Nikkor 35mm/1.8G downside

[arthuryeo]

<p>Obviously, we all agree that the resolution is well above our expectations and the bokeh is OK when you stop it down a little. I once said that I noticed something unusual in the images from this lens which I cannot place a finger on it. When I thought about it and looked at more samples from others, I began to realize it was the contrast. When opened wide, the contrast of the OOF background tends to have contrast which are below what we're used (at least, to my eyes). So, there you have it, it is the contrast.<br>

Of course, that can be adjusted and corrected selectively in LR, NX2 and PS. Nothing too difficult to do.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Arthur</p>

[titospna]

<p>So you would describe this lens as inferior to the AFD f/2 35mm? If you've compared the two, I would like to know your opinion, if possible. Thanks.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Interesting. I hadn't noticed anything unusual there, can you link to any examples?</p>

<p>If there were a downside I'd say it's more CA than I expect.</p>

<p>Comparing to the AFD - well, it's a completely different lens. Less expensive, DX, and AF-S. Bokeh's a bit different - the DX has a sort of ring effect going on wide open. And a touch more CA. It's light and small but not quite as much so as the 50/1.8D (which I think is the smallest/lightest current Nikkor). It's just as sharp and I'm pleased with the color reproduction.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>>So you would describe this lens as inferior to the AFD f/2 35mm?<br>

I have not said that.<br>

Can't compare: it's apple and oranges. One is old school and it's almost a decade old and the other is using newer technologies and optimzied for DX.</p>

<p>If I have a choice between the 2 and I am going to use it for DX format, I would pick the 35mm/1.8G.</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>I've yet to see a comprehensive comparison between the two lenses. Was the 35mm f2 AF-D so bad that Nikon chose to replace it with a DX lens? Does this mean there will be a new 35mm FX prime coming out soon? It is puzzling to me why Nikon, when they could have produced a full-frame lens that could potentially sell to far more users, would produce a DX prime that only works on cameras which mostly sell to people who want a zoom...</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Dave, the lens is targeted towards students and first time photographers wanting to dabble with fast lenses. To make the lens FF and sharp across the full frame would make the lens as, or more expensive than the 50mm G. It is not supposed to be a 35mm lens - it is supposed to be a 50mm for DX users.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[brien_m]

 

<p>"the lens is targeted towards students and first time photographers wanting to dabble with fast lenses."<br>

The key point is that it is capable of autofocus on a D40/60 in addition to being a fast and inexpensive prime. I would have been happy with the FF 35mm F2 if it autofocused on the d60.</p>

 

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>they could have produced a full-frame lens that could potentially sell to far more users</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd bet you anything that if you compared the follwing market segments:</p>

<p>1. Owners of FX cameras who want a 35mm lens and are psyched to pay extra to make it AF-S<br>

2. Owners of DX cameras who want a prime lens and are not psyched to pay extra to make it FX</p>

<p>you'd find that 2 is larger.</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>I use a 35mm f/2 AF D a lot. Love it. Am not doing the the new f/1.8 due to the CA excess, which for me is a killer, (CA also results in lower resolution where it appears, so even if removed in PP, etc). You can compare both at <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> .<br>

The older 35mm is generally considered the second best 35mm for Nikon digital bodies, as far as IQ goes. The Zeiss (Cosina) 35mm f/2 ZF is #1 (it is 2.5x the cost, and manual focus).<br>

Funny thing for me, is that my 35mm f/2 AF D was my least favorite 35mm on my Nikon film bodies. On those, I preferred the 35mm f/1.4 AIs, and even the old 35mm f/2.8 AIs. But on a digital body, the F2 is sharp, contrastly, and the lowest CA of any nikkors i have put on my DSLR bodies.</p>

[isidor stankov]

<p>I'm interested for purchasing 35f1.8 Nikkor or Sigma 30f1.4 for D300. Does anybody have used Sigma and switched to Nikkor? what are pro and contras between both lenses<br>

Cheers,<br>

istankov</p>

[brien_m]

<p>Isidor - had the sigma briefly. I ended up selling it and getting the nikon. Liked the sigma - better built quality, liked the fact that it was wider and faster (marginally), probably delivers slightly better image quality though I couldn't tell (no CA issues anyway and some say better bokeh than the nikon). But in the end the nikon is cheaper, serves my purposes, my wife doesn't find it as heavy (though both are similar in size) and the key point for me was that it focuses faster than the sigma.</p>