Nikon 35/2.0 on FF?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by raymondc, Aug 5, 2013.

  1. I have a 35/1.8 DX on my D70 but now I have a FF. How is this 35/2.0 these days? I know some people say it might even be poor. I might enjoy primes, the 35/1.4G is heaps more expensive and larger. It's not a compact lens anymore.
    Could be a way to dispose the 35 DX for the FF version?
    Cheers.
     
  2. I am happy with mine. I had both briefly before I sold the DX copy and had a chance to test them against each other. IQ was very, very close between the two after post processing.
    FWIW: The 35mm f1.8 DX actually barely vignettes on a full frame camera.
     
  3. Cheers I might try it out on FF then :)
    For portraiture maybe the vignette is ok, correctable in post? Or it adds a bit of dimension to it.
     
  4. Ray, you probably don't want to use a 35mm lens on FF for portraiture. Remember that the angle of view is 1.5 times wider than with DX, so a 35mm lens is a moderate wideangle on FF.
    Nicer focal lengths for (formal) portraiture on FF are from 85mm up to 135mm, with 105mm being favoured by many people. I'm not counting street photography as portraiture here, BTW. That sounded contentious, but it wasn't meant to be. I just wanted to make the distinction between street snapping and studio style portraits.
     
  5. Rodeo - I have a 50 and 85 primes also :) I was thinking of say group shots or full height on the 35? But I'll give it a go on FF today and see. Hopefully it won't be in a reduced DX mode.
     
  6. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    FWIW: The 35mm f1.8 DX actually barely vignettes on a full frame camera.​
    It is strange that some people like to post such misleading information to forums. See this old discussion and the image samples I posted: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VLHs
    But even that is not the entire problem. The quality of the image circle from DX lenses become quite poor outside of the DX area. Therefore, even though such DX lenses can project some sort of image on most of the FX frame, outside of the DX area near the edges of the FX frame, the quality of the image is so poor that you have to have very low quality requirements to find that acceptable.
    If you want a good 35mm lens on FX, try the Sigma 35mm/f1.4, but that is both big and heavy for a 35mm lens.
     
  7. the sigma is expensive at $900 any alternatives? that's like a used Nikon 17-55 or 28-70. 35/2?
     
  8. Shun//s samples clearly show how little the lens vignettes in comparison to typical DX lenses which typically cannot be used at all in FX mode on an FX body. With simple post processing, the images are actually quite usable except for the extreme corners as most of the vignetting is quite easy to correct with programs like Photoshop or DXO. But, in any case, I certainly was not recommending using the 35mm DX over the 35mm FX for an FX body - I did after all sell my DX lens and made that quite clear. But the DX version certainly can be used if you had to and for certain print sizes, like an 8 x 10, the corners are cropped out anyway. I guess in hindsight, I should not have made that comment. It certainly was not my intention to insinuate in any way that the DX version was a good choice for use on FX.
     
  9. The 35mm f2 AFD on full frame - poor wide open, especially at the edges; stopped down to f8 it's sharp all over (OK the corners are not quite up to the centre, but they're useable). If you want to use the lens at wide apertures, there are better options - but stopped down it's fine.
     
  10. What your people's view on the 50 and 85 1.8 AFD wide open? The point of a prime for me is to shoot it wide open or close to it.
    RE: the 35/2 so that means it gets expensive v quickly. The Sigma 35/1.4 is $899 from memory and the 35/1.4G is $1,499 or something, pretty dang more expensive than what they used to cost in the film days. But maybe more people with digital tech gratification are more willing to spend their money ....
    The I start to think about:
    While you have all these excellence in optics that comes with the same excellence in price tags is it needed when the end result is a print.
    Also that, while on DX format, there are few cheap gems like the 35mm DX and the 40mm Macro, the rest are more/less just as expensive as the FF cousins. Maybe an option is to shoot DX body and use these less than satisfactory lenses. The person could save money on the body and not everyone shoots rock concerts or night time sports.
    Also the size and weight have gone up. Many of the 35mm SLRs might even be approaching medium format film sizes.
     
