. So far, the lens offering for that market has included some really good zooms, but this offers them something they were missing."​
     
  102. My impresion, after reading the interview, is that we shouldn't expect amazing image quality from this lens. I would wait a few months to buy one and replace my 35mm f/2D.
     
  103. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    According to Nikon from that same interview:
    "The new lens is a step above the 35mm F2 in terms of image quality. It's specifically designed for DX and the aspherical element helps it give better results."​
    If is indeed better than the 35mm/f2, it can't be too bad.
    And Bjorn Rorslett already has one for testing, so we should find out from him soon: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SQLL
     
  104. Breogan, like you I have a 35/2 but the proof is in the testing, not feelings. In this other 35/1.8 thread, Bjorn says he will be testing the new lens. His results will be very helpful to both of us as well and many others.....
    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SQLL?unified_p=1
     
  105. The image quality looks pretty good from the one sample that's out there (click on the product link below then click on the "Sample Image" link):

    AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

    As the owner of a new Fuji S5 and with just a 17-55/2.8 I am thrilled with this announcement. This will make a great walk-around kit!
     
  106. I like the landscape shot above, it's beautiful. For me, I won't replace my 35 f2 until the 35 1.4 is made. I used to shoot Canon and the 35 1.4L is a phenomenal lens. On FX or DX I find the Nikon 35 f2 to be a nice compromise but still not in the league of the Canon lens. I am primarily a wedding and portrait photographer so I would be happier with a fast and wide FX prime with AF-S. For DX though it looks like a good value proposition for those who do not already have the 35 f2.
     
  107. To Shun, I already read that in the interview and I hope that's true. I may also say that picture quality is, sometimes, a subjective thing. I agree that you can perform a lot of tests to a lens (resolution, deformations, color aberrations... etc.) but sometimes there is this impression when you look at a picture that tells you whether you like it or not. I personally prefer lens that have much color saturation (in a natural way). Usually that is what I miss from consumer zooms and I can get from primes (at a similar price), I hope this lens will fulfill that aspect.
    To Peter N, Something that really gets noticed to me on that sample picture is the DOF. One thing a don't like from the 35/2 AF (on DX) is that is very difficult to get defocus backgrounds when shooting subjects that are 2m (6feet) apart from you. This lens has a deep DOF comparing to the 50mm family of lens. However the sample picture with the 35/1.8 shows, somehow, a different behavior. The lady could be 1.5mm (5feet) from the camera and the picture was taken at f/2.8. With the 35/2 that background would be only slightly blurred. So, may be, if this impression is right, Nikon has tweaked the 35/1.8 not only to have the same FOV of a 50mm in FX, but also to have a similar behavior DOF wise. I hope this is just right!!
     
  108. @ Breogan - What I like about the pic is the smoothness of the off-focus areas. I use Leica glass and so I'm used to this look and to be honest did not expect it.
     
