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

[cgipson1]

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.

That lens would probably work for you, if you just keep the shutter speed up.. or use flash in really low light conditions. That 35? A lot of people really like it... I found the AF inconsistent, and unacceptably soft on the edges. You may not have that problem! Test it... on a tripod, with flash. That will give you the sharpest test images. Then decide whether you want to keep it.

I would recommend a Nikon 50 1.8 unless you are set on the WA. Even the Sigma 50 1.4 rocks, as long as you get a good copy.

 

[07Vios]

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.

So bokeh is more of how light sources is rendered? Been using "bokeh" wrong as I was told it was "blur." lol

 

[07Vios]

Well, I shouldn't say light sources since shiny things aren't exactly light sources, but rather reflecting light...then again, so is everything we're seeing. hahaha. You know what I mean.

 

[daggah]

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.

This is the second time I've seen you hate on the 35 1.8, which is an almost universally well-liked lens. Either you had a bad copy or you were using it wrong.

It makes zero sense to dislike such an affordable, high-value lens as much as you seem to do.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

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.
View attachment 36293View attachment 36294

You're missing part of the point....

by opening up to f/2 instead of f/5.6 with your kit lens, it means you can shoot at 1/125th of a second instead of 1/15th..or you can shoot at ISO 1600 instead of ISO 12800...Optical quality isn't usually "stunning" or "perfect" until about f/4-ish.

 

[cgipson1]

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.

This is the second time I've seen you hate on the 35 1.8, which is an almost universally well-liked lens. Either you had a bad copy or you were using it wrong.

It makes zero sense to dislike such an affordable, high-value lens as much as you seem to do.

Using it wrong... yea, sure! You consider this a high value lens? Hmmmm.....

 

[daggah]

High-value as in you get a lot for your money.

 

[cgipson1]

High-value as in you get a lot for your money.

Really? I feel like I got a lot for my money on my 70-200 2.8 VRII! I don't question that at all!

If you are happy with your 35, fine! We are all entitled to our opinions... and I guess I have different standards!

 

[daggah]

Really? I feel like I got a lot for my money on my 70-200 2.8 VRII! I don't question that at all!

If you are happy with your 35, fine! We are all entitled to our opinions... and I guess I have different standards!

Then perhaps you could share with us those standards that you feel make the 35mm 1.8 a poor lens? I challenged you to do so before in another thread and you never responded. The simple fact is, every review out there pretty much agrees that the 35mm 1.8 is very sharp. It's a good general-purpose focal length for DX cameras, it's pretty fast for low-light situations, it focuses quickly, and it's very affordable. I'm not going to say it's the best lens ever, but optically, it's very good.

 

[cgipson1]

Really? I feel like I got a lot for my money on my 70-200 2.8 VRII! I don't question that at all!

If you are happy with your 35, fine! We are all entitled to our opinions... and I guess I have different standards!

Then perhaps you could share with us those standards that you feel make the 35mm 1.8 a poor lens? I challenged you to do so before in another thread and you never responded. The simple fact is, every review out there pretty much agrees that the 35mm 1.8 is very sharp. It's a good general-purpose focal length for DX cameras, it's pretty fast for low-light situations, it focuses quickly, and it's very affordable. I'm not going to say it's the best lens ever, but optically, it's very good.

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!)

 

[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.

 

[cgipson1]

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 http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr....html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

 

[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?

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

It served me well, but I felt it had too many limitations at the point I sold it. 3 AF points, lowest ISO of 200, slower fps continuous shooting (although, I never really burst shoot anyway, so this was no biggie for me). But like Chase Jarvis said, the best camera is the one you have with you (it was my only camera, so that would apply to me). I surprised many people when I told them that it was "just" a D40.

 

[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?

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

 

[cgipson1]

Daggah.. any comment on the DXO Mark scores I posted?