Nikkor AF 35mm f/1.8 lens came in and i'm soooo disapointed!

[sarasphotos]

So my new nikkor af 35mm f/1.8 lens came in. I am disapointed. I feel that I am getting the same quality from my other kit lens as I am with this one. I took a bunch of shots with it and compared it with my 18-55mm kit lens and there isn't much of a difference. I have both set to the same settings so nothing would be different. The only thing I noticed was the background is lighter with the prime lens. but I do mostly outdoor photos so that isn't really an issue with the kit lens. Have a look:

18-55mm kit lens:

35mm f/1.8 lens:

 

[dhilberg]

Well the major advantage of the 35mm prime is that it goes to f/1.8, whereas the 18-55mm is variable f/3.5-5.6.

If you mainly do outdoor stuff then why did you bother with the fast prime? Were you expecting a night and day difference in the image quality vs. the kit lens?

 

[tirediron]

This really isn't a fair test of the lens. For one thing, the apertures are different, you've used different focal lengs and both images are under-exposed.

To get a good technical comparison, try my home-brew lens "resolution" test; do this for both lenses and compare the result, you should notice a major difference in the corners, especially wide-open:

In the meantime, I suggest a home-made lens resolution test: Use a LASER printer (NOT inkjet) to completely cover a sheet of paper with 12pt upper-case 'X's. Using a tripod, level and square, position your camera such that it is within the minimum focusing distance (eg, if your lens will focus as close as 12" then use, say, 14") and ensure that the sheet of paper is exactly square to the lens axis. Use your lowest native ISO, and supplementary lighting if necessary to ensure a correct exposure.

Focus on the centre on the of sheet of paper and make an exposure wide open, followed by a series stopping down by a couple of stops each time. Then, examine the centre, and edges at 100% and compare sharpness. Even wide open, at the edges, the characters should be legible. This will give you a good idea of whether or not there is a problem with the lens (It's unlikely, but it can happen) and just how it performs at different apertures.

Don't forget too that your kit lens isn't a bad lens; there are still hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of optical design in it. At the size image posted here, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the image shot with your $250 18-55 and my $2000 24-70.

 

[kundalini]

I have both set to the same settings so nothing would be different.

Focal length doesn't seem to be the same. For comparisons, you want apples and apples. Same focal length, same aperture, same shutter speed, same ISO, same lighting conditions.

Both seem to be underexposed, but the 35mm seems to have handled it much better IMO.


EDIT:
Dammit John.................

 

[tirediron]

EDIT:
Dammit John.................

:greenpbl:

 

[Infidel]

So my new nikkor af 35mm f/1.8 lens came in. I am disapointed. I feel that I am getting the same quality from my other kit lens as I am with this one. I took a bunch of shots with it and compared it with my 18-55mm kit lens and there isn't much of a difference. I have both set to the same settings so nothing would be different. The only thing I noticed was the background is lighter with the prime lens. but I do mostly outdoor photos so that isn't really an issue with the kit lens. Have a look:

The settings are different. With the kit lens, you shot at 55mm, f/5.6, 1/80s shutter, whereas with the 35mm f/1.8, you shot at 35 mm, f/2.8, 1/60s.

Different focal lengths, different apertures, flash on auto. Not really the same conditions at all. Why did you buy the lens? What were you expecting?

Edit: Way too slow

 

[sarasphotos]

well I got it for the bokeh and being fast since I do alot of kids portraits.and I know they are not correctly exposed but I was just comparing the quality and clarity.and the bokeh is WAY better but if I step back and zoom in more with the kit lens I get the blur. Here is a outdoor test:

kit lens:

prime lens:

 

[epp_b]

> onboard flash
> complains that the lens is the problem
> uses two different backgrounds for comparison
> complains about the difference in bokeh

facepalm.jpg

On the upshot, your subject is very photogenic.

If you mainly do outdoor stuff then why did you bother with the fast prime? Were you expecting a night and day difference in the image quality vs. the kit lens?

Go ahead, try getting the background that far out of focus with the kit lens.

 

[o hey tyler]

First of all, you didn't use the same settings which would be a constant to determine the quality of the lens. You used on board flash, different shutter speed and apertures, and you had a different zoom level.

You haven't even began to see what the difference that lens will make over your kit lens, and you jumped to conclusions after attempting an inconclusive test.

EDIT: Wow everyone jumped on this like it was welfare check day at a coke dealers house.

 

[Infidel]

well I got it for the bokeh and being fast...

Well, looks like you got your bokeh, and at f/1.8, 1/1600s shutter, looks like you got your speed too!

 

[sarasphotos]

I was just hoping for a great deal of difference in the quality of the photo. I don't know...just disapointed and needed to vent.

 

[sarasphotos]

Well, looks like you got your bokeh, and at f/1.8, 1/1600s shutter, looks like you got your speed too!

you are right I guess...lol don't know if it was what I was expecting though.... I may return it and get something different....not sure yet.

Thanks for all the replies..I guess I needed some sence talked into me while I was jumping to conclusions way too fast!

 

[o hey tyler]

I was just hoping for a great deal of difference in the quality of the photo. I don't know...just disapointed and needed to vent.

You do get a great deal of difference in the quality of the photo, you can actually isolate your subject now. Did you realize that?

 

[sarasphotos]

On the upshot, your subject is very photogenic.

thank you that is my daughter

 

[shaunly]

to be honest, even if you compare your kit lens to a 24-70 f/2.8G, in control lighting, you wont see a night and day different as well. I think you got this image in your head that with a prime lens, you were expecting something of a Zeiss prime on a D3x compare to a kit lens on a D40. Plus that 35 f/1.8 is only about $200. I would understand if you just got the $1600 85f/1.4G and weren't impress with the IQ.