Comparison - Nikon 35mm F1.8G, 40mm Micro, 50mm f1.8G

Zackarydoo

Zackarydoo

Messages
81
Name
Geoff
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone. I've just upgraded to a lovely new Nikon D7100, and bought the Nikkor 35mm f1.8G lens with it. I had sold my old 50mm f1.8 (not the G, but the older FX one) as I wanted to put the money towards a macro lens and also needed a wider angle lens than 50mm, which I planned to save up for. So the 35mm was supposed to be that wider angle lens. Well I found the quality absolutely terrible! I've returned it as faulty, but it might just be the way that lens is. The CA's are out of this world, and at anything but the centre of images, it cannot handle the resolution of my new 24MP camera.

I don't really want another 50mm lens unless that really is the only option. What I really need in a lens is optical quality. Fast focusing helps too and of course I'd like more low light capability, but optical quality is what means most to me. I need to have sharp images at 100%, so that means a prime lens. My budget is low and I need it asap, so for now I can't consider anything like the pro Nikon or Sigma f1.4 lenses. I will go second hand if I have to, but I know that often the more expensive lenses are actually no better or can even be worse.

So of the 3 options, I've ruled out the 35mm without doubt. I the short time I had it, I loved the look and feel of it, and the focus speed was great too. I don't want to go back to 50mm but will if it's by far the best option. So the obvious one to go for is the 40mm Micro. I don't need it for macro work, as I have a 105mm for that now that I'm very happy with. I just don't want to buy the 40mm and find it worse quality than my old 50mm, or slower at focusing than the one I just sent back - Well not too much slower anyway.

I have done my research but as usual with these things, there are many conflicting opinions. Many say that the 35mm is excellent optically, so maybe they have better examples or use a lower resolution camera that doesn't show how bad it is. I do stock work and need quality at 100%. I've read a review that compares the 35mm I sent back and the 40mm, and the 40mm is the clear winner for optical quality and also when it comes to CA's.

I would like some user opinions please of the resolution and quality of the 40mm lens, if you think it's better than the others I mentioned, or if you think a more expensive option (second hand) is considerably better. As for DX and FX - Well for now I have to accept that a FX camera is out of my reach, and if I could afford it some day, I could probably afford to replace this lens too. :)
 
Personally, if I wanted a wider lens I'd look at the new 28mm f/1.8.

Odd that you found the 35mm so bad, mine's great, might be worth trying another?
 
You had to have a bad copy of the 35mm f1.8 because it is a cracking lens. Mine was razor sharp wide open on a D7000.
 
Nawty said:
Personally, if I wanted a wider lens I'd look at the new 28mm f/1.8.

Odd that you found the 35mm so bad, mine's great, might be worth trying another?
Click to expand...

I've considered trying another, but many people and some reviews mention the very bad chromatic aberration, and wide open it's very poor in other people's opinions too. So it probably isn't worth trying another.

If you mean the Nikkor 28mm f1.8 that's about 2 years old now, then I'd love that but don't have the budget. I can't find any newer ones.
 
2 years is new in terms of lenses - the previous 28mm prime is decades old!

for me 35mm on crop is just not quite wide enough so I wouldn't go for a 40mm - you could try the 35mm f/2 - it lacks contrast wide open but is an otherwise nice lens.
 
Shot wide open (the last is f2.2 on a D700).

6135695901_84872c0ebb_b.jpg


6135695227_764dd79347_b.jpg

6165710706_f5c8f08017_b.jpg
 
I'm not so sure it's bad copies (unless it is obviously broken), more like different expectations. Fast wide primes suffer from CA, fact of life and the 35mm f/1.8 is a cheap lens so what can you really expect?
 
Nawty said:
2 years is new in terms of lenses - the previous 28mm prime is decades old!

for me 35mm on crop is just not quite wide enough so I wouldn't go for a 40mm - you could try the 35mm f/2 - it lacks contrast wide open but is an otherwise nice lens.
Click to expand...


I would rather not go for 40mm either to be honest, if I had options, as it seems maybe I do after all. Thanks for the tip on the f2. It isn't as cheap but not too much more than the others.

