vuhoang

<p>I'm having a D200 and thinking of exchange it for a D90.<br /> My biggest concern is that will I get a much better IQ at higher ISO.<br /> How many stop does the D90 advance over D200 ?<br /> For you guys that used a D200 and switch to D90: do you miss the controls on D200? Is the AF system of D90 less advanced than D200?<br>

<br /> To Lamon: If I find D200 cameras for 200 bucks each, I would buy a pair of them. If you intent to invest into Tamron I suggest 17-50 f/2.8 which has reasonable range on DX and lightly priced.<br>

Whatever you choose, selling your husband is a must :D. If this is done successfully, I guess you have enough to get the D3s + 24-70 f/2.8 Nano + 70-200 f/2.8 VR II + 24 f/1.4 + 35 f/1.4 + 85 f/1.4 + 105 f/2 DC + SB400 + SB900 :D</p>

<p>35 f/1.8, 35 f/2, 30 f/1.4<br /> Among them, which has the best:<br /> 1. Optical ?<br /> 2. AF Speed ?<br /> 3. On paper specs (I mean things like widest focal, largest aperture, yes/no focal scale window, MF override, aperture ring, ..) ?<br /> 4. Compatibility (with Nikon bodies) ?<br /> 5. Build ?<br /> 6. Price ?</p>

<p>To my experience with 35 1.8 and reviews that I've read, here are the winners:<br /> 1. Optical - I think 35 f/1.8, then 35 f/2 and finally 30 1.4<br /> 2. AF Speed - I think 35 f/2 then 35 f/1.8 and then 30 1.4<br /> 3. On paper specs - Hard to say...Sigma has significant wider and larger aperture. 35 1.8 has MF override and AF silent. 35 f/2 has focal scale window which is good for MF, it also has aperture ring. I would pic sigma for it's most practical advantages, 35 f/1.8 next and 35 f/2 last<br /> 4. Compatibility (with Nikon bodies) ? 35 1.8 and Sigma has built in motor to use with Nikon non screw drive series while 35 f/2 is compatible with FX bodies. I would pick 35 f/2 then 35 f/1.8 then Sigma<br /> 5. Build - Sigma clearly the winner. However to many people the heavier is the worse. It really depends. So Sigma first then 35 f/2 and 38 1.8 last...the 35 1.8 is a bit toyish<br /> 6. Price ? First come 1.8 then f2 and sigma last<br /> Ok let's sum them up..</p>

<ul>

<li>Sigma best at: BUILD, SPECS. If you you're not a pixel peeper then this Sigma fit your need with f/1.4 and a bit wider than competitors.</li>

<li>35 F/2 best at: AF Speed, Compatibility. If you need a reliable 35 lens and planing to go FF, here's your choice</li>

<li>35 F/1.8 best at: Image Quality, Price. Simply looking for IQ at a reasonable price. This must be your best bang.</li>

</ul>

<p>So...no clear winner !!</p>

<p>Thanks so much Andrew. I want the 35 to couple with my Nikon D50, which has built in screw blade.<br>

Between the 35 f/1.8 and 35 f/2, my major concern is AF speed. The optical is not much difference in my opinion.</p>

<p>In short, any one please compare the 2 on the following criteria:</p>

<ol>

<li>AF Speed</li>

<li>Center sharpness at large aperture (2.8 -> 1.8)</li>

<li>Side sharpness at large aperture (2.8 -> 1.8)</li>

<li>Is the F/1.8 much brighter than F/2</li>

<li>Color reproduction</li>

<li>Compatibilities (with Nikon bodies, past, current, future)</li>

<li>Value for money.</li>

</ol>

<p>I used the 1.8 on D5000 and here are my experience:</p>

<ol>

<li>AF Speed - Decent, not very fast for action but enough for almost any casual situation even at night</li>

<li>Center sharpness at large aperture - Very good right at f/1.8. Stop down does give slightly sharper Images but I bought this lens to use it at f/1.8 and it works (again just for taking family images, not commercial purposes)</li>

<li>Side sharpness at large aperture - Not impressive. Beside, at 1.8 the DOF is really thin to cover the sides...</li>

<li>Is the F/1.8 much brighter/faster than F/2 - Didn't try the 35 AF-D at F2. But with my 35 1.8, if I cannot stop action at f/2, I nether able to do it at f/1.8.</li>

<li>Color reproduction - Great, a little bit tight in color transition.</li>

<li>Compatibilities (with Nikon bodies, past, current, future) - Works on both my D5000 and D50 (it's an AFS)</li>

<li>Build - I prefer my 50 f/1.4 build than this 35. The 35 f/1.8 have no aperture ring, no scale window. However MF is smooth and the focus right stay still as you forcus. The mount is metal anyway...not as in Nikon's other cheap lens.</li>

<li>Value for money - I would recommend to anyone. My only concern is whether the 35 f/2 gives significant better AF speed, other than that the 35 is my first choice for it's price vs performance. It's current sell for 190$ used. A bang for your bucks !! </li>

</ol>

<p>More IMPORTANT: I sold it to buy the 50 f/1.4. Now I wanna buy it again. I couldn't live with the narrow FOV of the 50...Sigma 30 1.4 is also on in my short list xD.</p>

<p>It's great if anyone would compare the 3 with the above criteria.</p>

<ol> </ol>