  109. Illka, answering Peter:
    >> For a lot of the time in the Finnish winter, there are only two options to get reasonably sharp pictures without flash - one is to use a tripod and the other is to use fast glass <<
    I sincerely doubt Nikon people took the decision to produce this lens from the peculiar situation of photographers living near the polar circle in winter... :)
    Sorry Illka, what you say is true, but just conincidental... Most of the case, what Peter says is right :
    >> I'll bet the vast majority of those people are just fine with a D40 or D60, 18-55 zoom, and the built-in flash, if not a simple Canon P&S. Only folks who are slightly more advanced photogs are going to go for this lens imho <<
    Which makes me wonder how many lens will be sold in the end when people like our friends here, on this board, who are obviously pertaining to the second category described by Peter and reluctant to go FX will have bought it. I have the feeling there will be few buyers in the end !
    Most of the pros or advanced amateurs here, even those who praise the DX format for what it is worth, are already using both FX and DX format... DX being most of the time confined to long-tele lenses for its apparent superior magnification with a shorter lens... Spending even $ 200 for such a standard lens will simply be an eventual additional comfort when they want to go very "light" in the field... But if they want to go light, then they'll probably prefer the zoom solution.
    This let us with a market mostly composed of D90 buyers. Is such a market large enough to justify more than a single isolated lens ? Time will tell...
    The Nikon product Manager for Europe statement is clear :
    >> The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them. So far, the lens offering for that market has included some really good zooms, but this offers them something they were missing. <<
    But I doubt the main target will even be in fact the D40/D60 owners ! ... D 90 customers seems to me far more logical (who I define more or less as true advanced amateurs with a very limited budget).
    Looking at photographic forums in France, it seems these D40/D60 people are really reluctant to anything but zooms and I even fequently see threads where people advocate the abandonement of any large aperture lenses "considering the progress in high ISO performance of the last generation of DSLR's ". A statement I completely disagree with... But which seems common among the cropped format die hards ! ... Who are generally in the D40/D60 owners group as far as Nikon users are concerned.
    By the way, this statement seems to confirm my opinion there are very few chances the D300 - despite persisting rumors on the net - will have a direct successor in DX format... As even the 35mmf/1.8 DX is considered for the amateur market by this Nikon Product Manager !
    Now let's consider the f/1.8 aperture... As far as I know the noiseless limit of the D90 is about ISO1600... Compared to a classic f/4 (at best) DX zoom it appears to be more or less a way to reach the same shutter speed with a D90 you can reach at f/4 with a D700 at 6400 ...
    Another food for thought will be to ask the question of relevance in the choice of a reflex camera by a lot of amateurs...
    I don't know for the USA and other parts of the world, but here, in France, a lot of people buy low end DSLR's and use them well inside the limits of high end compacts, which are cheaper, less cumbersome and for some of them at least have even a better lens than the standard zoom from the kit which will stay affixed to the reflex body for the duration ! ... I don't see them buying a large aperture prime at all, whatever its intrinsic qualities.
    My personal feelings are this lens is a long delayed project which is issued now because Nikon marketing department wants to show once again they can do better than any competitor and as a form of consolation for the long time DX users of a certain level of proficiency who were a tad discomforted by the FX format appearance. It may be also a way to maintain the sales level of the D300 as many people are justifiably hesitating between this DX camera and the D700.
    I still don't think Nikon is making a smart move with this lens... A high quality 35mm f/1.4 AF-G - even more expensive - covering the FX format would have probably met the needs of a much wider market, particularly if, optically speaking, it was near to or as good full open as the famed Leica made Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 aspheric.
    May be I'm biased but a "night kit" composed of this lens, the new 50mm f/1.4 AF-G and another hypothetic 85mm f/1.4 AF-G should be a dream kit. Add to this one an f/2 24mm AF-G and even the DX users will have it. Besides, economy of scale concentrating in a single lens range will probably allow for reduced production cost and consequently a reduced retail price.
    FPW
     
  110. "But I doubt the main target will even be in fact the D40/D60 owners ! ... D 90 customers seems to me far more logical (who I define more or less as true advanced amateurs with a very limited budget)."
    If Nikon thinks their intended market is the D40 through D90, i would assume they are correct. Because that is what they apparently think, and i assume they know, what they think.
    But who might buy it is another question. And who might buy for instance, a D60, is also, another question. For example,
    I on occasion go to a blog by a young women (name escapes me at the moment) who is a very good photographer. Fine art stuff, exhibited yada, yada,. Does digital, HDR, 4x5, 35mm, Polariod alternative processes, combined media, etc. Her DSLR? a D60.
    I use D200's mostly for digital capture, and different film formats also. I bought a D60 myself, as my daily carry around and somewhat for travel.
     
  111. I happen to believe that Nikon will sell quite a few of these new lenses, but even if they do not, it is still a low-risk investment. The in-house expertise likely meant that engineering expenses were minimal and manufacturing costs are low as well. If this lens flops, they will not be out too much money.
     
