28mm 1.8 vs 35mm 1.8

EchoingWhisper · Sep 6, 2012

What are your suggestions? I am using either one of these on my D5100 for a holiday vacation to Japan.

First, I slightly prefer 28mm over 35mm on DX, but 35mm is not too bad for me. I can also use it if I move to FX in two years, maybe? I'd rather buy this lens later though. But it is worth the extra 1.5 times the cost?

My priorities are:
Sharpness, flare and bokeh

Here's after some reading from reviews for these lenses on DX, here's my conclusion:
1. Distortion: 28mm is slightly better, doesn't matter to me. I have Lightroom.
2. Bokeh: 28mm is much better (not to say it's good, but it's better than 35mm), very important for me.
3. Vignette: 28mm is slightly matter, again, doesn't matter to me.
4. Sharpness: 35mm is much better on all apertures, especially not on the center. (it's obvious, 35mm is a lens for DX, and it is sharper than 50mm on FX)
5. CA: almost non existent on both lenses
6. Focus shift on both lenses are due to production differences, not a specific con of either lenses. It depends on my luck.

I'm not biased towards or against Nikon, so I don't mind third party lenses, if you have any good suggestions. Of course, though, I expect third party lenses have better quality

rice.

Derrel · Sep 6, 2012

Not sure on some of your points. I thought the new 28/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor full-frame-capable lens was almost $700 in price, and the 35/1.8 DX more like $200. Anyway...one lens, the 28 is wider-angle and MUCH more-expensive than the 35, and on DX, the 28 will be more of a semi-wide angle than the 35. The 35 is very small. It seems like if you can afford a trip to Japan, you could afford also the 35mm 1.8. As to the sharpness of the 35mm vs the 28...I would not think that's much of an advantage for the 35mm lens. The 28mm f/1.8 is a MUCH BIGGER, more-bulky lens. My advice? Just get both of them, and use them, then sell off the one you like less. Or, keep them both and have the pair.

TheLost · Sep 6, 2012

They are two different lenses targeted at two different groups of people (pro vs consumer)... The 28mm 1.8G is a Nano Crystal Coated Full Frame lens... The 35mm 1.8G is a consumer grade DX lens.

If it was me, I wouldn't get either lens. I'd pick up the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM OS and use the rest of the money on my trip. However, if your set on only primes the 28mm is a no-brainer if you have the money (its the standard 'what would you pick... hyundai or BMW' question).

Also.. #5 on your list is wrong. The 35mm 1.8 has BAD chromatic aberration. You may want to read more reviews. It's still a good $200 lens though.

EchoingWhisper · Sep 6, 2012

Derrel said:
Not sure on some of your points. I thought the new 28/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor full-frame-capable lens was almost $700 in price, and the 35/1.8 DX more like $200. Anyway...one lens, the 28 is wider-angle and MUCH more-expensive than the 35, and on DX, the 28 will be more of a semi-wide angle than the 35. The 35 is very small. It seems like if you can afford a trip to Japan, you could afford also the 35mm 1.8. As to the sharpness of the 35mm vs the 28...I would not think that's much of an advantage for the 35mm lens. The 28mm f/1.8 is a MUCH BIGGER, more-bulky lens. My advice? Just get both of them, and use them, then sell off the one you like less. Or, keep them both and have the pair.

Extra 1.5 times is 2.5 times the price.

EchoingWhisper · Sep 6, 2012

TheLost said:
They are two different lenses targeted at two different groups of people (pro vs consumer)... The 28mm 1.8G is a Nano Crystal Coated Full Frame lens... The 35mm 1.8G is a consumer grade DX lens.

If it was me, I wouldn't get either lens. I'd pick up the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM OS and use the rest of the money on my trip. However, if your set on only primes the 28mm is a no-brainer if you have the money (its the standard 'what would you pick... hyundai or BMW' question).

Also.. #5 on your list is wrong. The 35mm 1.8 has BAD chromatic aberration. You may want to read more reviews. It's still a good $200 lens though.

I'd really like to get a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 too. (goes for $875 here) And of course, I have my current lenses to back me up. I'm shooting with my 18-55mm throughout the trip, with a prime lens to help me on low light conditions. 28mm costs $625 here.

Looks like its 17-50mm f/2.8 vs 35mm 1.8. Don't think I could afford the 17-50mm though...

EchoingWhisper · Sep 6, 2012

I think I'm buying the 35mm. I need to get a tripod, a polarising filter (which might not work on my 18-55mm D

, a better bag, maybe a cheap IPS screen and so on.

