Nikon's new 35mm lens

[hamlet]

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.

Within a reasonable budget. I'm not made of lenses you know?

 

[PaulWog]

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.

24-70 is a brick compared to a 35mm prime. And f1.8 is great.

 

[Mach0]

Within a reasonable budget. I'm not made of lenses you know?

I understand but the budget 35 1.4 would be the sigma. Regardless of our budgets, there's no point of making two lenses with the same apertures and different prices. Heck, I'm probably going to sell my 35 prime and 55/200 as they never leave the bag. Add a few hundred bucks and get this or the 28 1.8g.

 

[hamlet]

Within a reasonable budget. I'm not made of lenses you know?

I understand but the budget 35 1.4 would be the sigma. Regardless of our budgets, there's no point of making two lenses with the same apertures and different prices. Heck, I'm probably going to sell my 35 prime and 55/200 as they never leave the bag. Add a few hundred bucks and get this or the 28 1.8g.

I tottaly forgot about sigma. That would probably be a better choice, but nikon can make two 35mm 1.4's. The difference is in the quality of the glass, people are willing to pay a premium price for the build quality.

 

[Derrel]

The Sigma 35/1.4 has **biting** sharpness, but as is so often the case, that comes at the expense of harsh, edgy or "hashy" background bokeh on natural-world subjects, especially plants and foliage...you know, the kinds of backgrounds that portrait and wedding and event photographers often try to use as backgrounds on people photos. THAT is the issue with the Sigma 35/1.4...well, that, and the yellow glass rendering every Sigma seems to give compared to a Nikkor lens.

My guess is that the new 35-G will be optically excellent: I mean, c'mon, this is an ELEVEN-element, aspherical, ED-glass 35 millimeter lens design...most 35mm lenses are 7-element designs...this lens is probably going to be the best 35mm lens most people have/will ever lay hands on. Just my feeling--otherwise, they would have churned out another cheapie design.

As far as "two lenses" in a category...that has never been all that uncommon, from Nikon, or from other companies. They already make a 35/2.0 AF-D, and the 35 DX, and the 35mm f/1.4 G, and now there's a LESS-expensive 35/1.8 AF-S ED model coming out. Look to the 85mm f/1.4 and 1.8 G models; those are within a hair of one another in performance, same with the 50/1.4 and 1.8 AF-S G models...so...putting a 35/1.8 G at $600 up against a 1.4 model that's like a thousand dollars more-expensive is a classic way to make more SALES.

 

[hamlet]

My point is that zoom lenses have gotten to such high quality (and keep improving) that people who own a zoom lens will very likely just leave their prime lenses in their bag and rarely use them. So prime lenses have to offer something affordable zoom lenses cant; and that something is extreme apertures. For me personally, it is probably the only reason why i use my 50mm any more, because it can go to that extreme. But this is just my personal observation.

 

[Mach0]

My point is that zoom lenses have gotten to such high quality (and keep improving) that people who own a zoom lens will very likely just leave their prime lenses in their bag and rarely use them. So prime lenses have to offer something affordable zoom lenses cant; and that something is extreme apertures. For me personally, it is probably the only reason why i use my 50mm any more, because it can go to that extreme. But this is just my personal observation.

It depends. Zoom lenses have gotten very good but there's times when 2.8 isn't fast enough or you want to travel lighter.

 

[ShootRaw]

Within a reasonable budget. I'm not made of lenses you know?

I understand but the budget 35 1.4 would be the sigma. Regardless of our budgets, there's no point of making two lenses with the same apertures and different prices. Heck, I'm probably going to sell my 35 prime and 55/200 as they never leave the bag. Add a few hundred bucks and get this or the 28 1.8g.

The 28mm 1.8g is where its at...A shot with the 28mm...

 

[hamlet]

My point is that zoom lenses have gotten to such high quality (and keep improving) that people who own a zoom lens will very likely just leave their prime lenses in their bag and rarely use them. So prime lenses have to offer something affordable zoom lenses cant; and that something is extreme apertures. For me personally, it is probably the only reason why i use my 50mm any more, because it can go to that extreme. But this is just my personal observation.

It depends. Zoom lenses have gotten very good but there's times when 2.8 isn't fast enough or you want to travel lighter.

Absolutely, this is why it is imperative for primes to shine in their own way. I would love to see more f1.4 and maybe even f1.2 or f0.9 in primes.

 

[PaulWog]

My point is that zoom lenses have gotten to such high quality (and keep improving) that people who own a zoom lens will very likely just leave their prime lenses in their bag and rarely use them. So prime lenses have to offer something affordable zoom lenses cant; and that something is extreme apertures. For me personally, it is probably the only reason why i use my 50mm any more, because it can go to that extreme. But this is just my personal observation.

It depends. Zoom lenses have gotten very good but there's times when 2.8 isn't fast enough or you want to travel lighter.

Absolutely, this is why it is imperative for primes to shine in their own way. I would love to see more f1.4 and maybe even f1.2 or f0.9 in primes.

I don't think you get it. Aperture is not the only benefit of a prime lens.