  112. Jay,
    Sorry but for both you and the youg Lady, the D60 is not your main body but a complement...
    It is obvious the mainstay of D40/D60 camera bodies owners buy this camera as their only one and ARE amateurs.
    I perfectly understand someone already having a D200 (excellent body by the way) and - I suppose - a bunch of DX lenses to go with it (all perfectly suitable for use with a D60) would like to buy a D60 as his second body. But this situation is certainly marginal when compared to the average D60 customer's one. I'm not surprised either by the fact the young Lady who is apprently versy versed in fine art photography wants a (relatively) cheap small format DSLR (probably as soemthing to carry everywhere more than a "masterpiece maker").
    But I'm not convinced most advanced photogs and even less pros will stay long with an amateur camera as their main body unless they are financially complied to proceed so. I'm not even convinced, unless the end use requires only a moderate defintion obtained in good lighting conditions, an average advanced amateur - let alone a pro - will keep for a long time a nowadays very obsolescent D200 ad his (her) main equipment.
    From there on, I understand those having a bunch of DX lenses hesitate to go farther than a D300 and adopt FX format.
    A newcomer (of this level of proficiency) to Nikon DSLR world or, like me, someone who has a stock of great F mount lenses from an older film system will certainly heartily go for an FX camera instead. If you have already F mount lenses (even to be Ai'ed) and not a single DX lens, or no Nikon lens at all it would be illogic to go for a DX camera (unless you specialize in sports of wild life photography).
    An amateur level newcomer or someone of the same level wanting to upgrade and having some DX lenses will be more attracted by a D 60 DX body. And someone already proficient in photography but with a limited budget in the same situation will be more attracted by a D90. But I'm convinced only the latter will be attracted by a DX prime.
    D40/60/90 are not fully compatible with Ai/Ai'ed F mount lenses. So you need either DX lenses or FX/DX compatible AF lenses.
    D300 (as was the D200) is Ai/Ai'ed lenses compatible but as it is a DX camera the old Ai/Ai'ed lenses in the wide angle range won't be useable at their original FOV, so, unless you deal with macro work, the interest of this compatibility is limited (one of the main reason I waited to go digital myself for full format cameras). This notwithstanding, very few people not having a bunch of old lenses will be temped to go for manual focus lenses (even if the are often dirt cheap) and it is clear the best use of these old lenses is scale focusing on wide angles. Add to this the finder of most if not all DX camera is like a dark tunnel when compared to the one of FX format camera.
    So, if you accept to use second hand manual primes for wide angles under 35mm, second hand AF primes in mint condition instead of a modern stellar high grade zoom and - but this is the same for DX bodies - FX current primes or zooms for long tele-lenses, I doubt, if you have no DX lens in stock a D700 equipment will cost you more in the end than a D300 with a full array of brand new DX zooms.
    Now if your budget is too limited, the best choice for a very good image quality is the D90 and then the new 35mm DX lens is a tempting choice. As it may be for you, considering the equipement you already own.
    And sorry to say that Jay, but I never take for granted the opinion of a company managers, largely influenced by the marketing department guys (I have no respect whatsoever for Marketing dept. guys, from Nikon or anyone else)... Big companies sometimes made big mistakes (remember the Ford Edsel ?) ...
    You should take into account the fact many low end DSLR customers are first time buyers (unlike you) and are not likely to upgrade or even complement their camera kit as long as it will work. They are the mainstay of Nikon sales only because numerous newcomers are buying such a gear each year. Between them only a few will persevere and acquire enough photographic practice to convert from family souvenir hunters to photographers. And when they convert, most of them, if not on a tight budget, will try to buy something really higher in terms of range. I'm not convinced a unique prime will push them to stay with a DX camera any longer... Moreover if the trend to lower prices for full format cameras continues in the future generations (which is very likely).
    Raw price is of course an important element but I think "affordability" is even more decisive, particularly when it goes for something which attracts real amateurs.
    FX format is not yet something totally affordable for advanced amateurs (unless they have other way to compensate for the increased cost), but this won't stay such for long. It is not difficult to imagine the successor of the D700 being sold far nearer (if not equal) to the D300 price as when it was introduced. At this point, I think fewer and fewer newcomers to Nikon wanting a semi-pro body will opt for DX format (unless they have compelling reasons to do so). And this is just this kind of customer's panel a wide aperture prime will tempt.
    A lens - even in this fast evolving digital photography era - is not something you will keep for two or three years even on a pro level, it is still a long term investment (even if it is a reasonably priced one). It is made to cover many DSLR body lives ! ... Even for an amateur, the "amortizment" (if you can speak this way for an amateur use) is on a far longer period. So, even if this prime (which is most probably intrinsically an excellent lens) has not the ridiculously small maximum (and variable) aperture of most DX zoom lens, someone who is realistic about the future of DX format (here to stay for some years yes, here to stay long for semi-pro - pro range of bodies, doubtful, here to stay forever extremely improbable) only people decided to stay with DX even if this means to downgrade in terms of body range have any interest in buying it (how many are they ?).
    Even if I were to buy a D300 or a D90 I, personaly will never buy a DX lens anymore to protect my lens "investment". A lens will stay operational for at least ten years, and as I see the things, I doubt DX format will remain so long available even for amateur bodies.
    IMHO Nikon should concentrate only on lenses covering both formats and as they have to upgrade their prime range, I believe this may lead to economy of scale by progressively dropping any pro level exclusively DX lenses (which are not so numerous) but the few necessary wides and in fine to lower retail prices for common lenses.
    FPW
     
