Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

I think you're on about the 50mm, the 35mm was only announced at CES today.
 
Ahh I see so it's a full frame 35 1.8

If it was around the same price as the sigma 1.4 then I'd get that tbh
 
JBuk said:
Ahh I see so it's a full frame 35 1.8

If it was around the same price as the sigma 1.4 then I'd get that tbh
Click to expand...

I used to have a sigma 30mm on my old 60D and it was a cracking lens, just wondering how this one is going to fair as it'd be nice to have the full set of f/1.8G primes I could then upgrade to the f/1.4G's one at a time. (I'm a sucker for full sets, heh)
 
If you are on a crop body then surely there would be no reason to get this over the already excellent Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX?

On fully frame then the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art would be the lens to get as its about the same price, tack sharp and a stop faster.
 
PU7E said:
I used to have a sigma 30mm on my old 60D and it was a cracking lens, just wondering how this one is going to fair as it'd be nice to have the full set of f/1.8G primes I could then upgrade to the f/1.4G's one at a time. (I'm a sucker for full sets, heh)
Click to expand...

Then get the full Sigma 1.4 set? If their updates continue in the form of the 35 1.4 and their other art lenses they'll be just as good as, if not better than, the Nikon counterparts at half the price.

A mid-range full frame 35 was definitely needed in the Nikon system but this would need to come out substantially below the £400 mark to even be considered against the Sigma 35 which already fairly comfortably outperforms the first party 35mm f/1.4's.
 
Last edited:
I hope you like salad!

The art does look like a good lens, but the direct conversion is around £350 if it hit the UK around that price then I'd be tempted.
 
Columbo said:
If you are on a crop body then surely there would be no reason to get this over the already excellent Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX?

On fully frame then the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art would be the lens to get as its about the same price, tack sharp and a stop faster.
Click to expand...

The DX 35mm is ropey at best IMO. I'm really disappointed in my copy, way worse than the Canon 35mm f/2. If the new Nikon FF one is not much bigger and not too expensive then it'll be a good buy over the DX version.

Edit: Just to clarify, it's a fine lens but it displays all the issues that crop lenses generally do on crop bodies. The sweet spot effect of full frame glass on crop cameras makes a massive difference to the edges of the frame. That's fairly important depending on what you shoot, not particularly for portraits but very for landscapes and cityscapes.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
The DX 35mm is ropey at best IMO. I'm really disappointed in my copy, way worse than the Canon 35mm f/2. If the new Nikon FF one is not much bigger and not too expensive then it'll be a good buy over the DX version.
Click to expand...

It will have to be better because its going to cost around 2.5x more but I dont see how it will be a good buy for anyone as it will be priced so close to the Sigma.

Having said that my 35mm f1.8 is superb, I've had to make a slight -2 micro AF adj but since then its been pretty much stuck to my D7k and it very rarely gets used slower than f1.8.

I get what you are saying regarding frame edges but seriously who shoots landscapes and cityscapes at wide apertures? In general I shoot at f1.8 because I want subject separation where soft corners are a non issue, anything landscape I generally shoot at f5.6 or slower by which point the corners are sharp anyway on the 35mm.
 
Last edited:
My DX 35mm is quite frankly amazing for the price, and I've owned the Canon 35L recently too. It's sharp wide open and I find the bokeh not too bad at all. I'll certainly keep an eye on this FX version, Nikon have a really nice set of cheap full frame fast primes now from 28-85mm.


243 by 42zx, on Flickr


240 by 42zx, on Flickr
 
Glad this this coming along I use 35mm as my main wide lens. I have a 35mm af f2 which was my Dads and probably had from about when it first came out but it is starting to break (f8 no longer works 100%) so this looks to be a suitable replacement although it looks like a bigger lens (length on camera).

Being an amateur and not totally flush I cannot justify buying the 1.4 for myself! And the DX lens would not be suitable for my camera.
 
Columbo said:
It will have to be better because its going to cost around 2.5x more but I dont see how it will be a good buy for anyone as it will be priced so close to the Sigma.

Having said that my 35mm f1.8 is superb, I've had to make a slight -2 micro AF adj but since then its been pretty much stuck to my D7k and it very rarely gets used slower than f1.8.

I get what you are saying regarding frame edges but seriously who shoots landscapes and cityscapes at wide apertures? In general I shoot at f1.8 because I want subject separation where soft corners are a non issue, anything landscape I generally shoot at f5.6 or slower by which point the corners are sharp anyway on the 35mm.
Click to expand...

Distortion and CA aren't affected by aperture as far as I know... The problem I have with mine is not the centre sharpness but the distortion around the edges, something that is less of a problem on a full frame lens (used on crop cameras). As I mentioned I had a Canon 35mm f/2 and looking through photos of that it ran rings round the Nikon, not due to sharpness but due to the CA and distortion. Edge issues are much less of an issue when shooting portraits as I mentioned. As a walk around lens (shooting landscape, cityscape etc.) It's just not up to par at whatever aperture you want to use it at. Indoors and shooting people I have no problems with it.

It's not exclusive to the 35 DX, the sigma 30 f/1.4 has the same problem (another DX lens), it's just par for the course with widish angle DX lenses.

Last time I looked the FF sigma 35 was £600, I assume it has reduced in price significantly in the last couple of months then?
 
The Nikon f/1.8G line up is looking quite good now, although I'm really hoping it lands around £350 otherwise you might as well pick up the sigma.
 
Now I'm actually on a computer...

The sigma came out at £850 so even if the £/$ ratio is 1:1 that'll still make it cheaper than the Sigma, especially in a couple of months when it drops in price (admittedly it's unlikely to drop in price 30% like the Sigma but £100+ would be reasonable). The Nikon would also have another large (or "small") advantage if it's as good. It's half the size and weight of the Sigma. That's a pretty big plus for those of us that use lenses when we travel.

Anyway, we'll have to see what the reviews say but if it's as good then it's cheaper and smaller than the Sigma and not much larger than the 35 DX. It would slot in nicely... I'm guessing there will be a large flaw somewhere though... It'll probably turn out to be rubbish...:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom