Difference between 35mm 1.4 and 1.8 lenses

D

donkey_kong

Messages
216
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I own the Nikon 35mm f1.8 prime which I think it superb. However, I didn't realise that there is also a f1.4 version. So, decided to check this out on Amazon and was shocked to see that the 1.4 was over £1,300 - about 7 or 8 times more than I paid for the 1.8!

I am just curious to know - why is there such a huge difference? Is the 1.4 version really worth that much in comparison to the 1.8 version?

Apart from my prime lens, I own the 18-55mm 3.5-4.5 and 55-300mm 4.5-5.6 Nikon lenses which are budget lenses. I want to get faster better glass but it is just far too expensive. If I were to upgrade from my current lenses - keeping the same wide focal lengths, is there a lens that would be the next step up?

Thanks,

DK
 
Maybe look at a tamron or sigma 17-50mm 2.8..this would be a nice step up and also look at a 70-200mm sigma or tamron again 2.8..not quite the 300mm you have but you could add a converter and the image quality would still be a step up.;)
 
The Nikon 35mm F1.8 is more designed for the DX cameras,where as the 35mm F1.4 is designed for the FX camera,and aimed at an higher end market,that's what makes a big diffrent in price,for the small gain in light I would stick to the F1.8 one :)
 
It's all about the construction. The 1.4 35mm is a metal beast, better quality, heavier glass elements, cut glass is expensive. There'll be a couple of ED elements and a nano crystal coated one no doubt. 9 aperture blades instead of 7 etc ... [I'm just guessing, these are usually the differences between pro and non-pro lenses]

No, it's not worth the extra money IMHO. End result won't show much difference, better bokeh perhaps. The 35mm 1.8G is already a tack sharp lens, just like the 50mm 1.8G is too.
 
Cagey75 said:
It's all about the construction. The 1.4 35mm is a metal beast, better quality, heavier glass elements, cut glass is expensive. There'll be a couple of ED elements and a nano crystal coated one no doubt. 9 aperture blades instead of 7 etc ... [I'm just guessing, these are usually the differences between pro and non-pro lenses]

No, it's not worth the extra money IMHO. End result won't show much difference, better bokeh perhaps. The 35mm 1.8G is already a tack sharp lens, just like the 50mm 1.8G is too.
Click to expand...

The 35 (like the 24 and 85) has a lot of plastic in it. It also (unlike the 24, but like the 85) has no ED glass.

If you just want a fast 35 for DX, there's no point going beyond the 35 1.8. If you really need the extra stop, or like having fancy lenses, then it might be worth it.
 
Thanks for all the info. I can't quite comprehend the difference in price due to slightly better glass.

Maybe look at a tamron or sigma 17-50mm 2.8..this would be a nice step up and also look at a 70-200mm sigma or tamron again 2.8..not quite the 300mm you have but you could add a converter and the image quality would still be a step up.
Click to expand...

Tamron and sigma lenses on a DX body - do these lenses have an autofocus motor? On my D3100, would I need to manually focus?
 
You need to look for HSM on Sigma lenses for auto focus on your D3100
 
donkey_kong said:
Thanks for all the info. I can't quite comprehend the difference in price due to slightly better glass.
Click to expand...

Higher grade glass, metal rather than plastic construction, lower volumes being manufactured, probably made in Japan rather than Thailand would all result in a higher cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top