AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G reviewed

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>For those interested, the good folks at Photozone have posted a review:</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Thanks Scott. I wasn't expecting any reviews for a couple months. Interesting conclusions but I would have liked to see them compare it to the 35mm f/2. Oh well, maybe later.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Thanks for the heads up, Scott. Looks like a good lens for the intended purpose and a very good value. The relatively minor flaws wouldn't concern me for the use I'd have for that lens, primarily available light people candid photography.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for $200 it's a-ight, looks like. but photozone's samples and MTF graphs seem to indicate it's no better in the corners and has more distortion, slower AF, and worse bokeh than the sigma 30. i'm sure it'll do well, especially for d40/d60 owners seeking a lens for low-light, but it's interesting that nikon seems to be conceding the performance-oriented spec to a 3rd party maker and concentrating on value. i wonder if we'll see a bunch of folks complaining about "front-focus" issues...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>photozone's samples and MTF graphs seem to indicate it's no better in the corners</em></p>

<p>How do you make out that? I only found the 30/1.4 tested on a Canon and a Pentax; photozone rate the optical quality with two stars, whereas the Nikkor got four (out of five).</p>

<p>Extreme corner MTF at f/2.8, for example 913 lw/ph (Sigma 30mm on a Pentax 10MP 1.5x body); 1888 lw/ph (Nikkor). Quite a difference.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>Yes Ilkka, and they gave it five out of five for price/performance ratio.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Looks like a winner to me, if I still had my D300 I'd probably pick one up over the Sigma.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>It's interesting to compare this test to photozone's test of the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 AF-D. Looks like barrel distrotion is much lower on the f/2.0, while vignetting and MTF are essentially a wash at varying apertures, and CA maybe slightly lower on the f2.0 as well. It's strange that the f2.0 gets a 3 of 4 rating optically, while the DX lens gets a 4 of 4 rating. Price performance scale has changed from 4 to 5 as well, though they both get 100%. Of course, the verdict is very subjective, but looks like the criteria may have changed a bit</p>

<p>The DX lens is about $150 cheaper, so in percentage terms quite a bit, if not in absolute terms.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"How do you make out that? I only found the 30/1.4 tested on a Canon and a Pentax; photozone rate the optical quality with two stars, whereas the Nikkor got four (out of five)."</p>

<p>well, okay, maybe it's a bit better on the corners, but my point was that the nikon's corner performance isnt extraordinary by any means. in the photzone review, there's no improvement past 4.0; in fact, the 35/1.8 is actually <em>worse </em> at f/8 than it is at f/4.</p>

<p>my experience with the sigma is that the corners do improve at 5.6 and 8, though they never get really sharp. also, the difference between the canon and pentax tests show there's considerable system-to-system variation, so comparing the 30mm on pentax and the nikkor 35 is basically pointless, since it doesn't actually tell you anything about the sigma's performance on nikon whatsoever. if the 30/1.4 on nikon is as improved from the canon results as the canon results are improved from the pentax results (which i suspect to be the case), then all bets are off. without the benefit of an f-mount test, it's all speculation.</p>

<p>there's no doubt, though, that in real-world shooting, AF speed and bokeh come into play a little bit more, and to me at least, the sigma isn't a two-star lens in terms of IQ, while the 35's bokeh at 1.4 and 2.8 seems decent but not creamy (as the sigma can be). and, as shash points out, photozone's rating criteria is a bit subjective.</p>

<p>if i was debating whether it's worth an extra $200 i expect it'd be a fairly tough call, and i might just choose the nikon, plastic build and all. but i'm not gonna trade in my sigma 30 for it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>in fact, the 35/1.8 is actually worse at f/8 than it is at f/4.</em><br /><em></em><br />Right, that's normal due to diffraction. It appears that the 35 DX is optimized for wide aperture performance, wide open it appears to better than the 35/1.4 Ai-S, the 35/2 AF, and roughly on par with the 35/2 Zeiss (which costs about 4x as much!). Stopped down the reverse is true; the full frame 35's all appear to beat the DX lens at f/8. This is excellent performance for such an inexpensive and small lens. The downsides are the CA and the unusually strong distortion.</p>

<p>I know several families with small children, for whom the 35 DX will be just the ticket to improve their window light indoor pics (to complement the "portrait" 50/1.8 that many already use). I'll be able to recommend Nikon DSLRs without any footnotes about missing SWM in the DX normal lens thanks to this new lens.</p>