  11. Ray, I got all lenses you ask about... and frankly, they're all three among my least used lenses. This is my view on them:
    • The 35mm f/2D is pretty poor wide open, at f/2.8 it's decent, from f/4 on it's really sharp on my D700 (and D300); it's a good landscape lens. But my single most used lens is another 35mm prime, and I guess that says enough (love the focal length on FF). I keep it as the AF sometimes comes in handy.
    • The 50 f/1.8D is really poor wide open, sharpens up a lot around f/2.8 and from there on gets extremely sharp. The 50mm f/1.8G is miles and miles better, in my view - feels better made too. Well worth the extra money. I still have the 50mm f/1.8D because its resale value is too low to bother with it.
    • The 85 f/1.8D.... poor wide open. Sharpens up around f/2.5, and gets impeccable sharp stopped down. I really like it as a landscape lens... and well, most people buy fast 85mm as portrait lenses ;-) It's not a bad lens, but it simply isn't great either. The new 85 f/1.8G looks a lot more attractive; if I'd have a use for it, I'd get that lens and sell the f/1.8D. But I use 85mm too little to do so, so I keep it for the times I want an AF lens instead.
    You are right that the excellent nowadays optics that do better are a lot more expensive. The only lens I have that qualifies as such is the 24-120 f/4VR... otherwise, I prefer the older primes, which have optical inconsistencies and oddities - 'character'; I know it's not a choice for everybody, but they tend to be cheaper, they tend to be smaller and better built. Simply put: for the same money, I have faster lenses, but no AF.
    The AF-D primes just seem to fall in between: they lack the build quality, character and pictorial qualities of the older primes, and they lack the optical vastly improved performance of the newer lenses.
    (for the record, my go-to lenses for the 3 you mention are: AiS 35mm f/1.4, AiS 50mm f/1.2, AiS 105mm f/2.5 - prefer their quirks and character a lot; apart from the 105 f/2.5, they're not exactly the cheapest either, though still cheaper than what the new lenses cost)
     
  12. I rented a D800 the other day, and when I picked it up, for fun I threw my 35/2.0 AIS on the front of it. I didn't have a lot of time to play with that combo, but I popped off a shot of a mate of mine at full aperture.
    The depth of field with the D800 and that lens at F2 is *razor* thin. That said, in the centre of the frame the bits that were in focus were quite sharp. I'm sure that combination won't satisfy pixel-peepers in all parts of the field, but depending on your planned use for it, it could actually be very interesting. I'd certainly like to go out and do a bit of street shooting with it!
    If you'd like to have a look at the full-resolution file, it's here:
    http://www.presquevu.com/daniel.jpg
     
  13. Note: Sorry, you may have to wait a few moments for the file. I thought I'd uploaded it already--but I hadn't. Taking care of that now.
     
  14. Small, light and unobtrusive it ain't, but if you can live with MF only and with an impressive and weighty piece of glass on the front of your camera, you won't beat Samyang's 35mm f/1.4 lens for IQ at the price. It's fully useable wide open and stopped down becomes incredibly sharp and contrasty, with good resistance to flare.
    Below is an example - taken with "only" the D700 I'm afraid, but it works great with the D800 too.
    00bt8x-541760984.jpg
     
  15. If you shoot wide open, don't bother with the 50 1.8D & 85 1.8D. 50 1.8D is very soft wide open and the 85 1.8D has very pronounced "purple fringing." Sold both and replaced them with Sigma 50 and 85 1.4's. I also have Sigmas 150 2.8macro and 35 1.4. Sigma 35's sharpness is top notch. It is as sharp as the macro 150 2.8.
     
