A little "blog" if you will: Getting rid of the 35mm 1.8G as well now

[PaulWog]

Obviously this change is relevant to me, but I think it applies to some people who are developing their sets of lenses as well. I want to clarify that I could continue to grow and learn with the 35mm 1.8G. I've by no means "outgrown" that gear. I don't think anyone can really outgrow gear; they might find they don't use it often enough, or their standards have risen. For me, both of those things fit the ticket. (I noted in my ad that the lens needs focus adjustment built into the camera... I just didn't have time to make it to the service center by 1 in the afternoon which is about the closing time, and I didn't want to invest $20 to send it in which would be the appropriate s&h cost).

The 35mm 1.8G for me just didn't provide acceptable bokeh. The focal length isn't an issue: I want a 35mm still. But when I go out and shoot photos, I want to know everything about them is going to be wonderful. I found quite often the colours would go really odd on the 35mm 1.8G, or the bokeh would go really bad. It became an unreliable lens (warranty issues aside). I'd say 70% of the photos turned out beautifully when using this lens (in liveview mode for focus), but 30% of the photos (and some of these really mattered) ended up really ugly due to the bokeh and other issues. I could soften up the bokeh in Lightroom, but that often just leaves me with artifical-looking bokeh (as if I had taken a picture at f11 and blurred out what I want to)... I'm not a huge fan of manually modifying bokeh by significant amounts, unless if I spend hours on one specific photo in photoshop CS5/6 (which I can't be bothered to do unless if it's that one special photo project).

I think when it comes to advising anyone purchasing a 35mm 1.8G DX lens, providing them with side-by-side bokeh comparisons (the good, the bad, and the ugly) is actually important. I originally thought "Hey! there's blurred out stuff in my picture! Looks great!" Guess it's that first beer, just introduced to coffee, or inexperienced with wine or cheese sort of thing... once you know, you know. For some, a cheap coffee gets the caffeine fix they need... I think the 35mm 1.8G could've served me fine if I got it serviced, but taking everything into account selling it makes the most sense (getting $180 but bundling it with a UV filter so long as the deal pans out).

 

[Bossy]

Can you post images where you feel the bokah or colors are blah?

 

[Braineack]

I never liked the 35mm 1.8G to be honest. To me it was just a decently sharp, fast, lens in my bag that was almost never used.

I honestly feel like my 17-70 2.8-4 produced better bokeh at every focal length, than the 35mm at f/1.8.

 

[Bossy]

I never liked the 35mm 1.8G to be honest. To me it was just a decently sharp, fast, lens in my bag that was almost never used.

I honest feel like my 17-70 2.8-4 produced better bokeh at ever focal length, than the 35mm at 1.8G.

For twice as much I'd hope so.

 

[Braineack]

For twice as much I'd hope so.

I could get a 50mm 1.8D for about 4x less and have even BETTER bokeh.

 

[runnah]

Better Bokeh is not worth the extra cost IMO. The 25mm & 50mm 1.8g are fantastic lenses and might be the best value for money out there.

 

[Bossy]

For twice as much I'd hope so.

I could get a 50mm 1.8D for about 4x less and have even BETTER bokeh.

I shoot all the time with my 35mm 2.8 and love what it produces, I haven't noticed any problems with color or bokeh. And while I don't have a 50mm to compare it with, I do have a 100mm 2.8 to compare it with, and both definitely have their place on my camera. So I guess I'm just still on my first beer 4 years later

 

[Derrel]

If good bokeh is your main concern at the 35mm length, you might look into the 35mm f/2 O.C. Nikkor, a pre-Ai wide angle that has nice bokeh. It's not a high-demand lens, and since you have a D5200, it can be used un-modified, in its original pre-Ai state, which makes it cost less than if it has been AI-converted. KEH.com is probably the best place to look for one. Here's the earlier "O" version with the slightly older multicoating color, for $139 in EX condition. http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK060090104090?r=FE

 

[PaulWog]

If good bokeh is your main concern at the 35mm length, you might look into the 35mm f/2 O.C. Nikkor, a pre-Ai wide angle that has nice bokeh. It's not a high-demand lens, and since you have a D5200, it can be used un-modified, in its original pre-Ai state, which makes it cost less than if it has been AI-converted. KEH.com is probably the best place to look for one. Here's the earlier "O" version with the slightly older multicoating color, for $139 in EX condition. http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK060090104090?r=FE

I'm really interested in the whole package. Good bokeh, fast & accurate focus, sharpness, color rendition, etc. If I had a larger viewfinder I could probably manage manual focus (it feels impossible with the D5200 but maybe I just need practice? not sure). The 35mm 1.8G failed on the bokeh front sometimes (occasionally it offers great bokeh but too often when I'm on the go something green or branchy - such as branches - is in the background and that's game over).

I'm not certain whether I'll replace the 35mm 1.8G DX with a 35mm 1.8G FX, or with a 24-70 (but not the Nikkor version, which leaves me to think I might find too many faults in the Sigma/Tamron). This isn't something that I'd replace right away... more like in the next 12+ months. The other alternative I'm strongly considering is upgrading to FX, and being without the 35 for a longer period of time (the 50 and 85 on FX makes a wonderful pair). Hard to say.

