Jump to content

Which 35mm lens for NIKON F6 and D610 ?


Jean-Claude

Recommended Posts

I own the Nikon 35mm AFD f2 which is very light to carry around but not of best contrast nor sharpness.

 

Anyone here to recommand a nice piece of glass to suit my Nikon F6 and D610. Preferably autofocus. I would like a lens where one sees a real difference, in real life, not on graphics. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Budget?

"Cheapest" solution: Nikon AF-S 35/1.8G

Expensive solution: Nikon AF-S 35/1.4G

In-between: Sigma 35/1.4 Art

With image stabilization: Tamron 35/1.8 VC

Thank you.

I read bad feedback for the Sigma due to front/back focus. Many users complain. What are your thoughts?

What about the Zeiss 35 mm f2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After spending a fair bit of time in the shop trying out several 35mm lenses on my D800, I ended up with the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC. It serves me well on my full frame digital bodies(D800, D600, D3s) and on late model film cameras(F5, F6, F100).

 

I was not impressed with the build quality of the Nikon AF-S f/1.8G, especially for the price, and the optical quality wasn't great either. The Sigma is dead sharp, but in my case I was buying it the day before I left to go on a trip, found that it front focused pretty badly, and there was no way I would have been able to get the dock in time to fine-tune the focus. It also weighs quite a bit.

 

Fast "normal" primes with stabilization are something of an anomaly, which is part of what initially attracted me to the Tamron. I've been quite happy with its optical quality, and for handheld available light photography stabilization makes up for the 1/2 stop speed loss over the Sigma. 24mp+ digital sensors are unforgiving when it comes to focus error and also really serve to illustrate that depth of field is something of a made-up idea-even though I have some f/1.4 lenses I find them to be of limited use at f/1.4 on high resolution sensors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had trouble with the 35mm Sigma Art, despite some efforts at tuning it on the dock. I've not reset everything yet for my D850; the D810 and D850 seem to be a bit better behaved than my D800 was, which could be luck or could be because they allegedly have some better internal calibration for different focal lengths. With live view, it's well-behaved; on the D800 I basically didn't trust it at all with the contrast-detect AF points, and have several widely out-of-focus images from a family wedding to prove it. On the plus side, you'd probably be much less able to tell on film than on the D610, and I may have been unlucky with either my 35mm or my D800's AF calibration.

 

If you don't mind bending your choice of specification slightly, the new 40mm Sigma Art seems to have stellar reviews in terms of maintaining edge-to-edge sharpness (the MTF chart is ridiculous in comparison with the 35mm). It's huge and expensive (though not as much as the 35mm Nikkor), though. I'm considering swapping my 35mm Sigma for that, although I'm still deciding whether my 50mm should go as well. I've not tried it myself yet. One word of warning: I don't know whether it's an "E-aperture" lens (I tried looking online and actually haven't found anything that says) - i.e. whether it has an aperture lever or just has electronic aperture control. The 85mm Sigma Art is E-aperture; the 35mm and 50mm aren't (unless I'm misremembering). The F6 won't control the aperture on an E-aperture lens, so if the 40mm is "E", that may rule it out for you unless you always want to shoot wide open.

 

It's been a while since I saw it reviewed (because I haven't looked), but the manual focus Samyang/Rokinon 35mm tended to get good reviews and is very cheap for what it is. I don't claim it's perfect - and you would have manual focus to deal with (but also live view, on the dSLR).

 

I've no experience of the Tamron, but I wouldn't vouch against it if f/1.8 is enough subject separation for you.

 

Good luck, whatever you choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 85mm Sigma Art is E-aperture; the 35mm and 50mm aren't

The 40mm is E, as are the 105, 135, 14, and 28. There appear to be two E zooms: 12-24 and 24-70 (the 14-24 ought to per Sigma's announcement but B&H's website doesn't list it as a feature). I can confirm that neither the 35 or 50 are (and also not the 24).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 40mm is E, as are the 105, 135, 14, and 28. There appear to be two E zooms: 12-24 and 24-70 (the 14-24 ought to per Sigma's announcement but B&H's website doesn't list it as a feature). I can confirm that neither the 35 or 50 are (and also not the 24).

