35/2 vs. 35/1.4

[dan_brown4]

<p>Well, photozone.de has full frame reports up for both lenses as of 2/16/2011. Man, the 2.0 got trashed. And, I always thought it was a good lens.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>If it does what you need it to, it still is a good lens.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Same for the 24/2.8... which I have used&use so often. Not the best reputation, who cares. If it works for you, it works. </p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>It should......<br>

Otherwise how Nikon would be able to explain the 1K+ difference in price?</p>

[elliot1]

<p>One man's trash is another man's treasure. I own 3 lenses that are consider to be bad by most yet get great results with all of them. </p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/reviews">http://www.photozone.de/reviews</a></p>

<p>Although the 35/1.4 gets higher ratings and reported resolution, the 35/2 Nikkor is on par with similar lenses from Zeiss and Voighleander. </p>

<p>There was another discussion about Voigtlaender lens that comes with a cpu, but does not provide D focus distance information. Lookup also some Zeiss lenses.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>the 35/2 Nikkor is on par with similar lenses from Zeiss and Voighleander.</em></p>

<p>Hardly. The 35/2 ZF is far ahead of the 35/2D AF Nikkor in image quality and roughly as good as the 35/1.4 AF-S Nikkor, though the Zeiss doesn't support autofocus which limits its use in some applications.</p>

<p>Photozone hasn't tested the 35/2 ZF(.2) on the D3X (well, at least they don't list it) but gave 3.5 stars on image quality for the ZE version (which is optically identical to the ZF and ZF.2) on the 21 MP 5D Mk II, placing it slightly behind the 4 stars the 35/1.4 AF-S got from them (the 24/1.4 Nikkor also got 3.5 stars so basically photozone's full frame rankings are quite harsh, we're talking about very fine lenses here).</p>

<p>I think the 35/2(D) AF Nikkor was never quite as good a lens as I wanted it to be, but it was useful, very compact and lightweight, and not too expensive. I think while the 35/1.4 AF-S is excellent, Nikon went a little too high on the price and a 35/2 AF-S with improved optics would have been more useful for many customers (not least due to the price, but also due to required bag space & weight). But Nikon seems to have decided that FX is mostly for the very rich or the professionals, and affordable high quality lenses are not what they've been producing in recent years for the format.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon's 35mm/f2 AF-D and 24mm/f2.8 AF-D are very old optical designs. I bought the 24mm AF-D about a decade ago and the optical formula is the same as the 24mm/f2.8 AI I had back in 1978. Those lenses were fine during the film era. Now on DSLRs with higher and higher pixel density, nobody should be surprised that they are showing their age.</p>

<p>You can still get away with a lot on low-desnity 12MP FX bodies such as the D700 and D3S. The price for the 24MP D3X is sky high that only a small number of people have it. Just wait until Nikon puts 18MP or 24MP on a $3000 FX body, a lot more people will find the problems on those old lenses.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Otherwise how Nikon would be able to explain the 1K+ difference in price?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>AFAIK, Nikon never "explained" any price difference - or any price for that matter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... affordable high quality lenses are not what they've been producing in recent years for the format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sad but true.<br>

From looking at the photozone 35/2 review on a D200 I already knew that the lens wasn't as good as many claim it is (and not as good as the 35/1.8 AF-S) - but I am surprised that it fares that poorly on FX. It can be expected that the 24/2.8 would fare equally poorly on FX - and likely the 20/2.8 as well. These lenses are certainly usable for many applications, but totally unsuitable for others (and of course to those who either pixel-peep or print very large).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Prices are determined by supply and demand. Nikon (or for that matter anybody else) can ask for whatever price they want, but if nobody buys it, it is meaningless. Moreover, when an item is new and a lot of people want it, the price tends to be high. After the initial high demand is fulfilled, the price will fall a bit. The 24mm/f1.4 AF-S is a very good example.</p>

<p>That is why I am in no hurry buying to f1.4 AF-S lenses yet.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>"The 35/2 ZF is far ahead of the 35/2D AF Nikkor</em>" - according to Photozone, the Zeiss is a APS_C size lens, and comparing sharpness on the edge of a APS_C field does not compare at all to the full 35 mm size Nikkor lens where the edge distance is farther away from the center.<br />This is like comparing apples to oranges.<br />Try to compare lenses for the same sensor size.<br />E.g. Zeiss ZF Distagon 25 mm, and you will see about the same resolution and rating.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>duplicate.</em><br />there are other German made lenses reviewed of test results and quality on par with the Nikkor 35/2, just inspect details,<br />and do not compare 35mm FX lens to DX lens.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>( The 24mm/f1.4 AF-S is a very good example.)<br>

Shun, after a year the price of the 24 f/1.4 is still the same here in Japan.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p> according to Photozone, the Zeiss is a APS_C size lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What? All Zeiss ZF lenses are intended to cover the entire FX frame; none of them is a DX/APS-C lens.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Dieter... of curse they don't! No body does.... meaning all the big companies, canon, zony, etc. Don't take my words so literally......<br>

