todd_reeves3 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Torn between the new 35mm AFS DX 1.8G Nikkor or the older model 35mm AF-D 2.0 lens. I have heard the new lens (1.8G) is not very well bulit while the older model is built like a tank. How is the quslity of the glass beween the two which one do you think will be sharper. I will be useing this lens on my D1X camera to shoot weddings in low light. Presently useing a 17-35 2.8... Trying to move away from zooms and more into prime lenses. <br> Any Thoughts Which one would you buy...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Between those two? I'd buy the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM. In fact, I <em>did</em> buy it. Very glad, too. Also built like a tank. Beautiful bokeh. Fast to focus (and quieter than the 35/2 during a ceremony).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Of course... you migh also want to look at a camera body that will give you a few stops better low-light higher-iso performance with that nice 17-35/2.8 you're already using. At this point, there are a lot of other pretty compelling reasons to use a newer body, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_reeves3 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Sorry, Did not mean to sound so offensive...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_reeves3 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Why would I want to use a newer body... Maybe you can explain what you mean by that... I can shoot all the way up to ISO 3200 or even 6400 if I want to on my D1H/D1x body... Not sure what my body has to do with choosing a new 35mm lens.. I make a very good living with my present bodies and never have a complaint about quality of photos.. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>I know you <em>can</em> shoot at ISO 3200 with a D1X, but I'm guessing that you choose not to, most of the time, because of the resulting image noise. To keep the images quiet, I'm guessing that you normally shoot at no higher than ISO 400, right? My point is that something like a D300 would not only have a wildly better AF system (which can make a big difference in dark shooting situations), but it can shoot quietly at ISO 1600 ... and get you more than the difference between an f/2.8 and an f/1.8 lens in the first place. Not to mention the better AF performance, battery life, display, etc.<br /><br />I rarely say "body before lens," but the newer generation of bodies really make a huge difference. Just something else to consider.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_reeves3 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Well that is not correct I shoot alot at ISO 800 na 1600 sometime I have to push it to 3200 all with good results...<br> I am manily interested in switching to prime lenses... Why do so many people think that the D1x Series cameras are so old and outdated that they are no good anymore... I will keep my bodies thank you...<br> Still need advice on the 35mm lenses though</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>I didn't say they were no good! Just that there are real differences that show up when you're really having to push it, though perhaps not so much when you're not making large prints.<br /><br />As for the lens issue ... I'll stick with my first comment. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't mean it!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeannean_. Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>I don't have experience with the others, but am very happy with the 35mm AFS DX 1.8G Nikkor. Makes me look like a better photographer than I am (still have a LOT to learn), so in the hands of someone knowing something, it'd probably be even more awesome. I haven't heard too many bad things from any level users with this lens...and it's cheap enough.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_bez Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Todd,<br> The 35mm AF-S feels as well built as the AFD f2. And all the tests I have seen say the new lens is sharper and more resistant to flare,</p> <p>I can see no reason to buy the old lens if you intend staying with the DX format.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Todd.... Get a D40. (just kidding)</p> <p>I have had the 35mm AF-S 1.8 for about a month now. I have a 35mm AF-D that I've had forever. I bought the 35mm AF-S for the motorless D40 mainly, in my quest for a digital FE2/50mm. I've used it on my D300 and D40, and I've used the AF-D on both as well. I think any comparison is splitting hairs, but if I had to pick one, I'd say the AF-S is slightly better (mainly better CA performance).</p> <p>To me, the main difference is size. The 35mm f/2 AF-D seems quite a bit smaller in use, while the 1.8G has that bulbous AFS-motor-within build. I definitely prefer the f/2 AF-D on the screwdriver autofocus bodies.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>So, to answer the actual question...</p> <p>If you plan to buy an FX camera soon, get the 35/2.0D. Otherwise, the 35/1.8G. The G's AFS works well and is quiet, and optically it quite good - very sharp and flare resistant. It's slightly faster. It does have a bit more CA than the average new lens, so if you plan to shoot any leafless trees against bright skies make sure you have a raw converter that can correct that. Also it makes rings in the bokeh wide open, which some people don't like. It's not easy to find one right now, but at $199 it's a killer bargain and if you do decide to buy an FX camera later and sell the G to buy the D, you're going to be out what, maybe $50 at most? I use the G on my D90 and am quite happy with the results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>I tried the new Nikon 35mm f1.8 G, and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Seriously, buy the Sigma. It's a better lens in EVERY way except price. It's a pro class lens, the Nikon is consumer grade. The older 35mm f2 has been passed by both. But really, get the Sigma. I bought a used one on e Bay for under $300. I returned the Nikon 35mm f1.8 G. There was no comparision. If you think you need the speed, why would you not get the f1.4? Night photography is what I do, and I've used this lens often now. There is no way I can recommend either Nikon over this lens.