Nikon AF-S DX-NIKKOR 35mm f/1,8G

mmene · May 7, 2009

Any comments on new Nikon AF-S DX-NIKKOR 35mm f/1,8G from users ?

seismiccwave · May 7, 2009

Very good lens.

Two23 · May 7, 2009

I tried it side by side on a D300 to a Sigma 30mm f1.4. (Sigma bought used for $255.) I returned the 35mm f1.8G and kept the 30mm f1.4. It's a better lens in every way.

Kent in SD

penwaggener · May 7, 2009

I've been very pleased with it.

photo5 · May 7, 2009

Let's see, the Nikon sells for $199, the Sigma sells for $439, more than twice the price. I doubt the Sigma is twice as good. My verdict, the Nikon wins!

epp_b · May 7, 2009

Great lens, sharp and very usable wide open. Perfect standard FOV prime for DX digital.

Matt Laur · May 7, 2009

I don't know, Dave. That's not how it works. It's not that the Sigma is necessarily twice as good, because they are very different lenses. It's certainly going to give you a much nicer bokeh, less CA and distortion, and feels a lot more solid. But it's not about a linear relationship between the price and a particular specification. The real question is: over the useful lifetime of the lens, minus whatever you can get back from having sold it later, will what the more expensive lens does for you be worth a couple hundred dollars? I use the Sigma, as well as various Nikon primes and zooms. I've sold a fair amount of work that I recorded using the Sigma. Leaving aside for a moment that it's a bit faster and a bit wider, it's the look of the output that matters to me - and you don't buy either of those lenses so that you can use it at f/8 all the time. An 18-55 kit lens, at f/8, is going to - in practical terms for most people who would consider an inexpensive prime lens - look just as good at 35mm as the 35/1.8. Truly, it will. So, the way to compare those two lenses isn't on price, but on results, as seen over years of use, putting the lens to work at the margins of its abilities. I've used mine for three years now, and will certainly use it for more (it's fantastic on a D300). So, we're talking about - per year - the cost of a bucket of fried chicken, at most, separating those two lenses. And yet, I've sold many hundreds of dollars worth of prints that started their lives in that lens, and I'm comfortable saying that at least some of them simply wouldn't have worked out as well with the new 35/1.8. Many would be indistingsuishable, of course. It's apples/oranges, here, to be sure. I would definitely stay away from comparing price directly to performance. With lenses, small improvements come at high prices. Big improvements come at very big prices. The only thing that matters is how your personal needs or ability to notice and care about the subtle differences stack up against your budget. At these lower prices, it's easy for me. At 300mm, for example, the difference between an f/4 and f/2.8 takes on enormously different financial consequences.

photo5 · May 7, 2009

Matt, please provide photos to back up your claims. I can't imagine paying twice as much for a Sigma, and I don't need f1.4.

Matt Laur · May 7, 2009

The only claim I'm making, Dave, is that a lens doesn't have to be "twice as good" to be worth $200 more, for some photographers. The very fact that you don't shoot at f/1.4 is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't, I sometimes do. It's a different lens, and you can't say that one is twice as good as the other, since you can't realistically compare them. If you do shoot fairly wide open on a regular basis, and care about the bokeh, then you should take a look at as many of the reviews out there as possible. That will help you to judge whether the harsher artifacts in the 35/1.8's out of focus areas (rings, double lines, etc) matter at all for a given style of shooting or subject matter. If they don't, they simply don't, and that's that. The difference in barrel distortion, likewise, may be completely insignificant for certain kinds of shooting. But again: it's not about whether it's "twice" as expensive. It's more about whether it's worth an extra $0.70 per week for the 30/1.4, presuming that at the end of five years of use, you were to throw away whichever of the two you buy (which would be silly - you'd keep it longer, making the price difference even less meaningful - and even less still if you were to sell it down the road). Note that I would be making exactly the same argument in favor of Nikon's 70-200/2.8 over a less expensive one from Sigma, for many users. If you shoot with such a zoom lens every day, is it worth another $0.40 a day to have that Nikon? Yes. And that's assuming that such a serious lens wouldn't make it past 5 years... which, of course, it would.

