neil_califano Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Should I wait for the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 DX or buy the 35mm F2 AF, for the D40X? Any suggestions, since I don't mind manual focus.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>The DX. BTW it's available now, no need to wait.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_califano Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>They all seem to be back ordered.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuo_zhao Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>>> "They all seem to be back ordered."</p> <p>That seems to be the case. When I returned my defective 35 DX, they placed me on the waitlist. I had to wait for the replacement to come in. The situation completely defeats my original plan: I pre-ordered the 35 about a hour after it was announced in order to avoid the "unavoidable delay". </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>I would definitely wait for the 35mm G lens. It will have the newer lens coatings on it, which will improve image quality.<br> Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manakash_dali Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>If you like manual focussing, you might even enjoy manual metering. Why not get a MF 35mm f2. With the D40X, you can even get a pre-AI version for literally (ore very close to) nothing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_thorn1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>I have been pondering the same question my self. However after reading the reviews, I am fully not convinced the 35 1.8 Dx is any better. Yes it does have the 35 f2 beat in terms of sharpnes wide open but by 2.8 they are about the same. Honestly though outside of that, the 1.8 seems inferior. It has way more distortion, definetley has more CA issues, the build seems worse and apparently, the AF is not all that fast. Further more being a DX G it is not cross compatible with FF or older camera's. Oh did I mention it is on back order. Get the the F2, I don't think you could go wrong. I will probably do the same but first I will compare them myself just to be sure.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_thorn1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Oh one other thing I should have said that may or may not be important to you. The image quality begins to take a dive @ F8 and beyond while the 35 F2 continues to shine. For me, this is important.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_califano Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Roman, Someone on the forum seemed to imply that a DX lens designed for DSLRs is better suited. That's interesting about F8. I might try the 35 f2 and see, especially if it meters.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brien_m Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>I come from the Contax CZ manual focus world, so I don't mind manual focus either, but the autofocus option is convenient and particularly helpful at wide apertures. Also, there seems to be some misinformation out there. I don't find the autofocus on the 1.8 slow at all compared to other nikon AF-S lenses I've used or the Sigma 30 f1.4, in fact, I would say the opposite.<br> Also coming from the Zeiss world, I don't feel I'm making any practical compromises with the 35 1.8 interms of image quality, but then again I don't shoot brick walls and I concede the CA point. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_moynihan Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>There are tests of both (on a DX body), at <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> <br> "Sharpness":<br> Each lense wide open: the new one better across field as opposed to center.<br> As you close down the aperture, the older one gets better. and is pretty consistently high in center and across field.<br> CA<br> New one, very poor, and (this is unusual) increases as you close down the aperture. The old one is very low wide open, and even that decreses as you close the apeture down.<br> Build quality: the older one of course ( but that is generally true of older nikkors).<br> I assume the focus on the new one is quieter, and quicker. The older one does not AF on the D40/40x/60. And of course, the new one AF's on the D40/40x/d60.<br> My only personal experience is with the older one. Use it on a D200 & a D60. I was interested in the new one for my little D60, (i am a fan of "normal" lense primes), but the CA for me killed the desire. Where CA appears, it diminishes resolution in those areas, even if you can remove the obnoxious coloration in PP.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_c1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>I just sold my 35mm f/2D after purchasing the new 35mm f/1.8G. Honestly, there was very little difference between my samples for sharpness, with the f/2 having the edge at some apertures, although the f/2 got fuzzier in the corners than the f/1.8 did. However, to me this is splitting hairs. Both lenses were sharp, and both were quite sharp wide open. Here is the difference that really mattered to me: The f/2 never gave me great colors. It's tones were subdued and undramatic compared to my best lenses; in fact it was quite disappointing in this regard. The difference may have been subtle but my photos didn't have the snap I expected, even comparing directly to other lenses shooting the same scenes on the same day. <br> The f/1.8 is quite good in this respect. I haven't used it enough yet to say I have a lot of experience with it, but it is not certainly lacking in color the way the f/2 was.