  16. outside of the DX area near the edges of the FX frame, the quality of the image is so poor that you have to have very low quality requirements to find that acceptable.​
    Shun, about the same IQ as somebody smearing petroleum jelly around the edges for that 'dreamy vignette look'...Some (not me) call that art!...:)
     
  17. I've been using primes since the 60's and I still use most of them now on digital, like Wouter. The 50mm and 35mm fast primes can be sharp, but often (or maybe always) suffer from some spherical aberration I believe, at their widest f-stops. This gives the image, like Bernard demonstrated, a "razor thin" depth of focus, and typically the rest of the image has a soft, gauzy sort of feel. I often use my 50mm AF (on DX) for portraits at about f 2.5, which nicely softens the background and is sharp on the face. I use the 105 f 2.5 at 2.5 to f4 for portraits. I have a 35mm f 2.0 AF which seems pretty sharp wide open, but does have those gauzy qualities and I typically stop down to at least 2.8 or 4 for a portrait. You certainly use any focal length lens for portraits, but it all depends on how close you are to the subject. I can give a couple examples of portraits using DX format and the 35mm f 2.0 AF lens.
    00btAR-541761884.jpg
     
  18. Here's one a bit closer and does have some distortion in the subject's face, which was done intentionally.
    00btAV-541761984.jpg
     
  19. I would like to see a FF 35mm/1.8AFS-G updated lens, but I would probably just get the 28/1.8G anyway and crop a little if needed for a shot. Have had several 35/2 AFD lenses, was never totally happy with them, sold them and kept an AIS manual version. As others have mentioned, the AF 35/2 is good stopped down, but then why bother, just carry a zoom.
     
  20. " AF 35/2 is good stopped down, but then why bother, just carry a zoom"

    Because it is small, weighs practically nothing, is extremely low in cost and you can shoot at f2 if you need to!
     
  21. I'm just curious, is there a good 35mm Nikon lens for a FF? Including MF? Its my favorite focal length for what I do most and it would be nice to not have to heft around a zoom to cover the range.
     
  22. The Sigma 35 is a great lens. It's just huge. The Nikon 35/1.4G is a bit smaller and a lot more expensive. The AF Nikon 35/2.0 is cheap and tiny, but not as sharp.
     
  23. lwg

    lwg

    On the D800 the 35mm f/2 AFD is poor in the corners, even stopped down. I really should sell mine. The Sigma is much larger, but it balances nicely on the D800. It's optically excellent, and now that I have the USB Dock and tuned it, it can even autofocus ;-) So it's really a $960 lens, and you need to put some time into making it work.
    I really wish someone would make a 35mm f/2 or f/2.8 that was sharp wide open across the frame.
    The 35mm f/2 AFD works much better if you put the camera in 4x5 mode, and that is how I was shooting mine before I got the sigma.
     
  24. lwg

    lwg

    Oh, and I think the people who say the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens works on FF must be blind. While it will send light over the whole frame, the edges and corners are terrible. It's almost like a Holga effect. Which is fine if you want a poor quality image.
     
  25. I guess I am blind, so please ignore these sample shots which show that the 35mm f2 is sharp wide open.
    As I typically print 8 x 10s, my corners are generally cut off from Nikon's sensors. Even more interestingly, the full size frame used on P.net also requires the corners to get cut off (if you post actual size, the proportions of the full image need to be reduced in height slightly, which most posters choose not to do. In any case, the corners are the last area I look at in a photo. And typically, unless you are shooting a flat surface that is pretty much perpendicular to the camera, they are usually OOF anyway.
    00btI1-541773384.jpg
     
  26. 2nd shot
    00btI3-541773584.jpg
     
  27. 3rd shot
    00btI5-541773684.jpg
     
  28. The above images were taken with a D800, on a tripod, using bounce flash from a SB-900. While DOF changes, sharpness at the focus point does not.
    These three images are unprocessed and simply opened and cropped in Photoshop.
    I have done comparison shots against my 24-70mm and the 35mm f2 holds its own. Again, given its size, weight and cost, I think it is a good choice when size and weight are a concern.
    I did not examine the corners, and will not be posting crops from them, sorry. Due to the lenses narrow DOF, they would be OOF anyway. I will leave that task for another day!
    The full frame is posted in these weeks Nikon Wednesday thread for anyone interested.
     