 

Ah, thank you. I hoped someone knew. Okay, so much for that suggestion (until Nikon make an F7 to replace that F6 with!) :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try Dieter Schaefer's excellent suggestion of Tamron 35/1.8 VC first, and if for some reason you don 't like it backtrack from there to other possibilities. I wouldn't worry much over f/1.8 vs 1.4: its immaterial to exposure in these days of 6400 ISO being "common", and the subject isolation/bokeh difference vs 1.4 is highly dependent on whether that f/1.4 lens is actually functioning properly. The huge Sigma has gorgeous optics but iffy AF accuracy, the Nikkor AFS f/1.4 has a barrel made of Tupperware and isn't particularly quick at AF. The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AFS significantly improves on the old 35/2 AFD in test charts, but in actual photography its optics are dull as dishwater: more even sharpness and less CA than the AFD, but boring to my eye. And like the f/14 AFS, the build quality is laughable at the price asked: you'd swear Nikon deliberately sought out the cheapest tackiest plastic they could possibly find for their f/1.8 lineup, then inflated the barrels with helium.

 

The Zeiss manual focus lenses are incredible, providing a color/contrast "look" completely different from Nikkor. But they're very expensive for what they are, and manually focusing with most Nikon DSLRs is a nightmare (the finder screen doesn't really show accurate focus, and forget the green arrow focus indicator: it tends to front or back focus). My personal 35mm lenses are both old manual-focus Nikkors: 35mm f/2 Nikkor-OC and f/1.4 AIS. I've been shooting the 35/2 as my primary lens for so many years I can focus it blindfolded, but wouldn't recommend trying this if you've been weaned on the AFD.

 

I picked up the f/1.4 AIS after several people here fervently recommended its unique qualities: they were right, the lens is amazing (tho more fun today on digital than when I last tried it 25 years ago on film). Very compact for an f/1.4 (barely bigger than the f2 AFD), pin sharp like a Zeiss at f/4-f/8 yet wildly dreamy/painterly at f/1.4. Beautiful piece of glass, but eccentric/quirky- a lens you learn to love, but not necessarily a daily driver until you get the hang of it. For typical AF work, go for the nifty Tamron.

Edited by orsetto
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonsoir Orsetto!

 

I remember I wwrote you were a university teacher. You confirm tonight but I l also discover a language artist : "iffy AF", a "barrel made of Tupperware", "optics dull as dishwater", "inflate barrels with helium".

 

To be honest I studied at an interpreter school and enjoy your linguistic imagery:) One point for you. One more I should say.

 

To resume: paint and dream wildly with a 1.8 skiny lens, pin a sharp AF point and inflate your pictures with helium so they easily curl the wawes out to the world.

 

What else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try Dieter Schaefer's excellent suggestion of Tamron 35/1.8 VC first, and if for some reason you don 't like it backtrack from there to other possibilities. I wouldn't worry much over f/1.8 vs 1.4: its immaterial to exposure in these days of 6400 ISO being "common", and the subject isolation/bokeh difference vs 1.4 is highly dependent on whether that f/1.4 lens is actually functioning properly. The huge Sigma has gorgeous optics but iffy AF accuracy, the Nikkor AFS f/1.4 has a barrel made of Tupperware and isn't particularly quick at AF. The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AFS significantly improves on the old 35/2 AFD in test charts, but in actual photography its optics are dull as dishwater: more even sharpness and less CA than the AFD, but boring to my eye. And like the f/14 AFS, the build quality is laughable at the price asked: you'd swear Nikon deliberately sought out the cheapest tackiest plastic they could possibly find for their f/1.8 lineup, then inflated the barrels with helium.