eric_arnold · May 7, 2009

sorry dave, but i'm with Mr. Laur on this one. the sigma has better build, faster AF, a wider max aperture and better bokeh. for its price, the nikon is a good deal, and if you're happier with that, then go for it.

mmene · May 7, 2009

Thank for your advises. I have to mention that I already own 50/1.8DX and 17-55/2.8 But i have heard to much complements for this new Nikon, so I try to discover if there is some reason to buy this prime, because it is very light also, for my D300. Do you think so?

photo5 · May 7, 2009

I'll take a Nikon over a Sigma any day of the week, but that's just me. I didn't know folks here considered the new Nikon 35mm DX lens such a dog.

peter_n1664876959 · May 7, 2009

Its not a dog, it is good value for money. Michael I got mine to have something light to put on the cam instead of the usual 17-55/2.8. For street shooting it is perfect at 52mm equiv. FL.

Two23 · May 7, 2009

Dave-- I paid $255 for the Sigma 30mm f1.4. There was one for sale recently on e Bay as Buy It Now for $300. It does NOT cost twice as much if you shop. There are no used Nikon 35mm f1.8G lenses out there. If you buy a new one, you will lose some $$ when you go to resell. By buying a used Sigma I will most likely get what I paid for it when I resell. The way I looked at it, holding both lenses in my hands and using them for several days, the Nikon is a consumer grade lens and the Sigma is definitely pro grade. The NIkon has a bit more distortion, and noticeably more CA. The Sigma is a bit wider angle, cleaner, and faster. I'm a night photographer and love to shoot in Dakota blizzards. I need something that can withstand those conditions. The Sigma 30mm was clearly the winner for me, every way I looked at it. It's not that the 35mm f1.8G is a "dog," it's just that it's a consumer grade lens and very clearly outclassed by the pro grade 30mm f1.4. Micheal--I have the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and shoot a D300. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 balances perfectly on the D300, and it matches the quality feel of the 17-55mm. The 35mm f1.8G clearly does not. I bought the 30mm f1.4 not for something smaller, but because as a low light/night photographer I need the speed! And f1.4 is faster than f1.8, period.

Kent in SD

Matt Laur · May 7, 2009

Dave: who said dog? It's a pretty good lens for $200. AF-S, fast, sharp. It's not trying to be anything other than that. It's sort of like the classic 50/1.8, just aimed at the DX users, and it's got AF-S for the folks who are using D40/D60/D5000 bodies, or who don't want to hear the mechanical focus noise of the older 35/2 on cameras that do have screw drives. That's not a dog, it just is what it is. That doesn't make the extra $200 poorly spent, if a more expensive lens happens to have something you need or want. It's not a contest between two lenses! They're different animals, aimed at different users, that's all. Those two lenses are both good for what they each cost. I'll take a Nikon over a Sigma any day of the week Which 30/1.4 AF-S Nikon did you have in mind, exactly? They weren't making one when I bought the Sigma, and they're still not making one. Nikon has recently released a 50/1.4 AF-S, and it's within a few dollars of the competing Sigma 50/1.4 HSM. The Sigma is the better lens (if you don't mind the extra glass weight/size in exchange for what it delivers - it's a subjective trade off). But as I mentioned, there are Sigma lenses I would not purchase in place of most Nikon products. The difference between us, perhaps, is that I just don't care who makes the lens - I care what it does and what it costs, relative to what it does. That's what drives the decision making. I spent two hours shooting a project today. With Nikon's 70-200/2.8, with Nikon's 60mm Micro, and with the Sigma 30/1.4 in question. For what I shot today, Nikon's 35/1.8 would have done just fine in place of the Sigma, no problem. But I shot some stuff last week where there were a lot of bright, reflective objects in the background, and the 35/1.8's crunchy bokeh would have been distracting. $200 more distracting? A matter of taste and priorities.

eric_arnold · May 7, 2009

uh oh, dave, now you've done it. you maybe should have researched the sigma's build quality vs. the nikon before you opened up the flamethrower. it's interesting, though, to hear the usual argument against 3rd party lenses flipped in reverse. usually what i hear is the nikon has better build quality, that's why it's more expensive. IQ for many 3rd party lenses these days is comparable and in some cases better--though the optical formula is tweaked a bit differently for each lens--and Sigma does know what they're doing as far as making prime lenses.