But in the eyes of the consumer, if there was no such a difference in quality, people would wonder about the price....</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>I have two 12x18-inch prints hanging next to each other in a back bedroom, both shot on the same film and both printed on the same enlarger with an APO-Rodagon enlarging lens. One was shot with a pre-ASPH 35mm f/2.0 Leica lens and one with a 35mm f/2.0 AF Nikkor (same lens as the AF-D). Even with a lupe, you'd be hard pressed to tell which image was made with which lens.</p>

<p>The 35mm f/2.0 AF-D lens is a very good lens for $360. That said, for the reason Shun mentions, if I were purchasing another 35mm lens now, I'd buy the 34mm f/1.4G lens.</p>

<p>But you can't have this discussion in a vacuum. The non-AF Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens runs over $1,000. The 35mm f/1.4G Nikkor is an $1,800 lens. For almost three times the price and five times the price, respectively, you'd certainly hope the Zeiss and f/1.4G Nikkor lenses would spec out better than the 35mm f/2.0 AF-D Nikkor.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Rene, you can see the pricing history for the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S here on nextag.com. It is a bit crude but you get the idea: <a href="http://www.nextag.com/Nikon-Nikkor-AF-S-757971185/price-history-html">http://www.nextag.com/Nikon-Nikkor-AF-S-757971185/price-history-html</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have two 12x18-inch prints hanging next to each other in a back bedroom, both shot on the same film and both printed on the same enlarger with an APO-Rodagon enlarging lens. One was shot with a pre-ASPH 35mm f/2.0 Leica lens and one with a 35mm f/2.0 AF Nikkor (same lens as the AF-D). Even with a lupe, you'd be hard pressed to tell which image was made with which lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The big equalizer was the film you used. As I said, during the film era, you could get away with a lot of lesser lenses. Today's DSLRs are get more and more demanding on lenses as well as technique.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>people would wonder about the price....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It should be obvious that a 24/1.4 will cost a bundle more than a 24/2.8 - based on the difference in maximum aperture alone. The problem of comparing a newly designed lens with one that has been designed some 20 years ago aside - if Nikon would make a new 24/2.8 I would fully expect it to be optically as good as the 24/1.4 and that I wouldn't have to fork over the additional money if I didn't need the f/1.4. Unfortunately, many cheaper lenses seem to be optically inferior to their more expensive, larger-aperture counterparts - that's why so many people feel "forced" to purchase the 24-70/2.8 even though the 24-120/4 would totally suffice for their needs (and adds VR as a bonus). To state it differently - I expect Nikon to produce all their lenses to the highest optical standard - the price difference should come from differences in maximum aperture and some cost savings in the construction, but should not be at the expense of optical quality. I am allowed to dream, am I not?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>according to Photozone, the Zeiss is a APS_C size lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It isn't and photozone doesn't state anything to that effect.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Dieter, sure allowed to dream... But I think a second thing might play (though it's a hunch). Maybe it's me, but many of the 'second tier' primes seem more optimised to medium apertures (f/4 - f/8) and the 'first tier superfasts' to much wider apertures. See the 50 f/1.4 versus f/1.8, for example. So, somewhat less specialists tools, cheaper, smaller and lighter. Different 'targets' in design.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dieter, the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D actually has an optical design that is over 30 years. As I said, the 24mm/f2.8 AI I bought in 1978 had the same design.</p>

<p>But 30 years ago, you had two way to get to 24mm: 24mm/f2 AI and 24mm/f2.8 AI. Today, there are the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, and 24-85mm/f2.8-4 AF-D. How many different ways do you expect Nikon to get you to 24mm/f2.8? Of course there are also the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR</p>

<p>Moreover, some 90+% of today's new cameras are DX format, and there are the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and numerious 18-xyz DX zoom and a 16-85mm DX zoom. Needless to say, the neccessarity to produce a fixed 24mm/f2.8 (AF-S) with a new optical forumula is far far less than it was 3 decades ago; the same is also true for the 35mm/f2.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I can say that i have tested my 14 year old (when it was still fairly new) 35/2.0D-AF against a Leica 35mm Summicron-M ASPH using Velvia and a Kodak professional grade slide projector lens. The Summicron KILLED the Nikkor at f2.0. But, the Nikkor's price KILLED the Summicron's. So there you have it.</p>

<p>Still the Summicron was less costly than the new 35/1.4G Nikkor (OK, dollars from different decades on that point ;-)<br>

