Nikkor 35mm 1.8 G DX

So do we wait until the VR version comes out? Or do we not need it with this? I have 18-55 VR kit lens and the 55-200 VR kit lens. I want something cheap and fast and this seams to fit the bill but i don't know if i should wait for the VR version or will there even be a VR version??

IMHO, VR is not needed on the shorter focal lengths. For that matter, for how many decades did we not have the concept of VR? Develop good hand-holding technique and at this focal length and aperture it's a non-issue, IMO.
 
yeah, I'm not sure who mentioned the VR, but there is no need for it on anything below f/2.8; at any rate, I agree, too many people own cropped sensors in the Nikon community for them not to cater to it on some level.

The 50mm 1.4G was a success in that manner, since the price point, $400, isn't bad for a prime that works on BOTH.

However, there is no way a 35 1.4 or 1.8 FX could've been done for $200. So making it a DX-dedicated only was a great business decision, and that's what it's about, especially with tax-season approaching and *hopefully* tax returns spent on camera goods (and not health insurance or food). . .
 
Mind you, according to an interview on dpreview, this is only the first of more lenses this year, so I would imagine they are going to release the 35 1.8 pretty rapidly in enough supply, saturate all those employed D40/D60/D90 users with a nice prime, and follow with some more expensive DX/FX solutions. . .unless they release more DX primes, which has arguably been their largest gap in the lineup. .
Why is this considered a gap? Why do they need to be DX lenses? Wouldn't AF-S suffice? If it were AF-S 35 1.8, everyone would be happy. Oh, with a metal mount of course. May raise the price a bit though :p
 
Not silly at all. As explained by Nikon themselves, making it a DX lens allows it to be smaller, lighter and cheaper. It's a lot more attractive to a lot more people at $200 than it would be at $1000.

I don't get what all this complaining about DX lenses is. APS-C is not leaving any time soon. In product line numbers (not production or sales numbers) 63% of Canon bodies are EF-S (Canon crop) and 66% of Nikon bodies are DX (Nikon crop). I'm positive that those percentages in production and sales numbers are even higher.

Full frame sensors are still shockingly expensive to make. At $200, I'll happily buy a lens to use for several years before I can even begin to contemplate a full-frame body.

Is that current models you are refering to?

Canon XSi, XS, and 50D are EF-S mount, 1D Mark III is a 1.3 times crop factor, not EF-S, 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III are full frame. Looks like a 50/50 split for the current models.
 
I'm bummed that it's a DX lens, but I still think it's going to be a winner.

I know that if we get them in the store, i'm going to make a ton of money off of them because they'll be easy to sell.
 
Canon XSi, XS, and 50D are EF-S mount, 1D Mark III is a 1.3 times crop factor, not EF-S, 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III are full frame. Looks like a 50/50 split for the current models.
My bad on the Canon model numbers, but the sales numbers are no doubt different.
 
I think the 35mm f/2D was the first Nikon prime I got.

Years later, I though of buying a D40, and the main reason for NOT buying the D40 was that the 35mm f/2 does not AF on the D40. I stuck with the D70 instead.

Anyhow, I don't know how weird I am, but if there are many more people out there like me, it many people who won't by the D40 or D60 just for the lack of 'normal' AF prime lens to go with these bodies.
 
I'm bummed that it's a DX lens, but I still think it's going to be a winner.

I know that if we get them in the store, i'm going to make a ton of money off of them because they'll be easy to sell.
Yeah, they do look like they'll be easy to sell :) Didn't know you were in sales too Switch :)
 
I was thinking of getting this but I am thinking of going the route of manual focus primes (which the D40 is great for) and getting a ground glass/split prism focusing screen
 
I am having the fx vs dx dilemma. I went to the store yesterday and I like the 35mm 1.8 but don't want to get another dx lens right now. But the 35mm 2.0 is much more expensice...
So, then (since I was itching for a new lens) I was looking to upgrade my 50mm 1.8D to a 50mm 1.4G and I saw no reason to spend the $450. I barely saw any difference in the quality or the boke renditions...so I left the store with my money in my purse and my tail between my legs LOL. Damn, that 50mm 1.8 is GOOD!
 
Well, I take back my $300 price point skepticism. For just over $300, I'll have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 35mm f/1.8 to pair with my D200 in May. That's a lot of lens capability for not much money.
 
that's an excellent setup for not much. . . .!!!

Just make sure you have a wide angle lens to pair with it all. . .I'm still waiting on my Tokina 11-16, and then I'm set with some quickie lenses myself for about $1100 (had I gone with a 50 1.8, I would've been well under a grand). . .if I didn't want higher ISO performance, I could've even scored a D200 when it was on special at BestBuy for $569!
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top