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

[cgipson1]

Nikon D40 has a bigger sensor than modern DSLRs and in my opinion still beats many new cameras.

REALLY???? D40 has the Standard DX sensor... Here ya go, straight from Nikon! D40 from Nikon

I think he might have been comparing it to Canon sensors; 1.5x vs 1.6x factor, right? Despite that, I think it still had worse ISO performance than my T2i. I never did actual scientific tests on that tho. LOL

he said modern DSLR's... and I didn't even mention FX / Full frame.... 35.9 x 24.0 mm

 

[daggah]

DxOMark - Compare lenses Look at the Sharpness Rating and the overall DXOMark Score.... I chose the 85 1.8G and the 50 1.8G as the closest primes to the 35.. and the 50 is almost the same price, and is significantly sharper!

Even my Sigma 50 1.4 focuses faster than the 35 1.8... and if you go pixel peeping on the 35, you will notice softness around the edges, which I don't care for. Oh.. and CA... bad CA! (I Hate CA, lol!)

You can't compare the 85 1.8 to the 35 1.8. It's a drastically different focal range. The 50 1.8 can be compared, but not on the same camera, because again, it's a different focal range. On a crop-sensor camera, 50mm doesn't really serve the same purpose. I really don't care about DxOMark because they don't perform real-world testing. But even if you do want to use chart-shooting tests, the 35 1.8 is still very sharp. It's excellent in the center even wide-open and you only have to stop it down to 2.8 to get edge-to-edge sharpness.

CA and distortion are easily fixable and don't matter at all in the slightest.

 

[cgipson1]

DxOMark - Compare lenses Look at the Sharpness Rating and the overall DXOMark Score.... I chose the 85 1.8G and the 50 1.8G as the closest primes to the 35.. and the 50 is almost the same price, and is significantly sharper!

Even my Sigma 50 1.4 focuses faster than the 35 1.8... and if you go pixel peeping on the 35, you will notice softness around the edges, which I don't care for. Oh.. and CA... bad CA! (I Hate CA, lol!)

You can't compare the 85 1.8 to the 35 1.8. It's a drastically different focal range. The 50 1.8 can be compared, but not on the same camera, because again, it's a different focal range. On a crop-sensor camera, 50mm doesn't really serve the same purpose. I really don't care about DxOMark because they don't perform real-world testing. But even if you do want to use chart-shooting tests, the 35 1.8 is still very sharp. It's excellent in the center even wide-open and you only have to stop it down to 2.8 to get edge-to-edge sharpness.

CA and distortion are easily fixable and don't matter at all in the slightest.

Sharpness is Sharpness.. no matter what the FL... whatever....

 

[07Vios]

REALLY???? D40 has the Standard DX sensor... Here ya go, straight from Nikon! D40 from Nikon

I think he might have been comparing it to Canon sensors; 1.5x vs 1.6x factor, right? Despite that, I think it still had worse ISO performance than my T2i. I never did actual scientific tests on that tho. LOL

he said modern DSLR's... and I didn't even mention FX / Full frame.... 35.9 x 24.0 mm

True, true. I immediately just thought of Nikon cropped sensors compared to Canon cropped sensors. haha, but yeah, like you said, full frame and 1.3x sensors are bigger.

 

[raaskohx10]

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?

Nikon D40 has a bigger sensor than modern DSLRs and in my opinion still beats many new cameras.

REALLY???? D40 has the Standard DX sensor...

D40 ....... Sensor Size 23.7mm x 15.6mm
D5100 ... Sensor Size 23.7mm x 15.6mm

Here ya go, straight from Nikon! D40 from Nikon D40 from Nikon

D40 has a bigger sensor than modern cameras like D3100 and D5100. Pl check DxOMark.
D40: 16.0x24.0 mm
D3100: 15.4x23.1 mm
D5100: 15.6x23.6 mm

 

[cgipson1]

Nikon D40 has a bigger sensor than modern DSLRs and in my opinion still beats many new cameras.

REALLY???? D40 has the Standard DX sensor...

D40 ....... Sensor Size 23.7mm x 15.6mm
D5100 ... Sensor Size 23.7mm x 15.6mm

Here ya go, straight from Nikon! D40 from Nikon D40 from Nikon

D40 has a bigger sensor than modern cameras like D3100 and D5100. Pl check DxOMark.

Uh.. check NIKON... same size sensor.....

even on DXO Mark, the D40 performance falls behind the other cameras listed, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make... lol!

 

[o hey tyler]

D40 has a bigger sensor than modern cameras like D3100 and D5100. Pl check DxOMark.

Lol wut

It's the same size sensor. APS-C. It's even lower resolution than the newer cameras you mentioned.