i'd take almost any sigma EX lens over almost any consumer-grade nikon, and as Matt and Kent have pointed out, the 30/1.4 delivers in low-light situations and in bokeh situations. if you're stopping down a fast aperture lens to anything below f/4, you probably dont need a fast aperture lens in the first place.

not to say the 35/1.8 is a dog, however. for what it is it's a smart addition to a lot of kits. and at that price, no one can complain.

mmene · May 7, 2009

Dear friends, as far as I can trust photozone . 1) “ The lens shows barrel distortions at around 1.7%, certainly more than one would expect from a prime lens in this focal range”, same comment and test for both lenses.

<h4>Vignetting</h4>

2) Dedicated DX lenses usually suffer from higher vignetting (compared to FX glass on the same camera) and one would especially expect this behaviour from a fast lens. However, the AF-S DX 35 wide open only shows moderate vignetting which is reduced to a not field relevant level by f/4 and beyond. 3) The Sigma shows a fairly unusual vignetting characteristic (which also showed up in the test of the Canon variant of the lens) - normally the vignetting curve is logarithmic (steep drop in the beginning followed by moderate fading) whereas the curve of the Sigma shows a quite linear behavior. This isn't really favorable because it takes a couple of f-stops till the vignetting reaches really low values. At wide-open aperture the issue is quite pronounced (1EV) and even at f/2.8 it is not much better. The vignetting is no longer field-relevant from about f/5.6. Vignetting is not disturbing in all situations but other lenses perform better here.

<h4>MTF (resolution)</h4>

4) Sigma is a little bit better in the centre but worst in the borders.

<h4>Chromatic Aberrations (CAs)</h4>

5) Sigma . The degree of lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) is acceptable for a 30mm lens but nothing to rave about either. CAs with an average width around ~1.2px at the image borders can be visible at times. 6)  Nikon. Chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are moderate wide open, but rather high for the rest of the aperture range. This is a somewhat disappointing behaviour, however lateral CAs (unlike LoCAs, see below) can easily corrected in post processing and most newer Nikon DSLRs already do this on their own (as well as most of the current RAW converters). If you compare the measurements Nikon is better at f1.8 and almost the same at f/2. 8-4. Finally Sigma is a bit better at f/5.6-8.

So I prefer Nikon by any way.

mmene · May 7, 2009

Visit

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/145-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-dc-pentax-k-review--test-report?start=1

mmene · May 7, 2009

Dear friends, as far as I can trust photozone . 1) “ The lens shows barrel distortions at around 1.7%, certainly more than one would expect from a prime lens in this focal range”, same comment and test for both lenses.

<h4>Vignetting</h4>

2) Dedicated DX lenses usually suffer from higher vignetting (compared to FX glass on the same camera) and one would especially expect this behaviour from a fast lens. However, the AF-S DX 35 wide open only shows moderate vignetting which is reduced to a not field relevant level by f/4 and beyond. 3) The Sigma shows a fairly unusual vignetting characteristic (which also showed up in the test of the Canon variant of the lens) - normally the vignetting curve is logarithmic (steep drop in the beginning followed by moderate fading) whereas the curve of the Sigma shows a quite linear behavior. This isn't really favorable because it takes a couple of f-stops till the vignetting reaches really low values. At wide-open aperture the issue is quite pronounced (1EV) and even at f/2.8 it is not much better. The vignetting is no longer field-relevant from about f/5.6. Vignetting is not disturbing in all situations but other lenses perform better here.

<h4>MTF (resolution)</h4>

4) Sigma is a little bit better in the centre but worst in the borders.

<h4>Chromatic Aberrations (CAs)</h4>

5) Sigma . The degree of lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) is acceptable for a 30mm lens but nothing to rave about either. CAs with an average width around ~1.2px at the image borders can be visible at times. 6)  Nikon. Chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are moderate wide open, but rather high for the rest of the aperture range. This is a somewhat disappointing behaviour, however lateral CAs (unlike LoCAs, see below) can easily corrected in post processing and most newer Nikon DSLRs already do this on their own (as well as most of the current RAW converters). If you compare the measurements Nikon is better at f1.8 and almost the same at f/2. 8-4. Finally Sigma is a bit better at f/5.6-8.