<p>The distortion however is unfortunate and does rise questions about Nikon's seriousness when designing this lens. Nevertheless it should not be an issue for people photos in available light, which I think is one of the main applications of this lens.</p>

<p><em>the difference between the canon and pentax tests show there's considerable system-to-system variation so comparing the 30mm on pentax and the nikkor 35 is basically pointless</em><br>

<br />There is a simple explanation to this: the Pentax and Canon use different sensor sizes (1.5X and 1.6X crops, respectively); the larger sensor of the Pentax shows poorer corner quality and a bit more distortion. All other aspects of the performance seem to be virtually the same. The D200 and the Pentax use optically very similar sensors and therefore performance is likely to be close. It's not "speculation" - all the photons obey the laws of physics and differences do not arise without reason.</p>

<p>Autofocus accuracy is far more important than speed when shooting at wide apertures. And this is where 3rd party lenses generally don't do well because Nikon bodies do not apply the lens-specific corrections when autofocusing 3rd party lenses that they do when Nikkors are used (without these corrections autofocus just doesn't work well). Just check out recent comparisons of the 50mm AF-S and 50mm HSM where the better AF accuracy the Nikkors is evident (posts both here and nikongear.com suggest the same). This is a common thing and I have no reason to believe the 30mm is an exception. Also, compare manual focus feels; the 30mm HSM feels like grinding sand. No thanks; manual focusing is important to me.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"<em>in fact, the 35/1.8 is actually worse at f/8 than it is at f/4.</em> <br /> <em></em> <br /> Right, that's normal due to diffraction."</p>

<p>ok, if that's normal, why isn't the sigma 30 worse at f/8 than f/4?</p>

<p>"differences do not arise without reason."</p>

<p>uh, such as...sample variation?</p>

<p>"Just check out recent comparisons of the 50mm AF-S and 50mm HSM where the better AF accuracy the Nikkors is evident"</p>

<p>okay, but the sigma 50 clearly has better bokeh, as does the sigma 30. that's what you buy a 1.4 lens for. also i'm not sure which is better: missing a shot because of slow AF or missing a shot because of inaccurate AF. maybe this is more important to you, but for others, focus speed might be more important. also, at narrow apertures, i dont get AF accuracy problems with the sigma except when using matricx and dynamic area-AF; spot metering usually does the trick here.</p>

<p>my original point is that nikon was certainly budget-conscious when they designed the lens, and early reports of CAs and high distortion seem to confirm compromises in optical performance were made to get to the $200 price point. not that i'm dissing the 35/1.8, i'm just saying i'll probably hold on to my sigma 30.</p>

<p>what it probably comes down to is, if you want bokeh, a wider max aperture, and faster AF, the sigma is the clear choice. if you want slightly better (but not edge-to-edge sharp) corner performance (and possibly AF accuracy, though this will depend on the camera of course--i'd take a d300's AF any day over a d40's), or if you want a relatively cheap low-light lens with AF-S, go for the nikon. for most d40/d60 users, it's probably a no-brainer.</p>

[brien_m]

<p>I'm inclined to agree with some of what Eric says, but having used both lenses (and based on what I have heard from other Sigma users) I think the Nikon AF system is simple better/faster/whatever. The Sigma seems to hunt around and that was an irritant to me. I don't find that is the case with the Nikon. Granted there could be sample variation - but that works both ways. If AF is purchase consideration for anyone, I'd recommend that you can try them both at your local shop before you decide.</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>Being a user of the 35mm f/2 AF D, I was interested in this lense. The copies of the 35mm f/2 i have have performed very well for me, (d200 bodies, and a d60). i opened the review/test for each in two windows side-by-side.<br />My take away was:<br />The newer one appears to have higher resolution across its field, wide open, and stopped down one or two stops. Equal or less in the center.<br />Resolution in the older one increases across the field and center as you stop down, and remains pretty consistent.<br />New one has significantly more CA, and it increases as you stop down (unusual in Nikkors, usually the opposite).<br />So i will be passing on this one. The added ability to AF on the d60 body is not for me at least, enough of an inducement. And, while i can "correct" CA in Lightroom (the D60/D200 does not have in-body CA correction) it is still something to correct in PP. And where it appears in the image, it reduces resolution in that area, in addition to the color error.<br />My current 35mm's also stay good (diffraction-wise) down to f/13 (excellent) to f/16 (good).<br />I shoot smaller aperture alot, (so clean and CA free in that range is important).<br />But if you do not mind the CA, or shoot jpegs with a D300, or like to do B&W at wide apetures, this is a cool lense.</p>