Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX?

C

cherokee1111

Messages
822
Edit My Images
Yes
was looking at a nifty fifty for my D90 but this then caught my eye as being a better focal lenght and nearer what the human eye sees (or so I read).
Anyone got experience of this lens? is it sharper than the nifty?
Thanks
 
Even at jessops they only £169 seem a very good price if its a good lens for close up people photos
 
I've got one and have had the 50mm f/1.8. Much prefer the 35mm now due to the extra width.
 
wow, quick replies, thank you.

Anyone fancy posting some recent images with one? go on, show off your sharp lens please.

Think I read (correct me if I'm wrong) that the 35mmf2 is more suited for FF cameras as opposed to the crop 35mm f1.8 which was made for DX?
 
cherokee1111 said:
wow, quick replies, thank you.

Anyone fancy posting some recent images with one? go on, show off your sharp lens please.

Think I read (correct me if I'm wrong) that the 35mmf2 is more suited for FF cameras as opposed to the crop 35mm f1.8 which was made for DX?
Click to expand...

Yes, and no.
The 35f/1.8G can 'only' be used for DX cameras (well u can use for FX but there will be a lot of vignettes).
Also, it has a lot more distortion than the 35f/2D.

The 35f/2D can be used for both DX and FX cameras. (but it won't auto focus on the D40 D60 D3000 D5000.. etc)
 
How much difference is there? Worth going from the 35mmf/1.8 to the f/2?
 
Got mine on Thursday, I must say my first few shots we crap. I found it a little difficult focusing at f1.8, kinda got my daughters nose in focus and eyes out of focus :( need a little practise I think!

Other than that, the lens is a lot sharper than the box standard kit lens, It does have some noticeable CA when shoting with really bright sunlight.
 
johnsy said:
I found it a little difficult focusing at f1.8, kinda got my daughters nose in focus and eyes out of focus
Click to expand...

silly question but how do you get all in focus then if so close and its only picking up nose
 
I disagree, I use a 50mm on a crop body and would find a 35mm to wide in most situations. For family shots a 50mm can be too wide, but often its fine is also good for couples/singles. Have to say that an 85mm would be ideal for me for many baby shots.

Also, 50mm or 85mm is more flattering than a 35mm for portraits.
 
B16JUS said:
silly question but how do you get all in focus then if so close and its only picking up nose
Click to expand...

Need to change the aperture if you are up close and want it all in focus. At f/1.8 this lens give lots of DOF. Just have a play with the aperture until you get what you want in focus.
 
cambsno said:
I disagree, I use a 50mm on a crop body and would find a 35mm to wide in most situations. .
Click to expand...

Not if you are in a tight room, i'd rather have it too wide and then crop down than having to stand further and further away. Saying that the 85mm is on my want list :lol:
 
swordjo said:
Need to change the aperture if you are up close and want it all in focus. At f/1.8 this lens give lots of DOF. Just have a play with the aperture until you get what you want in focus.
Click to expand...

Surely you mean hardly any DoF? But yeah, stop down the lens to get the whole face in focus.
 
yes I saw that and am tempted as thats the same as a new 35mm f1.8 but this paragraph from the clickable link is niggling me.......

..............and that it was not designed specifically for digital use, it wouldn’t be surprising if this lens left a little to be desired in the performance stakes. Indeed, that turns out to be the case and the Nikkor really cannot be recommended for use at its maximum aperture if its results in combination with the D80 are anything to go by.
 
cherokee1111 said:
..............and that it was not designed specifically for digital use, it wouldn’t be surprising if this lens left a little to be desired in the performance stakes. Indeed, that turns out to be the case and the Nikkor really cannot be recommended for use at its maximum aperture if its results in combination with the D80 are anything to go by.
Click to expand...

That is so wrong, it is a lens designed for 35mm film (full frame coverage), the crop sensor will use the centre portion of the image it projects, which is the sweet spot of any lens.

Those of us that have actually used one are all telling you it is a superb lens.
 
Martyn... said:
That is so wrong, it is a lens designed for 35mm film (full frame coverage), the crop sensor will use the centre portion of the image it projects, which is the sweet spot of any lens.

Those of us that have actually used one are all telling you it is a superb lens.
Click to expand...

True, and by using that centre portion, there will be almost NO distortion in the images when using with the 35f/2D :lol:
On the other hand, the 35f/1.8G has too much distortion for me to consider :shrug:
 
intotherainbow said:
True, and by using that centre portion, there will be almost NO distortion in the images when using with the 35f/2D :lol:
On the other hand, the 35f/1.8G has too much distortion for me to consider :shrug:
Click to expand...

I wonder who is writing some of these magazine / internet articles.
 
The 35mm 1.8 is brilliant, and as previously mentioned only £169 at Jessops! Fast to focus and very sharp. I love it.
 
thats pretty much how I feel, had the cheapo 50mm and loved it but went to a D5000 so no AF so sold it and got the 35mm (couldnt afford the 50 1.4) and although I feel its a great lens and excellent VFM I preffered the focal length of the 50mm for most situations and have now gone back to a cheapo 50mm and MF until I a) can afford the 1.4 or b) swap body for motored one.

cambsno said:
I disagree, I use a 50mm on a crop body and would find a 35mm to wide in most situations. For family shots a 50mm can be too wide, but often its fine is also good for couples/singles. Have to say that an 85mm would be ideal for me for many baby shots.

Also, 50mm or 85mm is more flattering than a 35mm for portraits.
Click to expand...
 
I own two Nikkor 35mm f/2's - the older AI-S for my film cameras and the newer AF-D, which did develop a sticky (oily) iris after about five years of ownership and has just cost me 30€ to get cleaned.
Both lenses are pinners...

One sits permanently on my old F3 and the other goes on my D3 when I don't feel like carrying all the other kit around...
 
This has been a bit of an eye opener for , didn't really know about the 35mmf/2 until this thread and have did a bit of reading up on it now. Might have to make the change over at some point in the next few weeks.
 
johnsy said:
I found f2.8 to be a pretty good place to start with the lens.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

That's my experience with this lens, too. The CA really is dreadful (worse than my other fast primes) when shooting wide open, if there are bright lights/strong contrast in the image. It's OK if you do a b&w conversion, of course :D.

So, I intend to use my 35mm f/1.8 at f/3.2 or f/4, where it becomes scary sharp (looks as good as my 300mm f/4 :shrug:) in future.

No experience with the other lenses mentioned here, other than the Nikon nifty fifty, which (in my case) is not anywhere near as sharp as the 35mm Nikon when used on a DX sensor (although it's reasonably sharp on the FX sensor :shrug:).

Still, with lenses at this price point (even though they're simple primes), I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of variation in sample quality ;).
 
4720826084_96461c0758_z.jpg


You can see the issue at the top left of this pic.
 
swordjo said:
4720826084_96461c0758_z.jpg


You can see the issue at the top left of this pic.
Click to expand...

wow, I see what you mean, and thats not wide open either I presume? surprising and dissapointing for a £170 prime, I'm thinking the f2 might be the better bet now albeit more expensive.
P.S that looks like 1 Devonshire or close by?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top