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_manessinger Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I have the Nikon 35/1.8 and the Sigma 30/1.4. I like both. I wouldn't say the Nikon is "not well built", I'd say it is remarkably light :) Today I use the Nikon more often. I like the feeling, just as I sometimes prefer the Nikon AF 50/1.8D to the much superior Sigma 50/1.4. Weight and size do count at times. Anyway. Whichever lens you buy, you can't go very wrong. Both are DX though, thus if you upgrade to FX at any time, both will be useless. Maybe one more argument in favor of the Nikon. It's so cheap that it will be no big loss, and you should even be able to sell it at eBay for a decent price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmm Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>I must say, with respect for the views above, that if the "older 35mm f2 has been passed by both" (Nikon 35/1.8DX and Sigma 30/1.4) - a view I've seen written numerous times - then those two lenses must both be absolute marvels because they are "passing" a lens that I think, even though its a humble AF-D, is one of the wonders of the Nikon lineup.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>The older model is not built like a 'tank", but the newer one is lighter and it feels more delicate. It is, however, fairly solid and quick-focusing.</p> <p>It works really well. I like to stop down to 2.2 or 2.8 on it when I can, but it's failrly useable wide-open when you need it and the images you are capturing can handle that narrow depth of field.</p> <p>And please don't be offended if somebody tells you a newer camera will get substantially better low-light images than one as old as the D1h and x series. That's just plain true. Nothing wrong with your cameras, but shoot the same thing with yours, and then with a D90 (or even D5000) and see for yourself. Technology marches on...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>I have both the 35/1.8 and the 35/2. If you'll be sticking with a body that doesn't need AF-S lenses...like the D40, D60, D5000...the 35/2 is an excellent lens.</p> <p>I don't see any sharpness advantage between the two lenses...both are great.</p> <p>Both lenses are about the same in built quality. I'd pick the 35/2 because it is smaller and has an aperture ring.</p> <p>The Sigmas have so much sample variation that it's really a crap shoot to find a good one. If you're considering one, go into a camera shop that has several copies to choose from.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p><em>The Sigmas have so much sample variation that it's really a crap shoot to find a good one.<br /></em><br />Or, since actually the vast, vast majority of their pro quality primes show up working just like they should, just get it from a vendor that will swap it out for you in the unlikely scenario that there is a problem. I would say the same thing about buying a Nikon lens (there are people who get bad ones there, too). The sample variation thing is, I believe, greatly exaggerated. Just as I believe it is when people mention bad examples of Nikon's under-$1,000 lenses, too. The occasional problem takes on an online forum life way out of proportion to reality. All of the people who get a lens that's doing what it's supposed to (from any vendor) don't start threads proclaiming that their new lens works correctly.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>All I can do is offer an opinion based on my own experience. Based on several samples tried at Samy's Camera in Los Angeles (a store with plenty of stock turnover), none of the Sigma 30s were acceptable. All samples showed clear uneven focus across the frame.</p> <p>I wish they didn't. I could have used that lens.</p> <p>Every third-party lens I've owned has been a disappointment...and I've owned plenty.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>I take that back...the Voigtlander lenses in the Nikon mount have been wonderful.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niccoury Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>Why are people bringing up getting a new camera?!</p> <p>Todd NEVER originally asked about cameras. He wanted to know about lenses. Who cares? If the D1X (a great camera of it's time and a classic body capable of making fantastic photos) works for him, it works for him. Unless you are personally a client of his and don't like his work, then shut up.</p> <p>Todd, I prefer the 35 f/2. It's a better built lens and sharp in my opinion. Keep your 17-35. It's a classic workhorse too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akira Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>The D1X of my friend (pro photog) suffered from front-focusing (or any inaccurate focusing problem) in AF mode (especially when he shoot portraits). I fear you might encounter the same problem when you use faster lenses than your current f2.8 zoom.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p><em>Why are people bringing up getting a new camera?!<br /></em><br />First, I answered the question (about lenses), even if I did it in a way that always seems to annoy people, by mentioning a non-Nikon option that the OP didn't perhaps have on his radar. Then, <em>because he mentioned this was about shooting in lower light</em> and that he's already equipped with a fine wide f/2.8 lens, I mentioned the option of allowing that same great pro zoom (which he owns!) to be part of making exposures that are a stop or two brighter... by being able to quietly raise the ISO beyond what the older generation of bodies can do. It's a discussion forum, Nic. I was discussing. It's not like I was suggesting he scrap his body and lenses and run over to Canon, or something.<br /><br />I mentioned one way to get better performance out of a classic (and expensive) lens already in his posession. You know, as an option. To think about. It's not like I was saying he should retire a D40 and get a D5000 because it has video. The generational differences between a D1x and, say, a D300, are (in terms of low light and final output on larger prints, especially), far greater than the difference between f/2.8 (on his zoom) and f/2 on the 35/2, or f/1.8 on the newer DX lens. At which point only the desire for very shallow DoF would - <em>for me - </em>make the lens a smarter buy than an up to date body if I were in his shoes and already had the 17-35 that he has. There, more discussion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niccoury Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>I've stopped caring.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>Folks, how 'bout let's cut back a notch or two on the defense, save some energy for the second half of the game.</p> <p>Seriously, lots of us use older dSLRs. It is what it is. Why get worked up over the issue? Ten years ago, did everybody suddenly stop using their favorite films just because of all the yak-yak about Velvia? Nope. Was there a lot of defensive handwringing by folks who didn't want to use Velvia because they preferred their old favorites like Kodachrome? Yup. And it derailed a lot of otherwise useful conversations. It was silly then, it's silly now.</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