I know what I want right now if money wasn't an issue is an FX camera, a better 35mm, and an ultra-wide. I'm making due without any of those things for now.

To the above-mentioned bit about bokeh from one other person: Imo the bokeh of the 35mm 1.8G DX is enough to splurge for something better. I think it depends though on where you do your shooting: If you've got a lot of greenery, forest, branches, etc around you (which I very often do - I go camping, walking in forest areas, etc), the weaknesses of the 35mm 1.8G just end up being quite overwhelming. I think the 28mm 1.8G represents great value (if its focus issues aren't really an issue), but it's in the $700 range, making the 35mm 1.8G FX look like the better offering for someone such as myself on both FX and DX (if it ends up performing equally as well).

I like what you've linked, Derrel. The price is great. I'll take a look into it and see if it fits my needs: At that price, it's a great tide-me-over type of thing which is really really cool. I don't really want to go splurging and dumping cash at the moment and that's not because I can't, but because I don't want money and new toys to blind my progression in the hobby at least for the most of this year. I want my next purchase to be made out of more a need rather than a "fun-new-toy" kind of want. I know what I want, so I'll just keep getting better and I think I'll know when I'm ready to pick up the next thing.

 

[JTPhotography]

Not to be insulting here, but do you not like the quality of the out of focus areas (which is the definition of bokeh) or do you not like the amount of background blur you are getting with the lens? I think when it comes to bokeh, the quality is only going to get so good at that focal length (other than what Derrel mentioned), as there will always be the 85 1.4s to compare to it. If bokeh is a priority for you, as is the 35mm focal length, sounds to me like a move to full frame may suit you better.

 

[Derrel]

There is a BRAND-NEW 35mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens for full-frame coming out soon. The old O.C. Nikkor and the contemporary 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor-H both had really nice "roundness of detail" in their OOF backgrounds. These are of course, older manual focus lenses. YES, the smallish viewfinder image of the D3200 and 5200 ARE challenging for manual focus, especially if the light is low, or you have a moving subject or need to shoot quickly. The 35mm f/2 AF and AF-D are widely available, but again, the D5200 renders those manual focus. I dunno...the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has what I consider harsh, edgy bokeh, but it has an HSM motor, so it would AF.

Bokeh is one of the "new-fangled" lens design parameters that Canon and Nikon have begun to address more in the last 15 years or so, but mainly on the HIGH-end glass...most wides have pretty average bokeh, same with most, well, ALL Nikon 50mm lenses.

You know, you MIGHT want to look into the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is a DX-only lens. PixelPeeper.com has a bunch of nice sample images...it has interesting bokeh. I think maybe you might like the way it can pout a strong "visual impression" or "signature" on certain types of backgrounds, like OOF point sources of light like street lights, holiday lights, or light seen coming in as backlight through foliage.

I saw two of these for sale at PPS's sidewalk sale this year for $199 each, refurbished. See whatcha' think: Full-size sample photos from Sigma 30mm F/1.4

 

[ruifo]

Here are some shots I just did with it, to test the bokeh.








Background is here focused:




Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, 1/10 sec, f/8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 3.8m, with a depth of field of about 12m, (from about 1.6m before the focus point to about 10m after)

Same background, now as bokeh, with different exposures, for different contrast settings:




Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, 1/45 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 30cm, with a depth of field of about 7mm, (from about 3mm before the focus point to about 4mm after)

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, 1/90 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 30cm, with a depth of field of about 7mm, (from about 3mm before the focus point to about 4mm after)

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, 1/180 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 30cm, with a depth of field of about 7mm, (from about 3mm before the focus point to about 4mm after)

 

[ruifo]

Here are some shots I just did with the 50mm f/1.8D, to compare.








Background is here focused:




Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 1/10 sec, f/8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 2.5m, with a depth of field of about 1.3m, (from about 48cm before the focus point to about 78cm after)

Same background, now as bokeh, with different exposures, for different contrast settings:




Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 1/45 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 45cm, with a depth of field of about 8mm, centered on the focus point

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 1/90 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 45cm, with a depth of field of about 8mm, centered on the focus point

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 1/180 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus point at 45cm, with a depth of field of about 8mm, centered on the focus point

 

[ruifo]

And another bokeh test between the 35mm f/1.8G and the 50mm f/1.8D:






Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, 1/6 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus at 30cm, with a depth of field of about 7mm, (from about 3mm before the focus point to about 4mm after)

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, 1/6 sec, f/1.8, ISO 800
Focus at 30cm, with a depth of field of about 7mm, (from about 3mm before the focus point to about 4mm after)

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 1/6 sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250
Focus at 45cm, with a depth of field of about 8mm, centered on the focus point

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 1/6 sec, f/1.8, ISO 800
Focus at 45cm, with a depth of field of about 8mm, centered on the focus point

 

[PaulWog]

Not to be rude but those bokeh tests don't provides much of any real world information. With such basic background any bokeh will come out pleasing f-stop for f-stop.

To the comment about the aperture, I think f1.8 is fine. I was taking about quality, not aperture. F1.4 might be nice but quality at f1.8 is what I want first and foremost.