  113. What I really need Nikon to make are 24mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4 lenses in FX format to go with my 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 lenses. Canon provides this range/speed, I don't know why Nikon doesn't.
     
  114. As far as I know, neither the 28/2 nor the 28/1.4 Nikkors sold in big numbers. With only DX digital bodies available for many years, the sales of those lenses must have plummeted (since they were nothing more than large and very expensive normal lenses on DX). Hopefully Nikon will introduce a fast wide prime (one for FX, one for DX) soon. I don't think the f/1.4 aperture is necessary though; f/2 or would be sufficient and a lot less expensive and more compact. A 24/1.4 or 28/1.4 is in my opinion in the "crazy money" category. Ok, it could be worse; the 21mm f/1.4 Leica costs nearly six grand. I'm sure it's a good lens, but ... ;-) In the meanwhile I use 28mm f/2 Ai-S which is very nice, but it's only available 2nd hand.
     
  115. I guess some of the expensive stuff owners in this forum disagree with Nikon's commitment to produce cheap yet good cameras and lenses for the cheapskates like me instead of following the Contax and Leica path and build just to the highest standards. Maybe they think we're stealing them the Nikon R&D resources needed to design the 28 1.4 or the 300 2 nobody bought at their time...
    Probably my pictures are not that good but they're the only ones of me and my family and I'll go on taking them with this kind of stuff: the cheapest one that is good enough for me. I won't take a mortgage to buy consumer goods and I hate carrying heavy equiment. I still buy new Nikon stuff because they still care about people like me. Remember, we are not very profitable but we are a lot, so our market niche makes sense in the big numbers. And if Nikon doesn't take us into account, probably Canon, Oly or Pano will do.
     
  116. Actually, Jose, buyers of Nikon's affordable cameras and lenses are the folks who make the company profitable. The flagships - the high end cameras and lenses - are seldom big money makers, but it's necessary to maintain the company's reputation.
    Not to worry, there will be plenty of folks interested in affordable, reasonably fast primes, both DX and full frame AF-S. Naysayers who disdain affordable equipment are loud on discussion forums but the market figures indicate they're not actually buying the incredibly expensive equipment in sufficient numbers for Nikon to survive on only the flagship bodies, f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms.
     
  117. "Sorry but for both you and the youg Lady, the D60 is not your main body but a complement...It is obvious the mainstay of D40/D60 camera bodies owners buy this camera as their only one and ARE amateurs."

    Hmmm.
    I am an amateur. I use D200's and a D60, for digital capture.
    The young lady in my example is a working artist (or as said now days, a "professional" artist). She has one digital camera, a D60.