<br> These are of course only my observations using one sample of each lens.<br> For what it's worth my 85mm f/1.8D was very similar to the 35mm f/2D in this respect.<br> My thinking is that this characteristic results from the coatings used as Kent Staubus suggested. If I'm not mistaken the 35/1.8G does use the high-tech SIC-or-whatever coating, which I'm sure helps.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_2000406 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>As Jay mentioned, the 35mm AF-D will not autofocus on the D40, D40X, or D60. You won't even get an indicator light to show when it's in focus, so you'll have to manually focus on the ground glass without any focusing aids such as split prisms. I just tested this on my D60 to be sure and confirmed it. This issue alone could create real degradation in image quality unless you're proficient in this kind of manual focusing, particularly if you're photographing on the fly and can't take time to focus carefully.</p> <p>I bought the 35 AF-S for its compactness and its low-light abilities for use on my D60, but I haven't used it yet other than for a few test shots. I have used the 35 AF-D on an FM3a and was very pleased with the results. Unlike Glenn, I found the colors quite good (I was using Provia 100). I'd be happy to use this lens on a D90 or other DSLR that would autofocus it. While I generally prefer manual focus systems, I'm not good with manual focus unless I have focusing aids or lots of time to get the focus right.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmm Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>Glen C's comment, while I thoroughly respect it and also acknowledge sample variation, has me stumped. My own version of the 35/2 is colourful and contrasty beyond what I expected when I originally ordered the lens, not to mention damn sharp. For me it is an absolute gem and is most certainly the first lens I would replace were I ever to lose my gear.</p> <p>This is not a comparison obviously with the f/1.8 DX version and indeed I would find the ability to AF to be very compelling were I to be a D40 or D60 owner, especially when added to the 35mm focal length and fast aperture which I think is sweet sweet sweet for a compact DX setup.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_moynihan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>re: the 35mm AF-D will not autofocus on the D40, D40X, or D60...<br> This could be a significant problem for some, perhaps for those who have only used autofocus cameras.<br> Being "an old timer", i spent most of my photographic life without autofocus, so the use of the 35mm AF-D on one of the crippled bodies is not difficult, and acheiving accurate focus simply by eye is not difficult. The lense also has a decent focusing ring.<br> Now, manually focusing on Nikon's DSLRs (and i assume other brands) is not as good as on the old non- AF film bodies, due to the lower quality view finder and screens. But i was pleased to find i could still focus by eye.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_c1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>For what it's worth my benchmark is my 16-85 VR which I think gives dynamite colors. If I'd compared it to my 35-70/2.8, for example, the 35/2 would probably have been just as good if not better. I do tend to think some of the newer coatings help with this. Again, though, just one sample and just one guy's opinion of course.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p><em><strong>You won't even get an indicator light to show when it's in focus</strong> </em></p> <p>Switch your focus mode to MF in the menu and you should have a working focus indicator for AF/AF-D lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_2000406 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 <p>Epp B, you're right. I confirmed this on my gear. Thanks for the correction!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 <p>So it would appear that the f/2 is the pro lens and the f/1.8 is the consumer lens, and Nikon's done a pretty good job of positioning both in those markets. I think the 1.8 serves my needs in the standard prime department pretty well, and when I need better I can always fall back on the 50/1.8D or the 50/1.4 Rokkor on the X-700.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_c3 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 <p>I can't believe noone mentioned about the price. If price is any consideration, the 35mm f/1.8 G is cheaper than the f/2 D</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_yang Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 <p>I bought the 35mmF2 4 days before the announcement of the F1.8. I was about to kick myself.</p> <p>What I don't like about the F2:<br> The front element moves and so the barrel extends a little bit on focusing.</p> <p>I like everything else about it.</p> <p>My primary reason for buying the lens was that 50%+ of my shots are food shots at restaurants. The F2 in this respect, has the F1.8 beat by a mile. The center on the F2 is quite sharp when you are > F2.2.<br> 35mm f1.8<br> closest focus: 30cm<br> reproduction ratio: 0.16</p> <p>35mm f2<br> closest focus: 25cm<br> reproduction ratio: .238</p> <p>At the rate the DSLR's are dropping in price, although I just bought a D90 as an upgrade to my d70s, I think my next camera will probably be an FX, and so slowly, if I have the option, I will pick the FX lenses.</p> <p>That said, I think a D40 or a D60 + 35mm f1.8 is a winning combo. Prime lenses are a bit more limiting but they also dicipline the photographer.<br> I don't think you can go wrong with either lens though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now