 

The Zeiss manual focus lenses are incredible, providing a color/contrast "look" completely different from Nikkor. But they're very expensive for what they are, and manually focusing with most Nikon DSLRs is a nightmare (the finder screen doesn't really show accurate focus, and forget the green arrow focus indicator: it tends to front or back focus). My personal 35mm lenses are both old manual-focus Nikkors: 35mm f/2 Nikkor-OC and f/1.4 AIS. I've been shooting the 35/2 as my primary lens for so many years I can focus it blindfolded, but wouldn't recommend trying this if you've been weaned on the AFD.

 

I picked up the f/1.4 AIS after several people here fervently recommended its unique qualities: they were right, the lens is amazing (tho more fun today on digital than when I last tried it 25 years ago on film). Very compact for an f/1.4 (barely bigger than the f2 AFD), pin sharp like a Zeiss at f/4-f/8 yet wildly dreamy/painterly at f/1.4. Beautiful piece of glass, but eccentric/quirky- a lens you learn to love, but not necessarily a daily driver until you get the hang of it. For typical AF work, go for the nifty Tamron.

 

Reading about the Samyang 35mm and the 1.4 lenses and AF issues as you mention:

 

"Many lenses, including the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 are often improperly calibrated, which means that you could end up with out of focus pictures when trusting the camera’s manual focus assist feature. The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 that I had certainly had focus calibration problems, because I could not obtain any in-focus shots when using manual focus assist. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "my 35 + 50mm are gone"? Something wrong?Are you happy with your 24-35?

 

I believe Mike bit the bullet and did the trade that I'm considering: replacing both the 35mm and 50mm with the 40mm. It's a bit less flexible than the combination (I'd really like Sigma to update both the 35mm and 50mm to the image quality of the 40mm), but the 35mm and 50mm were very early in the Art series, and the 40mm is clearly a step up. The combined 35mm and 50mm price (at least in trade in) is similar to the 40mm. I'm a little hesitant because I use the 50mm a reasonable amount (and it happens to have the right filter thread for my LPR filter), but I do have a share of alternative 50mm lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading about the Samyang 35mm and the 1.4 lenses and AF issues as you mention:

 

"Many lenses, including the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 are often improperly calibrated, which means that you could end up with out of focus pictures when trusting the camera’s manual focus assist feature. The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 that I had certainly had focus calibration problems, because I could not obtain any in-focus shots when using manual focus assist. "

 

Since RJ (IIRC) educated me: technically the issue is the camera's focus calibration: the AF points aren't quite equidistant with the sensor, relative to the optical path involving the mirror. For a given rear nodal point, you can correct it (and that's what AF fine tune does); if I've understood, it's possible that the D810 and later allow for some movement during focus. The issue with the Sigma 35mm is, I believe, that the position of the rear nodal point moves significantly during focus (the same is true of the 80-200 AF-D), meaning that a single AF fine tune isn't enough to fix it; this is why the Sigma dock lets you tune at multiple focal lengths, but even with that I was struggling (and I'm not quite sure how the tuning in the lens affects things in the camera).

 

I'm not sure to what extent the Samyang has the same issue - you could certainly AF fine tune the dSLR body, but I suspect not the F6.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tamron announces the development of three lenses - two for full-frame DSLRs and one for full-frame mirrorless cameras:

for full-frame DSLR cameras—the 35-150mm F/2.8-4 Di VC OSD (Model A043) zoom lens and the SP 35mm F/1.4 Di USD (Model F045) fixed focal lens; and a new high-speed ultra wide-angle zoom lens for Sony E-mount full-frame mirrorless cameras—the 17-28mm F/2.8 Di III RXD (Model A046).

So, better wait a little either for a price drop for the old model (f1.8) or a new toy to play with, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The combined 35mm and 50mm price (at least in trade in) is similar to the 40mm

What kind of trade-in are you getting? The combined price of the 35 and 50 here in the States is $1850 - so I expect at best about $925 in trade-in (an actual quote from a major dealer in the US amounts to $760); the cost of the 40 new is $1400. Not exactly numbers that make me jump for joy:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets just say my Sigma 35mm + 50mm Art + £100 = Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art.

 

I was using the 35mm and 50mm to digitize flat copy ~ A3 sized on a copystand and on close inspection the edges were soft, esp on the 35mm, even at the sharpest aperture of 4/5.6.

