New Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX Lens Announced:

<p>http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/0209_nikkor_01.htm</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>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.</p>

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.

<p><img src="http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_freak.gif" alt="" width="16" height="16" /></p>

<p>Why isn't it an FX lens?</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>waste of time and money on Nikon's part, IMO.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<P>

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.

</P>

<p>DX. You must be kidding. Tell me it`s somebody`s typo. please.<br>

Or maybe there is a FX 35 1.4 behind it. You all heard it here first.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Well, it's about dang time!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>>> "the 35mm f/1.4 will make a lot of amateurs and hobbyists happy."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"That's crazy. Why not just make it an FX? Make it a 35mm f/1.4 FX and I'd be interested."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 :)</p>

<p>I bet that this lens will be a better performer on a D300 than the 50AFS on a D700.</p>

<p>I wonder why to be stucked to 35mm... for a DX lens makes more sense to me a 30mm focal lenght.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>Would this work on my my Pronea S without corner shading?</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>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.<br>

The MSRP is nice though, that is, if it ships anytime soon...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The bokeh in the sample image from the Nikon site looks ok. Hard to compare with just that one shot to go on though!<br>

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_35mmf_18g/img/sample_l.jpg</p>

 

<p>Nice, but even a Nikon nut as myself struggles to justify this over Sigma's 30/1.4</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>