Nikon 35/2.0 on FF?

[elliot1]

<p>2nd shot</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>3rd shot</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>The above images were taken with a D800, on a tripod, using bounce flash from a SB-900. While DOF changes, sharpness at the focus point does not.</p>

<p>These three images are unprocessed and simply opened and cropped in Photoshop.</p>

<p>I have done comparison shots against my 24-70mm and the 35mm f2 holds its own. Again, given its size, weight and cost, I think it is a good choice when size and weight are a concern.</p>

<p>I did not examine the corners, and will not be posting crops from them, sorry. Due to the lenses narrow DOF, they would be OOF anyway. I will leave that task for another day!</p>

<p>The full frame is posted in these weeks Nikon Wednesday thread for anyone interested.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>is there a good 35mm Nikon lens for a FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, there are plenty, in fact.<br>

With AF, there are the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G Nikon and Sigma's new 35mm f/1.4. Without AF, the Zeiss 35mm f/2, Samyang 35mm f/1.4. Plus quite some of the older AI/AIS primes who still are more than decent.<br>

Plenty of good choice, but a cheaper, smaller, true FX, slower 35mm from Nikon with AF would make a good replacement. But since the 28 f/1.8G already came out, I wouldn't expect such a lens at very short notice.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Thanks Wouter. I will look at the 35mm f/1.4 G and the Zeiss, which I didn't even think about. Also, there are some really good condition (meaning exc +) samples of the 1.4 AIS at KEH at a reasonable price. </p>

[lwg]

<p>Elliot, nice shots. I don't think you are blind. If your comment was in response to my comment on people being blind, note I was referring the 35mm DX lens. As you have shown the f/2 can be a very good lens, and as you state most of the time it doesn't matter much if the corners are sharp; but it does sometimes.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Elliot, those flower image samples do not seem to be pixel-level crops. I am attaching the image you posted to the Wednesday image thread. Your "crops" occupy a fairly large area in the frame, which is 700x500 and therefore is not 3:2 so that you must have cropped that as well.</p>

<p>I, for one, would not evaluate sharpness with a small JPEG image. A subject that is not flat makes it even more deceptive.</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Barry, as much as I love the AiS 35mm f/1.4, it's not a lens I'd recommend without caution - its performance at f/1.4 and f/2 is a bit a rollercoaster-ride of optical quirks. Incredibly charming at times, but certainly nothing like the much better corrected newer lenses as the f/1.4G, Sigma or Zeiss.<br>

By the way, there is also a Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2, but I have never read any serious tests of it, no idea how it performs.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon's 35mm/f1.4 AI-S is a very old lens. I bought mine way back in 1987 and still own it. Both Michael Bradtke and I describe it to "look sad." <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bl7o">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bl7o</a></p>

[edwardchen]

<blockquote>

<p>If you shoot wide open, don't bother with the 50 1.8D & 85 1.8D. 50 1.8D is very soft wide open and the 85 1.8D has very pronounced "purple fringing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very True. I have used all these lenses and I have found same results. Don't waste your time on these lenses. Even though they are fast, small, lightweight, if the results are not acceptable up to my standard, then i won't use. <br /> For 50mm that will AF, I haven't seen any good lenses. even Sigma. It's sharp on center, but poor at edge.<br /> For 85mm, 85/1.8G and 85/1.4G are far much much better than their predecessors.</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>To answer OP: 35/2.0D ? Forget about it.</p>

[edwardchen]

<blockquote>

<p>The point of a prime for me is to shoot it wide open or close to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>same with me. If I want to use smaller than f/2.8 I would go with nikon trinity fast zooms. Heavier but I gain flexibility. </p>

[lwg]

<blockquote>

<p>The point of a prime for me is to shoot it wide open or close to it.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>same with me. If I want to use smaller than f/2.8 I would go with nikon trinity fast zooms. Heavier but I gain flexibility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do like to shoot primes wide open, when appropriate. But for me I find I see better with primes, which is the real reason I shoot them. My compositions tend to get sloppy with a zoom. I don't understand why, but I think I move my feet less when I have the convenience of the zoom.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>No matter how much I would crop those test images, the results are not going to change. My lens is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down at the AF point. In fact, I have done comparisons of it vs my 24-70mm and dare I say, it is pretty much as sharp as the 70-200mm at 35mm wide open, at the AF point. Perhaps I am lucky that I got a good copy but the bottom my lens is very sharp. <em>Disclaimer</em>: I am talking about center sharpness only and have not checked the corners.</p>

<p>This is not a very popular lens for some reason but my copy certainly does not lack anything when it comes to IQ (shaprness, color, etc). Again, for a very low price (not sure what the current price is but I paid well under $200 a couple of years ago on ebay), you get a small, light, capable lens. <em>Disclaimer:</em>I am not recommending anyone buy it without trying it first - you should always decide for yourself. </p>