    "I perfectly understand someone already having a D200 (excellent body by the way) and - I suppose - a bunch of DX lenses to go with it (all perfectly suitable for use with a D60)..."

    I have 2 DX lenses. The 18-70mm (intentionally purchased) and the 18-55mm VR (came with the D60. I use older nikkors, about a dozen AIS primes and a couple AF-D primes.
    I guess the point i am trying to make is one cannot really judge the the quality level of the photography by the financial standing of the photographer, nor the person's choice in equipment.
    I would agree on the point though, of preferring Nikon to produce lenses that cover FF, so they could be used with either. But that is simply because I still on occasion use my Nikon film bodies, and may someday, if the price gets low enough etc., get a FF DSLR.
    Yet I can understand the value of the 35mm DX. The lense that is nearly always on my D60, is a 35mm f/2 AF D, even though it does not AF on it.
    What i do not like about Nikon's production "strategy", is the intentional crippling of the "low end" DLSR bodies, as to lenses. "Back in the day", a person starting out, could buy an FM and use any Nikkor.
     
  118. I have D300 and I decided to stop buying DX lenses. In the (near) future most of serious amateurs will switch to FF. At that time I don't want to throw too much money away by selling my used DX equipment. I don't see any sense to buy the new 35mm f/1.8 DX Nikkor.
    Benjamin
     
  119. One aspherical element and no ED elements, was it economizes?
    E.g. some older lenses, like 28-200 G zoom lens have 3 Aspherical elements and 3 ED elements and cost only about 30% more for a zoom lens, so the cost perhaps was not an issue to produce even better lens?.
    Perhaps prime lens does not need that many special glass elements?
     
  120. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Aspherical elements are typically molded plastic. Those are not expensive to produce. And ED is no longer the "status symbol" it once was in the 1980's and 1990's. Just like AF-S used to be an indication for exotic super teles.
    There is little dobut that the new 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX is an economy lens, but it still has a metal mount and according to Bjorn Rorslett, optical quality seems quite good. Being DX cuts down the cost and just don't expect top-notch construction quality.
     
  121. as always, well put, lex. something short but factual.
     
  122. >> "I have D300 and I decided to stop buying DX lenses."
    That's almost my policy. But I think a $200/300 DX lens or two is alright.
     
  123. I have already had a look at the image samples and seems to me a very sharp lens, at least at closer distances, even wide open. Bokeh looks better than the 50/1.8AFD. I`d expect a similar construction quality.
     
  124. The 35mm f/2.0 is fine as it is. A waste of effort here by Nikon.
     
  125. It should have been an FX coverage 24mm f2 or f2.8 - a modern one, nano coatings, asph elements, AF-S, smallish filter thread, with excellent corners. Good for the FX folks as this group will be growing fast over the years, and still would be good as a compact 35mm on DX. Nikon have neglected this most important range, from 24mm to 35mm, for a long time.
    Unless of course you use the ends of the two giant expensive zooms used by many as exemplars of Nikon's great pro lens coverage. As the 14-24 and 24-70 add more than 2kg to your backpack, don't expect too many back country types to be overjoyed at their current offerings; I expect the ZF CZ primes to gain popularity steadily, given time, if Nikon maintain their insouciance to recognised bread-and-butter lens requirements. They don't even have any f4 pro zooms...they seem to have a body mania at present, but are slackers on some significant lens types.
     
  126. Tim, you can't autofocus the 35/2 AF-D on the consumer Nikons. Generally speaking, I don't think it's a wasted effort, perhaps it doesn't meet your wish list or needs, but there other photographers in the world besides yourself. ;)
     