  29. is there a good 35mm Nikon lens for a FF​
    Barry, there are plenty, in fact.
    With AF, there are the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G Nikon and Sigma's new 35mm f/1.4. Without AF, the Zeiss 35mm f/2, Samyang 35mm f/1.4. Plus quite some of the older AI/AIS primes who still are more than decent.
    Plenty of good choice, but a cheaper, smaller, true FX, slower 35mm from Nikon with AF would make a good replacement. But since the 28 f/1.8G already came out, I wouldn't expect such a lens at very short notice.
     
  30. Thanks Wouter. I will look at the 35mm f/1.4 G and the Zeiss, which I didn't even think about. Also, there are some really good condition (meaning exc +) samples of the 1.4 AIS at KEH at a reasonable price.
     
  31. lwg

    lwg

    Elliot, nice shots. I don't think you are blind. If your comment was in response to my comment on people being blind, note I was referring the 35mm DX lens. As you have shown the f/2 can be a very good lens, and as you state most of the time it doesn't matter much if the corners are sharp; but it does sometimes.
     
  32. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Elliot, those flower image samples do not seem to be pixel-level crops. I am attaching the image you posted to the Wednesday image thread. Your "crops" occupy a fairly large area in the frame, which is 700x500 and therefore is not 3:2 so that you must have cropped that as well.
    I, for one, would not evaluate sharpness with a small JPEG image. A subject that is not flat makes it even more deceptive.
    00btKs-541779484.jpg
     
  33. Barry, as much as I love the AiS 35mm f/1.4, it's not a lens I'd recommend without caution - its performance at f/1.4 and f/2 is a bit a rollercoaster-ride of optical quirks. Incredibly charming at times, but certainly nothing like the much better corrected newer lenses as the f/1.4G, Sigma or Zeiss.
    By the way, there is also a Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2, but I have never read any serious tests of it, no idea how it performs.
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  35. If you shoot wide open, don't bother with the 50 1.8D & 85 1.8D. 50 1.8D is very soft wide open and the 85 1.8D has very pronounced "purple fringing​
    Very True. I have used all these lenses and I have found same results. Don't waste your time on these lenses. Even though they are fast, small, lightweight, if the results are not acceptable up to my standard, then i won't use.
    For 50mm that will AF, I haven't seen any good lenses. even Sigma. It's sharp on center, but poor at edge.
    For 85mm, 85/1.8G and 85/1.4G are far much much better than their predecessors.
     
  36. To answer OP: 35/2.0D ? Forget about it.
     
  37. The point of a prime for me is to shoot it wide open or close to it.​
    same with me. If I want to use smaller than f/2.8 I would go with nikon trinity fast zooms. Heavier but I gain flexibility.
     
  38. lwg

    lwg

    The point of a prime for me is to shoot it wide open or close to it.
    same with me. If I want to use smaller than f/2.8 I would go with nikon trinity fast zooms. Heavier but I gain flexibility.​
    I do like to shoot primes wide open, when appropriate. But for me I find I see better with primes, which is the real reason I shoot them. My compositions tend to get sloppy with a zoom. I don't understand why, but I think I move my feet less when I have the convenience of the zoom.
     
  39. No matter how much I would crop those test images, the results are not going to change. My lens is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down at the AF point. In fact, I have done comparisons of it vs my 24-70mm and dare I say, it is pretty much as sharp as the 70-200mm at 35mm wide open, at the AF point. Perhaps I am lucky that I got a good copy but the bottom my lens is very sharp. Disclaimer: I am talking about center sharpness only and have not checked the corners.
    This is not a very popular lens for some reason but my copy certainly does not lack anything when it comes to IQ (shaprness, color, etc). Again, for a very low price (not sure what the current price is but I paid well under $200 a couple of years ago on ebay), you get a small, light, capable lens. Disclaimer:I am not recommending anyone buy it without trying it first - you should always decide for yourself.
    What I find amazing is that so many people here have owned bad copies of this lens and had to get rid of them because of what appears to be terrible IQ. I guess I got lucky!
     
  40. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    No offense Elliot, but you have a strong tendency to like lenses that are well known to be poor, such as the 18-200mm DX AF-S VR and first version of the 80-400 AF-D VR, just to name a few. You also suggested using the 35mm/f1.8 DX on FX earlier on this thread. Apparently your criteria are quite different.
     