 

[nola.ron]

I had the 35mm 1.8g nikon. Used it for a week and exchanged for 50 1.8g. Love my 50. The 35 was a little better in low light but the 50 is tack sharp and doesnt get soft around the edges. Much better bokeh too.

35 is still a good one but if I had both I would always prefer the 50.

 

[daggah]

DPReview: "Highly Recommended" Value: 9/10 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G DX review: Digital Photography Review
Thom Hogan: "More lenses like this please" 35mm f/1.8G DX AF-S Lens Review by Thom Hogan
Photozone.de: "Able to deliver very sharp pictures wide open" Price/performance 5 stars out of 5 Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report
Camera Labs: "No brainer for owners of Nikon DX-format DSLRs" Final score: 87% Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G lens review: design, build, coverage, focusing | Cameralabs
LensTip: "Safely recommended for all owners of Nikon amateur DSLRs" Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8G review - Introduction - Lenstip.com
ePhotoZine: "Highly recommended" Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens Review

I rest my case.

 

[daggah]

Sharpness is Sharpness.. no matter what the FL... whatever....

Sure, feel free to compare a shot you could get on the 35mm 1.8 that you didn't get at all with the 85 1.8 because you didn't have enough room to stand far enough back. Let me know how well that works out for you.

 

[bhop]

I like my 35 1.8.. I think it's pretty awesome.

 

[daggah]

I had the 35mm 1.8g nikon. Used it for a week and exchanged for 50 1.8g. Love my 50. The 35 was a little better in low light but the 50 is tack sharp and doesnt get soft around the edges. Much better bokeh too.

35 is still a good one but if I had both I would always prefer the 50.

If the 50 seems sharper on the edges on the same camera you mounted a 35 1.8 on, it's simply because it's an FX camera being used on the DX body, and you're not actually seeing the edges.

Quite frankly, I don't care about edge performance wide-open on a fast prime lens. I'm not usually using a lens wide-open like that in situations where the edge performance matters.

 

[nola.ron]

Sharpness is Sharpness.. no matter what the FL... whatever....

Sure, feel free to compare a shot you could get on the 35mm 1.8 that you didn't get at all with the 85 1.8 because you didn't have enough room to stand far enough back. Let me know how well that works out for you.

Dude, what is your deal? You realize neither you nor the 35 is on trial here, right? I mean seriously you should just learn to respect opinions in a forum like this. You love the lens like many do. Charlie doesn't just like others do not. I say it's ok but I enjoy the 50 more.

Your point on room - you don't bring a telephoto into a small room, and you don't take a 35 to a bird sanctuary. So what is your point? The 35 is better suited for indoors/some landscape and the 50 is fantastic for portraits etc. What does that have to do with the IQ of either lens? You like the lens - we get it already.

 

[daggah]

The point is, there's no reason to compare radically different focal lengths when it comes to IQ. Why would you? Each focal length serves a different purpose. You're not going to compare an ultra-wide's image quality to a telephoto zoom, so why would you compare a 35 and an 85? If someone were to think, "I want a normal prime for my DX camera, what's my best option?" then what are the only options available? Pretty much just the Sigma 30 1.4, or the 35 1.8. Maybe the 35 2.0, but many DX users would lose autofocus with that one. The Sigma is more expensive (cheap right now but normally much more expensive) but faster.

You can say "respect opinions" all you want but sometimes opinions are still plainly stupid. And the opinion that the 35 1.8 is a "junk lens" is just that. Stupid. A lens being affordable doesn't mean it's bad.

 

[jake337]

The point is, there's no reason to compare radically different focal lengths when it comes to IQ. Why would you? Each focal length serves a different purpose. You're not going to compare an ultra-wide's image quality to a telephoto zoom, so why would you compare a 35 and an 85? If someone were to think, "I want a normal prime for my DX camera, what's my best option?" then what are the only options available? Pretty much just the Sigma 30 1.4, or the 35 1.8. Maybe the 35 2.0, but many DX users would lose autofocus with that one. The Sigma is more expensive (cheap right now but normally much more expensive) but faster.

You can say "respect opinions" all you want but sometimes opinions are still plainly stupid. And the opinion that the 35 1.8 is a "junk lens" is just that. Stupid. A lens being affordable doesn't mean it's bad.

Actually yes I would. I want the best I can get in every focal length.

I wish I could exchange my 35mm f1.8 for nikon's f1.4 variant any day of the week. I just do not have the funds. So I do agree it is a fantastic budget lens.


Are you trying to say that if money was not an issue you would opt for the f1.8 simply because it is a bargain?


Also sharpness and corner performance aren't everything. I also like how a lens renders OOF highlights. I like 9 round aperture blades for creamy backgrounds and round OOF highlights even when stopped down.


And finally, the damn thing won't work on my FM@n so it has to go soon!!!!!