  127. One aspherical element and no ED elements, was it economizes?
    E.g. some older lenses, like 28-200 G zoom lens have 3 Aspherical elements and 3 ED elements and cost only about 30% more for a zoom lens, so the cost perhaps was not an issue to produce even better lens?.
    Perhaps prime lens does not need that many special glass elements?​
    Bingo. Zoom lenses need more elements to accomplish the same tasks. Having one asph element and no ED elements isn't limiting in a simpler lens design.
    The 35mm f/2.0 is fine as it is. A waste of effort here by Nikon.​
    Why do people think that the amount of lens engineering Nikon can do in a given year is so small? It's not like they've got one guy in the back named Joey Nikkor and this one bumped something else on his to-do list. They've got a crack team of optical engineers there who can do more than one thing at a time.
    And this is certainly an improvement over the AF-D for a D40/60 user, and a lot less expensive, so yes, it seems like a worthwhile thing to introduce to the catalog, and "make every SLR have a normal prime" seems like a worthwhile goal.
    I really don't see the point in criticizing a company for offering a product that you're not going to buy. It has nothing to do with you.
     
  128. Why is it that some folks on the FX bandwagon seem to take it as a personal insult to them and a blow the the world of digital photography in general that Nikon would DARE introduce a DX prime? You already have a truckload of full frame zooms and primes that will work on your bodies. Why begrudge DX users some primes of their own? One would almost think you guys were Leica buffs.
     
  129. Just bought a 50mm ais.. Lovely lens, just has a special feel to the images.. I tried the 50mm 1.8d but didn't like the look of the images.. I will definitely look into this 35mm f1.8. The sample images I have seen so far are sweet.
    All these discussions about how unsuitable the new 35 is for the d40-d90 market seem a bit logically off. What you need to look at is not that its unsuitable for 95% of the d40-d90 market (and therefore conclude its silly to produce it) but that its suitable for 5% of the d40-d90 market. I think you will see that it is just about a perfect acquisition for at least 5% of the people who bought the d40-d90 cameras and I am sure some d200-d400 users will be getting one. I probably will.
    Some FX guys seem so threatened by the "illogical" DX format. (Their logic says that FX is best so they are invested, I guess) DX is here to stay guys accept it. Technology is NOW available (but not implemented yet) to produce a 30mp DX camera with better DR and High ISO than the D3(just a matter of time)(just google black silicon or the nikon or kodak patents.. etc). Yes, I would buy a D3 (and all the nice FX lenses) if i had the cash, but I dont.
    Another advantage that the DX format has is its potential to produce equivalent lenses that are brighter than the FX format. think 22-50 F2 DX zoom.
     
  130. What's the big deal? I've already got a manual focus 35mmF1.4 that shoots on everything from a meterless F to the latest D cameras. At a retail price of under $200, I would like to try a 35mm DX lens on my little D40. If that doesn't work out, there's always a market for used Nikkor lenses. I do hope Nikon will keep coming out with more small, light DX primes.
     
  131. L.M., I have just downloaded 200+ images taken with a 35/1.4 AiS... I`d not be surprised if the new lens is a better performer.
    The 35/1.4AiS is bigger, 2x heavier and suffer strong flare/glare issues at certain situations. It is a sharp lens (stopped down) with a "reasonably" good bokeh to my liking, but on a DX camera the new AFS lens could be unbeatable. And personally, manual focus with a 35mm lens on a DX screen is on the limit of easiness. I`m excited waiting for Rorslett`and others opinion. Let`s see...
     
  132. After buying my D700 (and selling my D300) I´d have never thought that I`d like to have a DX camera. Well, now a D40+35AFS seems a very attractive setup to me (and pretty affordable, I think).
     
  133. Why begrudge DX users some primes of their own? One would almost think you guys were Leica buffs.​
    Hey wait a minute Wayne, I'm a Leica user and I'm not angry about this lens! ;-) Actually I just recently bought my first dSLR, it's a DX, and I love the look of this lens and I'm real happy that Nikon has released it!
     
  134. "After buying my D700 (and selling my D300) I´d have never thought that I`d like to have a DX camera... "
    I think I need to clarify that I don`t have anything against the DX format, in fact I think the D300 is as good as a D700. I like to use FX for film/digital compatibility and uniformity.
     
  135. What is happening actually here? A snob FX user or overly sensitive DX user?
     
  136. If Nikon can make a £1,400 FX lens for £199 in DX format, no wonder the FX owners are jealous.
    I just hope Nikon make a few more, bargain fast wide DX primes.
     
