Nikon's new 35mm lens

FWIW, the DX version covers an FX sensor............... :er:
 
FWIW, the DX version covers an FX sensor............... :er:

Sure, but if the performance on the new 35mm 1.8G is really nice, then this is a pretty exciting addition to the Nikon line-up.

I want to sell my 35mm 1.8G DX and move to this, but if it's $600 I'm not going to pay that. My 35mm 1.8G hasn't come back yet.
 
I was pretty disappointed when I saw the price. I've been stalking the internet for info since I saw it on nikon rumors. If it was cheaper I'd consider it more seriously, but with it being more costly than I expected I'm not 100% sure about it. $600 is more expensive than the 85mm f/1.8G which I feel I will use twice as much as I would the new 35mm f/1.8G.
 
I was pretty disappointed when I saw the price. I've been stalking the internet for info since I saw it on nikon rumors. If it was cheaper I'd consider it more seriously, but with it being more costly than I expected I'm not 100% sure about it. $600 is more expensive than the 85mm f/1.8G which I feel I will use twice as much as I would the new 35mm f/1.8G.

If the performance is really nice and bokeh is great, it will be a nice fx + 50mm replacement. The reason why DX is so lackluster (to me) is on the 35mm prime end, there's such bad bokeh and so many trade-offs with the 35mm 1.8G DX.

I think $500 is justifiable. $600 would be justifiable if they put the pro ring on it and gave it nano coating (not that I would care about that). But $400 is where I had hoped it would be at. Then again, it's all business... :(
 
Last edited:
I think $500 is justifiable. $600 would be justifiable if they put the pro ring on it and gave it nano coating (not that I would care about that). But $400 is where I had hoped it would be at. Then again, it's all business... :(

I agree, even $500 would have been more reasonable. I guess I'll have to wait and see if "real life" sample images are outstanding before making up my mind completely. Honestly, it would be higher on my priority list if it was less expensive. Like I said, I'm not completely sure if I would use it enough to justify the cost right now when it could be put towards lenses that I would use. I've seen used VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G in excellent condition for about $100 more than the new 35mm. $100 more, but in the grand scheme of things it would probably get more use.

The only 35mm lens I've ever shot with in 'real life' outside of a camera shop was the older D version on a D90. When I tried out the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 I actually wasn't hugely impressed by it. Not that I didn't think that it was a great lens, I just didn't see the need to add it to my camera bag in the immediate future.
 
For $600 it better be worth costing more than the 85mm 1.8g that's for sure.
 
FWIW, the DX version covers an FX sensor............... :er:

until you try it for yourself and end up with a dark, heavily vignetted image, and anything beyond 1.8 just gets worse...
 
Last edited:
The bokeh will be likely OK, but not great, because the lens only has 7 aperture blades. The same number of aperture blades as the DX version.

The new ED, FX version has 11 lens elements while the non-ED DX version only has 8. Plus every lens element has to have a larger diameter to function as an FX lens.
The larger diameter of all the lens elements, 3 extra lens elements, one being ED glass, contribute to the higher cost, as do the 6 more lens surfaces that have to be figured, polished, and mounted.

The new lens has 58 mm filter threads, while the DX version has 52 mm filter threads.
 
FWIW, the DX version covers an FX sensor............... :er:

until you try it for yourself and end up with a dark, heavily vignetted image, and anything beyond 1.8 just gets worse...


I have tried it. And while there is a bit of vignetting at the smaller apertures, I'm only losing about 20% of the pixels when I crop it out (unless I clone the corners back in, then there's no loss).
 
I ended up selling mine, I didn't like how it shot on my D600. But I wouldn't buy the new at $600 unfortunately. I can make due with a $100 50mm.
 
I wonder how it performs next to the 28 1.8g. I know they are different lengths but I happen to like 35mm on FX. More so than 50mm. I barely use my 50.
 
According to Nikon's press release, this new 35/1.8 ED has good correction for saggital coma, which would make is well-suited to nighttime photography, where it should render points of light as,well, round points of light.

An 11-element, aspherical, ED-glass 35mm lens means to me that this is a pretty ambitious design. This lens ought to be miles ahead of the rather lowly 35mm DX lens.
 
If i'm going to limit myself with a prime then it might as well go to ridiculous apertures, so I'd rather this lens be a 1.4 instead, otherwise i will be less temped to grab this lens instead of my 24-70.
 
If i'm going to limit myself with a prime then it might as well go to ridiculous apertures, so I'd rather this lens be a 1.4 instead.

They have a 35 1.4g.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top