So I prefer Nikon by any way.

mmene · May 7, 2009

Visit for Sigma http://www.photozone.de/pentax/145-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-dc-pentax-k-review--test-report?start=1

Matt Laur · May 7, 2009

Michael: What you're not mentioning in the comparison you cite is: 1) Physical build. You really need to handle both lenses to understand why that might be important. The very thing that makes me like the Sigma's physical build may annoy other people: it's stouter and heavier. To me, it feels a lot more pleasant than something smaller and lighter. It lends itself to a steady hold, and it comes across as a lot more rugged (mine has seen a lot of knocking around - doing great). If you handle both lenses, any thougths about CA or distortion or sharpness at f/4 vs f/5.6 may take a back seat to simply liking, or not, one or the other lens as an object in your hands. 2) Bokeh. This is where the two are very, very subjectively different. Surf around for some examples. If that stuff matters to you (and you know who you are) then that's the end of the discussion, right there. If it simply doesn't matter, then... it doesn't matter, and if #1 doesn't either, then - presto! Save a couple hundred.

jbm · May 7, 2009

I own the Nikon and I have not shot with the Sigma. I bought the Nikon instead as I plan eventually to upgrade to a full frame machine and did not want to spend a fortune on a normal perspective lens that would not translate. The 35 is a great little lens but the OOF areas are a bit harsh. It is optimized to be sharpest between 2.8-5.6...beyond 5.6 it suffers a bit from diffraction. In practical shooting I do not notice a ton of this except for the chromatic aberration present in OOF areas, which is very high and almost beyond the ability of capture NX2 to correct. Here are some sample photos:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8858535">http://www.photo.net/photo/8858535</a>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8853311">http://www.photo.net/photo/8853311</a>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8853219">http://www.photo.net/photo/8853219</a>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8852933">http://www.photo.net/photo/8852933</a>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8752914">http://www.photo.net/photo/8752914</a>

I love shooting it at F2.2 to f4. I think if I were staying with DX long term I would get the Sigma. Good luck!

Cheers,

Jay

photo5 · May 7, 2009

It's funny how some people run around proclaiming how great the bokeh is on some lens. You belong in the Leica forum. Their lenses, from what I understand, have the best bokeh of all. For me image quality wins. And I place a lot of faith in the name "NIKON" and would buy their lenses before any other brand, period. Nikon wins for me because their lens outperforms the Sigma at half the price (we're not talking an ebay auction price, we're talking retail new with factory warranty). And I still don't need f1.4. I know Sigma makes good lenses, but you pay a premium for f1.4, and f1.4 doesn't mean better optics, it means *faster* optics. Faster doesn't equal better in most cases. I'll take the Nikon any day of the week.

mmene · May 7, 2009

Dear Matt,

I already mentioned that I own 17-55/2.8 and you must know that I own 70-200/1.8 also. So I know what do you mean saying "If you handle both lenses...". But I want just a light and very good lens.

You are right about bokeh but with the use of PS that's a minor problem.

eric_arnold · May 7, 2009

"I know Sigma makes good lenses, but you pay a premium for f1.4, and f1.4 doesn't mean better optics, it means *faster* optics. Faster doesn't equal better in most cases."

i can agree with that. but it also doesn't mean worse in most cases. if you don't need 1.4, don't get a 1.4. if bokeh isn't high on your list, don't get the sigma. and if the plastic mount on the nikon breaks, you can always buy another for two bills.

IMO, the nikon is a very affordable lens which delivers reasonably high performance for the price. the sigma is better optically in some ways, maybe not so much in others. it has more intangibles such as build quality, faster aperture, and better OoF rendering which you won't find on a $200 lens, no matter who makes it.for some people that's worth it. for others, maybe not so much.

ultimately, though, who cares? they're both good lenses and both worth their price. are there better primes in that focal range? yes. are they more expensive? yes. personally, i'm happy that there is a choice in the normal fast prime field.

Sign In

Nikon AF-S DX-NIKKOR 35mm f/1,8G

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in