  137. The traditional wide-angle lens line-up for film (FX) was 18, 20, 24, 28, and 35 mm (and a huge price jump between 20 and 18) - to reproduce the same (or similiar) FOV for DX, the focal lengths would have to be 12, 13, 16, 19, and 23 mm, respectively. The FX primes come in f/2.8 (18 and 20 mm), f/2 or f/2.8 (24, 28, 35) or even f/1.4 (28, 35).
    Is it reasonable to expect "bargain fast wide DX primes"? That is, for example, a f/2 19mm DX or a f/2.8 13mm DX? Or will those be expensive lenses again (like the 14mm/2.8 that costs more than the 14-24 zoom?). To ask the question in a different way - is there a considerable cost saving in producing a 14/2.8 DX vs FX; i.e. can there be a DX version for <$700?
    I am not sure whether the 35/1.8 DX answers the question - though it costs much less than the 35/2 FX version.
    Maybe all what is needed for DX would be a 12/2.8, 16/2, 19/2, and 24/2 - all for less than $500 (except maybe the 12mm)?
     
  138. Anthony, the functional equivalent of the 35/1.8 DX in FX format is either the 50/1.8D or the 50/1.4G. They serve similar functions (in terms of angle of view and speed) and the cost penalty for FX here is minimal if it exists at all. The FX 50mm lenses have distance scales, for example, which the DX lens does not, and the 1.8D has an aperture ring, while the 35 DX and 50/1.4G have AF-S - you pick your features and pay accordingly.

    The 1400 pound figure quoted is for a 35/1.8 wide angle prime, not a normal lens. Fast wide angles are expensive irrespective of format, whereas normal lenses are more affordable. In fact Nikon has never made a DX wide angle faster than f/2.8. The DX equivalent of an FX 35/1.8 would be a 24/1.8 DX, a lens that we have no idea what it would cost. Probably the same 1400 figure, give or take.
     
  139. Dieter,
    Because of advances in zoom lens technology, there is very little need to create that line-up of primes you suggest. I'll bet if folks who had 18, 20, 24, 28, and 35 mm lenses in the 70s could have traded them in for a really decent 17-35mm zoom that performed as well as the primes for virtually all tasks, they would have...
    Oh, that's right, that's exactly what all those people did in the late 90s, early 00s...
     
  140. When I use a wide angle to photograph people, by necessity I will be very close to them. Yet I prefer to stay quiet and I don't want to gather unnecessary attention to myself. I find it easier to work with small lenses which in low light means primes.
    There is a market for small, fast wide angle primes. Nikon used to make them, I have the 28/2 Ai-S which is fabulous for people photography on FX cameras. Small, fast, sharp, entirely useable wide open.
    On the other hand if you like to show off with your gear, maybe a f/2.8 zoom is a better choice. That'll certainly gather the looks. I'd rather not. I do have the 24-70/2.8 to take off some of the stress of using primes, but it's not my favorite way of working. When photographing landscapes I don't have much of a problem with its size and weight as I'll be by myself, but a high quality f/4 lens would work just as well, with a reduced weight and/or increased range. For people photography, I dislike all the comments the 24-70 gathers from people, which are annoying. I seem to do better work with the primes, too, though there are missed shots and more stress since the shoot has to be planned better.
    Too bad there is no full-frame digital rangefinder. A Leica 28/2.8 aspherical, size 52x30mm and weight 180 grams. The 17-35/2.8 Nikkor - 106x84mm and 750 grams! Some things haven't gotten better with the advent of digital capture ... factoring in the 1.33x factor of the M8, a 21/2.8 would be needed instead of the 28. That's 43x56mm and 300 grams. Still smaller than the zoom, by quite a bit.
    I hope we'll soon see some autofocus digital-friendly wide angle primes from Nikon.
     
  141. Ilkka, I understand the new 35mm is only an inexpensive "Standard" lens.
    But it does confirm Nikon need to produce at least one more, lets say a 15mm f2 DX prime.
    The 15mm DX would be a lot less expensive than a 15mm FX. Closer in price to a 28mm f2 I'd expect, but it would make the DX format much more desirable.
     