But there's no need to rush, will decide later, still 2 months away from going there.

greybeard · Sep 6, 2012

If you are looking to something to help you in low light and then use the 18-55 for everything else, the 35mm makes more sense to me.

Markw · Sep 6, 2012

The 35 has BAD CA. As stated above. And a bit of distortion, if I remember mine correctly. But, it's superb in every other way. A lovely lens indeed.

The 28mm is simply a better lens. Better in all aspects. But, you might not like the size on your DX camera. Also, the focal lengths are a bit different. Albiet, not by a terribly huge margin. Either way, you won't be disappointed. But, I CERTAINLY don't miss the CA of the 35. If you wanted a bit of a compromise, Sigma makes a 30mm F/1.4 for like $300. That's between 28 and 35, and an extra 2/3 stop brighter! I honestly don't know too much about this one, but I do know that distortion is a bit worse than the Nikon 35. Again, not too much of a problem for you. You have lightroom.

Mark

EchoingWhisper · Sep 7, 2012

Markw said:
The 35 has BAD CA. As stated above. And a bit of distortion, if I remember mine correctly. But, it's superb in every other way. A lovely lens indeed.

The 28mm is simply a better lens. Better in all aspects. But, you might not like the size on your DX camera. Also, the focal lengths are a bit different. Albiet, not by a terribly huge margin. Either way, you won't be disappointed. But, I CERTAINLY don't miss the CA of the 35. If you wanted a bit of a compromise, Sigma makes a 30mm F/1.4 for like $300. That's between 28 and 35, and an extra 2/3 stop brighter! I honestly don't know too much about this one, but I do know that distortion is a bit worse than the Nikon 35. Again, not too much of a problem for you. You have lightroom.

Mark

I'm going to look at the Sigma!

EchoingWhisper · Sep 7, 2012

Markw said:
The 35 has BAD CA. As stated above. And a bit of distortion, if I remember mine correctly. But, it's superb in every other way. A lovely lens indeed.

The 28mm is simply a better lens. Better in all aspects. But, you might not like the size on your DX camera. Also, the focal lengths are a bit different. Albiet, not by a terribly huge margin. Either way, you won't be disappointed. But, I CERTAINLY don't miss the CA of the 35. If you wanted a bit of a compromise, Sigma makes a 30mm F/1.4 for like $300. That's between 28 and 35, and an extra 2/3 stop brighter! I honestly don't know too much about this one, but I do know that distortion is a bit worse than the Nikon 35. Again, not too much of a problem for you. You have lightroom.

Mark

It's $550 here... Heard some bad things about it.

EchoingWhisper · Sep 7, 2012

30mm has more distortion than 35mm.
30mm is slightly sharper than 35mm.
30mm has 2/3rd stop advantage in DOF.
30mm has slightly better CA control.
30mm is more than twice the price.

Solarflare · Sep 7, 2012

Well:

Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis
Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8 G (DX) - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis

I would say 35mm is quite a bit sharper, and has quite strong CAs (almost 2 pixel instead of a bit more than 1 pixel for the 28mm, on the D7000 which was the test camera).

The 28mm has less distortion, and slightly less vignetting.

Patrice · Sep 7, 2012

Here is a taught, a slightly older, just as good, way smaller, well made, less expensive, full frame, 28mm f/2.8AI (or AFD). Manual focus on your camera, but you'll soon get the hang of that. I have an older 28 f/2.0 MF that is really really nice and cost just a few 10's of dollars.

Markw · Sep 7, 2012

Solarflare said:
Well:

Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis
Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8 G (DX) - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis

I would say 35mm is quite a bit sharper, and has quite strong CAs (almost 2 pixel instead of a bit more than 1 pixel for the 28mm, on the D7000 which was the test camera).

The 28mm has less distortion, and slightly less vignetting.

Charts are fine and dandy. Real-world use is what matters. Here's your lovely charts for the 24/1.4. I don't know of anyone who thinks that's a sub-par lens, and it scores almost identically to the 28/1.8.

Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Mark

EchoingWhisper · Sep 8, 2012

Patrice said:
Here is a taught, a slightly older, just as good, way smaller, well made, less expensive, full frame, 28mm f/2.8AI (or AFD). Manual focus on your camera, but you'll soon get the hang of that. I have an older 28 f/2.0 MF that is really really nice and cost just a few 10's of dollars.

I don't expect myself to manual focus in a trip with my underpowered spectacles in this small viewfinder.