At any rate, I find myself going to the 17-35/2.8 more and more these days.</p>

<p>Still, would love to get the 1.4G some day :-)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>You've got a point there Shun - but not the one I was trying to make. Firstly, each lens you list is a heavy piece and quite expensive (with the 24-85 the exception (and one that would benefit from AF-S and VR upgrades)). Secondly, your list of updated optics would be a short one had I asked for a new 24/2 or 35/2. Thirdly, why is Nikon still selling/producing the 24/2.8 if there are so many other options? The same is true for the 14/2.8, 20/2.8, 28/2.8 - they could all be dropped from the lineup. Currently, your choice are either expensive and heavy zooms or expensive and heavy large-aperture primes (aside from the old ones that don't cut it anymore on modern DSLRs). I don't expect Nikon to give me a myriad ways of getting the same thing (though they seem to), but I do expect Nikon to strive for highest optical quality in all its lenses, no matter the cost. And I'd like to see some lower cost, smaller weigh alternatives to the current staple of expensive FX lenses.<br /> As to DX - there are exactly three DX primes (10.5/2.8, 35/1.8 and 85/3.5; for the latter I fail to understand it's reason of existence); and except for the 17-55 there are no high-end DX lenses. Nikon left that market segment to third party suppliers (and I am wondering why?).<br /> Wouter: you are probably right (though I found my 50/1.4 AI quite unusable at f/1.4 and not any better at other apertures than the 50/1.8 AIS). It seems to me though that most people assume that a larger aperture lens will be better at all apertures than one that starts with a smaller maximum aperture. In addition, I can't find any indication on Nikon's website or brochures as to which lenses are optimized for infinity or for closer-distance (like 10 feet) - an information that would certainly influence which lens to purchase, wouldn't you think?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Yes, though none of the lens manufacterers seems to want to state something like that very clear; Thinking how for example, I've read here often the 17-55DX is not very good at infinity, while the 16-85VR is - making that possibly the better landscape choice, it would be a nice thing to say 'the ultimate DX event lens' versus 'your best DX landscape choice'... But the price difference will make the marketing and sales departments tell you you need f/2.8 for everything ;-)</p>

<p>Well, since I own a 35 f/2D: not too surprised the corners show weakness on the D3x. Mine, on a DX camera, already shows signs of it. Also the f/2 performance is just not very good. But the review is not that negative, and rightly so. The 35 f/2 is light, relatively cheap, very small (look it being dwarfed on that D3 body) and in my experience absolutely fine from f/4 to f/8. As a landscape lens, I do not see to many flaws in it, given the price. Sure the Zeiss is better, and so are the Nikon 35 f/1.4's, but they all have a different pricetag. Horses for courses.<br>

I still see use in these lenses being on sale. The f/2.8 primes are a more arguable bunch, but everything faster than f/2.8 still has an advantage over the zooms. So, an improved cheaper 35mm prime for the FX users would not be all that silly, I think. A range of small, light f/2 primes (24/35/50/85) would be nice. But prime users are a small market, so I think financially, Nikon is better off working on an improved 80-400VR and the 70-200 f/4.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>why is Nikon still selling/producing the 24/2.8 if there are so many other options? The same is true for the 14/2.8, 20/2.8, 28/2.8 - they could all be dropped from the lineup.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dieter, I seriously doubt that Nikon is producing those lenses any more. Who is going to buy a 14mm/f2.8 AF-D when the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S is so much better? Likewise, I have been saying for a a few years that Nikon is no longer producing the F6 body and the Coolscan 9000. They merely have a bunch of them stocked up and are selling them slowly. Finally they ran out of the Coolscan 9000 recently so that it is now officially discontinued.</p>

<p>I happen to have a Nikon FM2 brochure when that was introduced back in 1982. Inside there is a page that lists all current Nikon F mount lenses at that time. That was almost 30 years ago. You'll notice that there were not very many zooms back then, and by far the majority of zooms were telephotos (including the 50-300mm/f4.5 discussed a few days ago). Only a 25-50mm/f4 and a 35-70mm/3.5 plus a similar Series E lens reached into wide angle. There were also no f2.8 zooms at all 30 years ago.</p>

<p>Today, DX lenses dominate the market. (Remember as recently as 3, 4 years ago, people were still posting silly comments such as "DX Lenses Are Dead Money," predicting DX's demise within a few years.) Zoom lenses also dominate the market. Fixed-focal-length lenses are still necessary mainly in the following categories:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fast f1.4 lenses, 200mm/f2 lenses</li>

<li>Long teles: 400mm/f2.8, 500mm/f4, 600mm/f4</li>

<li>Fisheye</li>

<li>Macro lenses</li>

<li>Tilt/shift PC-E lenses</li>

</ul>

<p>Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect Nikon to maintain a full list of "primes" as they did 30 years ago. There is simply no market for them.</p><div></div>

[von_tsotren]

<p>I watched them as they trashed the 35/2 AF as well as the 85/1.4. For me the 35/2 is the best lens I've ever bought (price range to quality). I got it 120 Euros from ebay and the photos have always shined both on my F3 and my D700. Plus it is tiny and weightless compared to the 35/1.4.<br>

As for the 85/1.4 D TWO out of FIVE stars for OPTICAL QUALITY??? Have they shot it??? I quote "It's not without flaws, though. Typical for this lens class, it shows a significant amount of LoCAs. A little disappointing is its lack of sharpness towards the image borders and corners. So, technically, in summary the lens is not all that great."<br>

Translation: This dedicated work of art of a portrait lens is not sharp riiiiight at the end corners of my frame (where of course i hide my subjects) thus it sucks???<br>

Please...<br>

I've been shooting it for about two years both for portraits and landscape and trust "not that great" hasn't even crossed my mind.<br>

So to sum up: Who cares what photozone says? :)</p>