<p>What I find amazing is that so many people here have owned bad copies of this lens and had to get rid of them because of what appears to be terrible IQ. I guess I got lucky!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>No offense Elliot, but you have a strong tendency to like lenses that are well known to be poor, such as the 18-200mm DX AF-S VR and first version of the 80-400 AF-D VR, just to name a few. You also suggested using the 35mm/f1.8 DX on FX earlier on this thread. Apparently your criteria are quite different.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>None taken, both the lenses you refer to are considered 'dogs' by most, but I always take the time to check lenses out myself to know first hand whether they can deliver what I want IQ wise. I hesitated for a long time prior to purchasing both those lenses because of the numerous negative remarks. But I decided to find out for sure by buying and testing them and both lenses proved to be better performers with regard to IQ than most give them credit for. I find most (but not all) negative comments are perpetuated by non-users/owners who have 'read' negative comments somewhere. I am sure if I looked, I could find negative comments about some of Nikon's better, much more expensive lenses. </p>

<p>And to be clear, I DID NOT recommend the 35mm f1.8 for FX, I simply stated it didn't vignette a lot on FX. And for a DX lens, it really does not vignette a lot on FX. Most DX lenses simply are not usable on FX in FX mode. </p>

<p>As a DXO user, I have always relied in it's lens softness correct feature for every lens I own, , so 'lesser' lenses such as the 18-200mm have always looked OK after post processing when printed in a typical size print (not posters). DXO is absolutely amazing software.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I've got my back to the wall. </p>

<p>Instead of a $300 lens it's now a $1000-1900 prime/zoom. The neat thing is it is affordable for an amateur and travel friendly when it gets darker strolling the streets. But even the trinity 24-70mm might be 6yr old now, in a few years it might get updated so could we ridicule this lens in that time or when it becomes the 2nd previous version.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I just pulled my 35mm f/2 out and tested it against the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. At wider apertures it's as I remember it. The Nikon is noticeably less sharp and lower contrast. The corners are very soft, but with a 4x5 crop or the 1.2x crop the corners issue is eliminated. Once it's stopped down to f/8 or f/11 the lenses are much closer in image quality, with only the corners being significantly weaker on the Nikon.</p>

<p>I have a trip coming up where I'm going to be trying to keep the pack weight down. Given how I usually shoot landscape images I think the 35mm f/2 may come along. The small size is a definite plus, and I usually do stop down to f/8 for more depth of field.</p>

<p>If you shoot more stopped down then there really isn't much difference in the lenses. So maybe you could be very happy with the cheaper lens. Also, you can boost the contrast and sharpness in post processing, but of course it's better to have it right from the lens. If I was you I'd buy a used 35mm f/2, test it out, and sell it if you don't like it. After the ebay fees you probably won't be out more than $30, which is a pretty cheap rental fee (and you could make money on the deal - I usually come out about even or ahead if I'm not rushed).</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The DXO lens ratings for the f2 are surprisingly high - I expected, based on most of the comments, for it to be ranked quite low. In fact, it is very close in almost all its DXO ratings compared to the Nikon f1.4. The Sigma is ranked highest between the 3. The sharpness rating is probably the most interesting number there. Now I have a better understanding of the good results I get with it. </p>

<p>The image below is reprinted with permission of DXO. You can see the full page of information here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/751/(lens2)/405/(lens3)/1057/(brand1)/Nikkor/(camera1)/792/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/792/(brand3)/Sigma/(camera3)/792">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/751/(lens2)/405/(lens3)/1057/(brand1)/Nikkor/(camera1)/792/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/792/(brand3)/Sigma/(camera3)/792</a></p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[rjm photo]

<p>The 35mm AFD F2 is an excellent lens. Don't be afraid to get one. Along with its brother the 20mm AFD F2.8, it gets much unwarranted (in my opinion) negative publicity. It is capable of beautiful results in most any lighting situation. I use it with D700, D200, F4 and other non AF film Nikons, sometimes in place of 24-70 AFS F2.8 G lens. It is all in your ability to get the best results from your gear.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ray, of course there is a point where "Return on Investment" becomes a complicated matter. Sure, the 35 f/2 is a lot cheaper. It is small, light, it has AF - for its price is not too bad a deal BUT if you're looking for wide open performance, sorry, this is not the best lens. That's simply going to cost more. I know Shun and others think the lens performs poorly, but at f/2 and f/2.8, that AiS 35 f/1.4 is simply sharper than my 35mm f/2D to my eyes - and remains that up to f/8. But also that old MF lens costs more.... <br>

A good alternative could be the older Ai or AiS 35mm f/2 lenses. They're available for very decent prices, and should make better performers than the AF-D lens.</p>