  142. "What happened to Nikons policy of backwards and forwards lens compatibility."
    'G' llenses are here to stay. It's unreasonable to expect that Nikon will design new lenses to work on discontinued bodies. Nikon has it right - make sure that old lenses work on newer bodies. Lenses do, after all, last for decades.
     
  143. Talk about slow... Looks like a play from the Leica playbook.
     
  144. No one is as slow as Leica.
     
  145. Hey, you just can't rush quality...
     
  146. Leica are releasing their 21/1.4 and 24/1.4 lenses next month (supposedly). Those aren't slow.
     
  147. There are drawbacks to the "G" design. Some people prefer the aperture ring for ergonomic reasons. To use Nikon extension tubes, bellows, or a lens in the reversed orientation, an aperture ring is needed. To use a lens for scientific applications outside the context of a Nikon camera, an aperture ring is required. I also don't think the mechanical body-controlled aperture mechanism is as reproducible as it should be.
    I think a 18/2 or a 24/2 DX would be a good complement to the 35/1.8 and yes, I agree it would probably cost comparable to that of the 28/2 Ai-S - expensive but not outrageously so. I'm afraid the price for an 15/2 DX would be very high; Nikon has never made an f/2 lens with such a wide angle of view. I think it would be fine if the fast 18 DX would be "merely" f/2.8 if this reduces its size and price accordingly and the performance is good.
     
  148. Are you guys sure the 35F1.8 list for $199??? The specs (8 elements, aspheric element, decent speed) suggest an "overkill" lens akin to the Sigma 30F1.4!
     
  149. Ilkka, Nikon still sell excellent AIS lenses, for use with there non automatic extension tubes and bellows.
    If the omission of the aperture ring and depth of field scale, enable Nikon to produce less expensive DX primes like the 35 f1.8. That is the direction I would like Nikon to go for at least a small range of wide lenses.
    If the lenses are not much less expensive than a FX model, there would be no point in making them.
    And yes your 18DX f2.8 sounds nice!
     
  150. Anthony,
    You wrote Nikon still sells Ais lenses (new) ?
    At least on the French market they are totally absent of Nikon France lens list. Second hand being the only solution.
    Can you elaborate on your affirmation ?
    FPW
     
  151. Francois, the Nikon USA site still lists several manual focus AI-S lenses, usually as special order items with limited availability.
     
  152. From Nikon global web page:
    http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/mf/index.htm
     
  153. François, They are still available in England, you should take advantage of your strong EURO and order from a U.K. dealer.
     
  154. Thanx to Lex, Breogan and Anthony...
    FPW
     
  155. Hello All,
    Thanks for contributing all of your experience and expertise to this particular thread. I actually pre-ordered this lens two weeks ago and am expecting wonderful things. I decided to go with this lens because I have found that none of my other lenses can capture moving subjects in low light as well as I would like. Yes, I use a d60 because it was in my price-point when I decided that I needed something nicer than a P&S to take pictures of my young son.
    The point is: I need the AF-S in order to keep up with the unpredictability of a 14 m/o child. I already have to move around in order to keep up, so I don't mind moving to get into position for a good shot. Many of the pictures that I have taken previously were with a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and I found that the faster aperture helped to produce a better quality image. However, many of the shots were blury due to focus error on my part. I always use the manual setting because that's how one learns to shoot in the first place, but it's hard to get everything right on the fly all the time with moving kids in the shot.
    Am I a professional? - No. Am I an amateur? - maybe, but I certainly believe that I am not thinking like one. We all deserve quality, and the AF-S DX 35mm F/1.8G lens is going to be a great tool for my use.
    Thanks for being patient, I hope to learn a lot from the experience!
    - RW
     
  156. I agree with the others: if it was FX with D40/D60 compatibility, I'd buy it. Please, Nikon, don't make me buy the Zeiss 35mm =)
     

Share This Page