Jump to content

Nikon 35/2.0 on FF?


RaymondC

Recommended Posts

<p>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. </p>

<p>Could be a way to dispose the 35 DX for the FF version?</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

<p>FWIW: The 35mm f1.8 DX actually barely vignettes on a full frame camera.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW: The 35mm f1.8 DX actually barely vignettes on a full frame camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 ....</p>

<p>The I start to think about:<br /> 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. <br /> 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.</p>

<p>Also the size and weight have gone up. Many of the 35mm SLRs might even be approaching medium format film sizes.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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:</p>

<ul>

<li>The <strong>35mm f/2D</strong> 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.</li>

<li>The <strong>50 f/1.8D</strong> 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.</li>

<li>The <strong>85 f/1.8D</strong>.... 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.</li>

</ul>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

<em>(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)</em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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. </p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>If you'd like to have a look at the full-resolution file, it's here:<br>

http://www.presquevu.com/daniel.jpg</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.<br>

Below is an example - taken with "only" the D700 I'm afraid, but it works great with the D800 too.</p><div>00bt8x-541760984.jpg.2128577b51df82ae0226b2556e5a28e5.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, about the same IQ as somebody smearing petroleum jelly around the edges for that <em>'dreamy vignette look</em>'...Some (not me) call that <strong><em>art</em></strong>!...:-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p><div>00btAR-541761884.jpg.0d2830ca6c6da930f3c9b5e3f208748f.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.<br>

I really wish someone would make a 35mm f/2 or f/2.8 that was sharp wide open across the frame.<br>

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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I guess I am blind, so please ignore these sample shots which show that the 35mm f2 is sharp wide open.</p>

<p>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.</p><div>00btI1-541773384.jpg.b02dab4f967a2d64f7812de0781716c9.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...