Not impressed with new prime lens. Am I doing something wrong?

[CaptainNapalm]

After hearing all the praise about the strength of prime lenses in sharpness and in low light situations I decided to buy one today. I got the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8. My hopes for this lens was the clear sharp pictures everyone talks about and obviously improved low light performance. I also wanted something for every day shooting.

I took quite a few pictures both of the city outside and of isolated subjects in relatively low light situations. I have to say I wasn't overly impressed with any of them. So I'm curious if I'm doing something wrong, I have a defective lens or my expectations were just way to high for it. Has to be one of the three.

Attached are two photos where I tried to isolate various perfume bottles. I picked a low lit area in the house, stepped a couple of feet away from the objects and fired away in manual with no flash. I set my ISO to anywhere between 400-800, f stop in the 2-3 range and shutter 1/20 to 1/50. Higher ISO produced visible noise, lower f stops produced overall too blurry photos, and slower shutters blur likely due to hand shake. In my opinion the pictures came out mediocre and nothing compared to the amazing reviews I read on what this lens is to produce. In fact, it almost feels like I'm using the kit lens without the zoom option but I haven't actually done a side by side comparison. The city photos were nothing fancy either and lacked this sharpness everyone talks about. One thing that was on par with what I read about the lens is the great blurry backgrounds it produces.

So based on the pictures you guys see here, is this all I can expect from this lens or do you guys think I'm doing something wrong? Oh and also, I didn't notice VR on this lens, does it mean it doesn't have vibration reduction? Maybe this contributes to some blur too. Any advice? Also, I should mention that although the two here attached pics are decent, for every one that came out like this I had 4-5 that were just so blurry they were unusable. Completely unlike everyone who said that every pic comes out clear and sharp with this lens. I have more consistency with my kit lens.

 

[07Vios]

I loved my 35mm f1.8 lens when I had my D40.





Handheld in a dim room:













All but the last two were handheld. I found it to be sharp, nice IQ, and good value for its price.

 

[07Vios]

The lens does not have vibration reduction as well. Also, if you want to isolate your subject well, you'll have to have bokeh. Technically, you should have WAY better shots than the ones I've posted since the D5100 is WAY, WAY, WAY better than a D40. lol

Did you use AF or MF in you sample shots?

 

[CaptainNapalm]

The lens does not have vibration reduction as well. Also, if you want to isolate your subject well, you'll have to have bokeh. Technically, you should have WAY better shots than the ones I've posted since the D5100 is WAY, WAY, WAY better than a D40. lol

Did you use AF or MF in you sample shots?

Your pics are nice and sharp. I have to admit that I was experimenting in fairly low lighting, even outside towards the end of the day when it was dim. I assume that in all but the last two of yours the lighting was better than in mine. I was shooting in AF.

 

[JoeHemi]

I've always hated my 35mm 1.8. Once I got the 50, the 35 went in the closet.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I've always hated my 35mm 1.8. Once I got the 50, the 35 went in the closet.

That's really interesting.
I read the opposite. Multiple discussions online where people are recommending the 35mm over the 50mm due to more versatility.

 

[Mach0]

The 35 1.8g is ok. You should get decent images. I barely use mine. I think I'm going toget the 28 1.8g.

 

[07Vios]

The lens does not have vibration reduction as well. Also, if you want to isolate your subject well, you'll have to have bokeh. Technically, you should have WAY better shots than the ones I've posted since the D5100 is WAY, WAY, WAY better than a D40. lol

Did you use AF or MF in you sample shots?

Your pics are nice and sharp. I have to admit that I was experimenting in fairly low lighting, even outside towards the end of the day when it was dim. I assume that in all but the last two of yours the lighting was better than in mine. I was shooting in AF.

I think your lighting might be what mine was in my third pic (my Toyota keys). I have unsteady hands, so that is probably the least sharpest out of the set I posted). I think if you'll be in that dim of a place, unless you have rock steady hands, I'd use a tripod. I think I need to learn how to better hold my camera so that it'll be more steady. lol.

Experiment with the lens out in the day, and see how you like it? If you still don't like it, sell it. Someone will always be looking for that lens. I really do think it's a great everyday lens.

 

[o hey tyler]

1/20s is far too slow to hand hold shots with a 35mm lens on a DX body.

 

[Tee]

Also, if you want to isolate your subject well, you'll have to have bokeh.

Huh?

 

[07Vios]

Also, if you want to isolate your subject well, you'll have to have bokeh.

Huh?

OP said he was trying to isolate his subjects, the perfume bottles, but didn't like how blurry a lower f-stop was. I always thought that if you want to distance/isolate your subjects, you'll have to blur out the background (bokeh). No?

 

[cgipson1]

I've always hated my 35mm 1.8. Once I got the 50, the 35 went in the closet.

That's really interesting.
I read the opposite. Multiple discussions online where people are recommending the 35mm over the 50mm due to more versatility.

I had the 35 1.8 for about a week... used it, and gave it away! It was a waste of $200! (well, not a total waste, as I gave it to my GF.. she isn't very picky!)

I would suggest as mentioned... keep your shutter speed higher if handheld... (raise the ISO a couple of stops) or tripod it. While I really dislike that lens.. it isn't as bad as you describe in your OP.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I've always hated my 35mm 1.8. Once I got the 50, the 35 went in the closet.

That's really interesting.
I read the opposite. Multiple discussions online where people are recommending the 35mm over the 50mm due to more versatility.

I had the 35 1.8 for about a week... used it, and gave it away! It was a waste of $200! (well, not a total waste, as I gave it to my GF.. she isn't very picky!)

I would suggest as mentioned... keep your shutter speed higher if handheld... or tripod it (or raise the ISO a couple of stops. While I really dislike that lens.. it isn't as bad as you describe in your OP.

Which one would you recommend instead? I would like to stay below $400.

 

[o hey tyler]

OP said he was trying to isolate his subjects, the perfume bottles, but didn't like how blurry a lower f-stop was. I always thought that if you want to distance/isolate your subjects, you'll have to blur out the background (bokeh). No?

Bokeh is the term for the aesthetic characteristics of the circle of confusion. Bokeh is not adjustable, but depth of field is. You're referring to depth of field.

 

[pgriz]

If you're going to check for sharpness, probably the starting point should be to have the camera on a tripod, shooting at a detailed target under good light, with the focus acquired manually (through live-view magnification or something similar), and at optimum aperture (usually somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11). Then a series in which you vary the aperture through its entire range - that wil show you the sharpness difference purely due to aperture. This set becomes the baseline for subsequent tests. Next you should try with and without AF - that tells you if the AF is part of the problem. Then once you have the baseline, shoot under variousl conditions and see how the lens works. If there is a substantial difference between the baseline and your subsequent shots, then user error (of one kind or another) is probably to blame. When trying to figure out why a lens isn't performing to expectations, it's best to vary only one variable at a time, and to explore the full range of that variable.