The23rdman - Thank you for posting those photos. Do you have any that show sharp details nearer the edges? I found that the centre of my images were ok, but the far sides weren't, up to about a quarter of the way in. I needed to look at 100% for it to be clearly poor though but it was then obvious. The CA's were poor all over the photos too, which is a widely reported problem with the lens.
 
Nawty said:
I'm not so sure it's bad copies (unless it is obviously broken), more like different expectations. Fast wide primes suffer from CA, fact of life and the 35mm f/1.8 is a cheap lens so what can you really expect?
Click to expand...

True, but as bad CA's as I saw makes it useless for me. One review I've read compared the 35mm and 40mm and the 40mm looks a lot better, including for CA's. I agree though that we all have different expectations, and my Sigma 105mm macro lens has spoiled me a bit! I just can't afford anything costing too much at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough, my 35mm f/1.8 is pin sharp on a D3200 and CAs fine as long as you're not wide open.
 
Zackarydoo said:
I would rather not go for 40mm either to be honest, if I had options, as it seems maybe I do after all. Thanks for the tip on the f2. It isn't as cheap but not too much more than the others.

The23rdman - Thank you for posting those photos. Do you have any that show sharp details nearer the edges? I found that the centre of my images were ok, but the far sides weren't, up to about a quarter of the way in. I needed to look at 100% for it to be clearly poor though but it was then obvious. The CA's were poor all over the photos too, which is a widely reported problem with the lens.
Click to expand...

How sharp are you expecting it to be near the edge? It's a cheap lens that is great within its capabilities. I've never worried about CA because it is so easily correctable in post.
 
The23rdman said:
How sharp are you expecting it to be near the edge? It's a cheap lens that is great within its capabilities. I've never worried about CA because it is so easily correctable in post.
Click to expand...

I expect that by a quarter of the way in, it's as sharp as it is at the centre. So I'm not talking about the very edges. I know it's cheap but my old 50mm F1.8D was excellent and is still cheaper than the 35mm. I never had a problem with CA's or anything else with that lens, but now I have a 105mm I need something a little shorter.
 
This is at f4.5, but it's on a D700 so about as extremely in the corners as you could get...

7649257442_c666760ef1_b.jpg
 
Also the mono shot posted above was on a D700 so the subject is pretty much in the corners of the D7100 field.
 
Show us a photo that exhibits the problem. I honestly think that you are expecting way too much from this lens. Mine was sharp across the frame from about f2.8. Okay, maybe not right in the corners, but that is way too much to expect at this price point. Comparing it to a macro lens is daft.
 
Zackarydoo said:
it's at 100% where it's more obvious.
Click to expand...


Therein lies the problem, with a 24mp DX sensor your on the limits of pretty much any but the best lenses so at 100% things are always going to look a little iffy. Also, with this resolution technique is even more important.
 
The23rdman said:
Show us a photo that exhibits the problem. I honestly think that you are expecting way too much from this lens. Mine was sharp across the frame from about f2.8. Okay, maybe not right in the corners, but that is way too much to expect at this price point. Comparing it to a macro lens is daft.
Click to expand...

I cannot post a photo from where I currently am. I know what to expect and know my cheaper 50mm did better. I'm not comparing it a macro lens at all, I just said I've been spoiled by the quality of it. My 50mm WAS better though and the CA's were ever a problem, and it was not distorted so far from the edges.
 
Zackarydoo said:
I cannot post a photo from where I currently am. I know what to expect and know my cheaper 50mm did better. I'm not comparing it a macro lens at all, I just said I've been spoiled by the quality of it. My 50mm WAS better though and the CA's were ever a problem, and it was not distorted so far from the edges.
Click to expand...
Buy a better 35mm lens than. :)
 
Nawty said:
Therein lies the problem, with a 24mp DX sensor your on the limits of pretty much any but the best lenses so at 100% things are always going to look a little iffy. Also, with this resolution technique is even more important.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with that. The centre is still way better but even so, I'm aware that my higher resolution sensor has changed thing for me now.

Even so, I think my 35mm must have been a bad copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top