 

Sigma A 35 mm f/1.4 DG HSM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Sigma A 50 mm f/1.4 DG HSM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

These graphs pretty much sum up what i can see with my images. The 50mm is better but nowhere near what I'm hoping for with...

 

Sigma A 40 mm f/1.4 DG HSM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

These are tested results not just manufacturers MTFs, so should be comparable between them.

 

I like my 24-35mm Art. It's not a huge zoom range but when the flexibility is needed, it's super sharp @ 5.6 at all focal lengths.

 

I'm also doing a lot of 3D-object (sculpture) focus stacking where DoF isn't an issue so the sharpest aperture can be used, which for the 40mm is f2.8/4.

 

It means you don't get any diffraction problems as you don't stop down the aperture to get the DoF needed, you just take more pix at different focused distances... and let the software sort it out....:cool:!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets just say my Sigma 35mm + 50mm Art + £100 = Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art.

Impressive - I assume your 40mm isn't from a UK dealer (since you mentioned it is being held up in customs)?

 

I was using the 35mm and 50mm to digitize flat copy ~ A3 sized on a copystand

Wouldn't a macro lens be more suitable for that kind of application? Though I would be hard pressed to come up with a macro lens that gives corner-to-corner sharpness in the focal length range that you appear to need for your copy stand. Seems to be quite a demanding application, so I can see why trading the 35 and 50 for the 40 makes sense for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Many lenses, including the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 are often improperly calibrated, which means that you could end up with out of focus pictures when trusting the camera’s manual focus assist feature. The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 that I had certainly had focus calibration problems, because I could not obtain any in-focus shots when using manual focus assist. "

 

AF lenses, even Nikon's own, can have accuracy problems with Nikon bodies. Optical lenses and electronic AF sensors are an uneasy marriage: sometimes the focus determination is not so good. Andrew Garrard mentioned the shifting rear nodal point issue, and theres the age-old issue of focus shift in some designs (focus changes as aperture stops down, Nikkor AFS 28mm f/1.8 for example). And of course non-Nikon lens mfrs like Sigma must reverse-engineer electronics protocols and firmware that may not always perfectly sync with Nikon body CPUs.

 

Another sneaky issue thats come up again in some recent tests of wide-aperture AF lenses is AF body sensors misinterpreting focus thru subtle lens aberrations. The lens can technically be in focus but the AF sensor is thrown off by a tiny optical aberration that skews the light frequencies it analyzes for focus data, resulting in misfocus (AF system mistakenly moves the lens away from true optimum focus).

 

With manual focus lenses like the Samyang, the above may or may not apply. Mostly because the finder focus screen isn't precise enough, and Nikon bodies switch their focus detection to a lower-resolution mode when non-AF lenses are attached. This makes the green arrow indicators a bit sloppy: the over-riding manual focus factor. Accuracy of the green dot varies with each manual lens: for some its close enough to pass, for others it consistently front or back focuses. I have no trouble with my MF 24mm and 35mm Nikkors, but my 20/3.5 AI and 28mm f/2 AIS are noticeably off. Similar reports have been posted re other lenses: this is one big reason us manual lens enthusiasts tend to own supplementary mirrorless cameras with EVF.

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive - I assume your 40mm isn't from a UK dealer (since you mentioned it is being held up in customs)?

Grey indeed!

 

Not sure if it's the ex-cine aspect of the newer Sigma 40mm but they seem to have gone overboard to get good edges with very little optical distortion.

 

Coma is also much better corrected than the 35mm or the 50mm. Smeared corners are not ideal!

 

For longer distance copywork, I use the truly awesome 135mm 1.8 ART.

 

Nikon's newer 60mm macro, just doesn't cut it..