  41. None taken, both the lenses you refer to are considered 'dogs' by most, but I always take the time to check lenses out myself to know first hand whether they can deliver what I want IQ wise. I hesitated for a long time prior to purchasing both those lenses because of the numerous negative remarks. But I decided to find out for sure by buying and testing them and both lenses proved to be better performers with regard to IQ than most give them credit for. I find most (but not all) negative comments are perpetuated by non-users/owners who have 'read' negative comments somewhere. I am sure if I looked, I could find negative comments about some of Nikon's better, much more expensive lenses.
    And to be clear, I DID NOT recommend the 35mm f1.8 for FX, I simply stated it didn't vignette a lot on FX. And for a DX lens, it really does not vignette a lot on FX. Most DX lenses simply are not usable on FX in FX mode.
    As a DXO user, I have always relied in it's lens softness correct feature for every lens I own, , so 'lesser' lenses such as the 18-200mm have always looked OK after post processing when printed in a typical size print (not posters). DXO is absolutely amazing software.
     
  42. I've got my back to the wall.
    Instead of a $300 lens it's now a $1000-1900 prime/zoom. The neat thing is it is affordable for an amateur and travel friendly when it gets darker strolling the streets. But even the trinity 24-70mm might be 6yr old now, in a few years it might get updated so could we ridicule this lens in that time or when it becomes the 2nd previous version.
     
  43. lwg

    lwg

    I just pulled my 35mm f/2 out and tested it against the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. At wider apertures it's as I remember it. The Nikon is noticeably less sharp and lower contrast. The corners are very soft, but with a 4x5 crop or the 1.2x crop the corners issue is eliminated. Once it's stopped down to f/8 or f/11 the lenses are much closer in image quality, with only the corners being significantly weaker on the Nikon.
    I have a trip coming up where I'm going to be trying to keep the pack weight down. Given how I usually shoot landscape images I think the 35mm f/2 may come along. The small size is a definite plus, and I usually do stop down to f/8 for more depth of field.
    If you shoot more stopped down then there really isn't much difference in the lenses. So maybe you could be very happy with the cheaper lens. Also, you can boost the contrast and sharpness in post processing, but of course it's better to have it right from the lens. If I was you I'd buy a used 35mm f/2, test it out, and sell it if you don't like it. After the ebay fees you probably won't be out more than $30, which is a pretty cheap rental fee (and you could make money on the deal - I usually come out about even or ahead if I'm not rushed).
     
  44. The DXO lens ratings for the f2 are surprisingly high - I expected, based on most of the comments, for it to be ranked quite low. In fact, it is very close in almost all its DXO ratings compared to the Nikon f1.4. The Sigma is ranked highest between the 3. The sharpness rating is probably the most interesting number there. Now I have a better understanding of the good results I get with it.
    The image below is reprinted with permission of DXO. You can see the full page of information here:
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...or/(camera2)/792/(brand3)/Sigma/(camera3)/792
    00btZF-541804584.jpg
     
  45. The 35mm AFD F2 is an excellent lens. Don't be afraid to get one. Along with its brother the 20mm AFD F2.8, it gets much unwarranted (in my opinion) negative publicity. It is capable of beautiful results in most any lighting situation. I use it with D700, D200, F4 and other non AF film Nikons, sometimes in place of 24-70 AFS F2.8 G lens. It is all in your ability to get the best results from your gear.
     
  46. Ray, of course there is a point where "Return on Investment" becomes a complicated matter. Sure, the 35 f/2 is a lot cheaper. It is small, light, it has AF - for its price is not too bad a deal BUT if you're looking for wide open performance, sorry, this is not the best lens. That's simply going to cost more. I know Shun and others think the lens performs poorly, but at f/2 and f/2.8, that AiS 35 f/1.4 is simply sharper than my 35mm f/2D to my eyes - and remains that up to f/8. But also that old MF lens costs more....
    A good alternative could be the older Ai or AiS 35mm f/2 lenses. They're available for very decent prices, and should make better performers than the AF-D lens.
     

Share This Page