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S Micro 60 mm f/2.8G ED review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S Micro 60 mm f/2.8G ED review - Chromatic aberration - LensTip.com..... reminds me of the 105mm VR...:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF lenses, even Nikon's own, can have accuracy problems with Nikon bodies. Optical lenses and electronic AF sensors are an uneasy marriage: sometimes the focus determination is not so good. Andrew Garrard mentioned the shifting rear nodal point issue, and theres the age-old issue of focus shift in some designs (focus changes as aperture stops down, Nikkor AFS 28mm f/1.8 for example). And of course non-Nikon lens mfrs like Sigma must reverse-engineer electronics protocols and firmware that may not always perfectly sync with Nikon body CPUs.

 

Another sneaky issue thats come up again in some recent tests of wide-aperture AF lenses is AF body sensors misinterpreting focus thru subtle lens aberrations. The lens can technically be in focus but the AF sensor is thrown off by a tiny optical aberration that skews the light frequencies it analyzes for focus data, resulting in misfocus (AF system mistakenly moves the lens away from true optimum focus).

 

With manual focus lenses like the Samyang, the above may or may not apply. Mostly because the finder focus screen isn't precise enough, and Nikon bodies switch their focus detection to a lower-resolution mode when non-AF lenses are attached. This makes the green arrow indicators a bit sloppy: the over-riding manual focus factor. Accuracy of the green dot varies with each manual lens: for some its close enough to pass, for others it consistently front or back focuses. I have no trouble with my MF 24mm and 35mm Nikkors, but my 20/3.5 AI and 28mm f/2 AIS are noticeably off. Similar reports have been posted re other lenses: this is one big reason us manual lens enthusiasts tend to own supplementary mirrorless cameras with EVF.

 

If I understand you right, to get a pin sharp image at f1.4 is a big lottery no matter the brand or the lens or the camera you use. Moreover, these f1.4 AF lenses are rather (very) heavy, bulky and (very) pricey. So, at the end, why buy one of these? I must miss something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, at the end, why buy one of these? I must miss something

In my case the simple fact is fast lenses ie 1.4s for short and 1.8s for long are better IQ wise in nearly every way compared to their slower, and much cheaper, siblings.

 

You pay for that IQ.

 

However, Nikon doesn't really follow this idea. For basic high resolution (which isn't everything I know) the 35, 50, and 85 1.4s aren't great sharpness wise and are not really better than their slower siblings.

 

Of course you are not just paying for sharpness and lots of other artistic factors come into play here.

 

For copy work, resolution and lack of aberrations is more important to me than bokeh etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, at the end, why buy one of these? I must miss something.

 

It depends how you look at it, and what your intent is when using a 1.4 lens. Someone like mike_halliwell, with a very specific task requiring near-perfect optical correction, may have very different expectations from someone shooting street or environmental portraits. For better and worse, premium lenses now compete strictly in the f/1.4 arena, so that is what we must choose from. Zeiss started it with Otus, Sigma followed on with Art, now everyone is pushing 1.4 for everything regardless of practicality. Does anyone (other than astrophotographers) frequently have a use case for a huge heavy 20mm f/1.4 vs a smaller equally corrected f/2.0 or even f/2.8? The death of dedicated camera photography among the general populace has unfortunately killed off more modest lens options (Nikon has its f/1.8 lineup, but performance is all over the map from one focal length to the next).

 

Max aperture of f/1.4 is still an advantage when shooting film, of course, and if this forum can be believed 4 out of 5 of us seem to be out all night shooting starscapes (where optimized f/1.4 wide angles rule). The shallow DOF + bokeh game is harder to exploit with wide angles, but f/1.4 can still be effective for this even with 20mm (see what some have done with the Sigma). Even my ancient 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor AIS can do tricks at f/1.4 that can't be reproduced exactly by any of my other lenses: its the precise balance of speed vs correction vs flaws. The AIS lens would drive mike_halliwell or rodeo_joe to Xanax, while a gigantic Sigma Art would do nothing for me but sit in the house. Each of us has different priorities.

 

Whether any particular DSLR body can reliably AF these lenses at f/1.4 is another question: some combos work well, others need to be worked around. Eventually mirrorless bodies like the new Nikon Z will solve most of the thorny AF sensor vs image sensor issues, and of course EVF makes manual focus much more viable.

  • Like 2
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...