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

[Mach0]

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 wan 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!!!!!

I agree. I still have my 35 1.8. It's ok. I barely shoot anything that needs critical sharpness in the corners. I don't like the green CA (especially at night) and hate the fact its a dx lens. I need something for my d700 so I might go with the 28 1.8.

Daggah, the 50 1.8g is sharper. I've tested them both. However, true value lies with the person who owns it. Not to mention the average person doesn't pixel peep or print large enough to see.

 

[Patriot]

Come down people!!! This is starting into a THREAD WAR! The OP asked was he doing something wrong did he not? So help him and not fight each other.

 

[pixmedic]

amazing that we cant seem to have a simple discussion lately without the thread getting locked. or almost locked.

 

[SCraig]

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.

That, of course, would be your opinion ....

 

[daggah]

I agree. I still have my 35 1.8. It's ok. I barely shoot anything that needs critical sharpness in the corners. I don't like the green CA (especially at night) and hate the fact its a dx lens. I need something for my d700 so I might go with the 28 1.8.

From what I've seen, the 35 1.8 actually works on FX...you get some vignetting in the corners, but that's it.

Daggah, the 50 1.8g is sharper. I've tested them both. However, true value lies with the person who owns it. Not to mention the average person doesn't pixel peep or print large enough to see.

Again, I don't see the point of making the sharpness comparison here. If you're trying to decide which lens to buy, the 35 will be a normal prime and the 50 will behave like a short telephoto. They essentially serve different functions, and I think it makes more sense to compare lenses that do the same thing rather than trying to force a comparison between lenses that have different purposes.

Personally, I think that interchangeable lens camera systems should have a good, affordable 50mm (equivalent) prime for general, all-purpose shooting. For Nikon DX, the 35 1.8 is not just AN option for that, it's THE option for that. The only lens that's even remotely similar is the Sigma 30mm 1.4. The 35 1.8 also serves a very important role as *the* fast lens that just about any DX shooter can just go grab and add to their kit. Nikon literally doesn't offer anything else even remotely similar for standard focal lengths with fast apertures other than the VERY expensive 17-55, which honestly is a relic from the days when the professional Nikon DSLRs were crop-sensor!

My feelings on standard primes are also why the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 is the only fast prime I ordered to go along with my new OM-D. (Trying to resist the temptation to build an m4/3 system that literally duplicates everything I have for my Nikon setup, as the point is to keep the size of the system down...)

 

[daggah]

Oh, and from what I've seen in reviews, the 35 1.4 is soft in the corners wide open, suffers from distortion, and CA. So I guess even the $1600 35mm Nikon isn't perfect...

/flamebait

 

[yioties]

I had the 35mm 1.8g and exchanged it for the 50mm 1.8g not because of image quality, but because of focal length. The 50mm was better for my needs because i didn't need to be so close to the subjects. I think both lenses are a great value for the money you are going to spend. As a new DSLR user i recommend both lenses but try them both and see what focal length is better for you!

Last thing. I read and get great advice from this forum but to get to the answer of the original posters question took me 4 pages. So called advanced users hijack most of the topics and the answer the poster wants is hidden in nonsense. I don't want to start anything but the initial question was how to improve the shooting with the 35 not on the 85mm or the sigma or the 35 1.4 ($1600 really now!) I'm still actually waiting for the answer so I can improve the photos shot with my 50mm g!

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Whats the problem? I dont see a problem on the 2 photos.

 

[Mach0]

From what I've seen, the 35 1.8 actually works on FX...you get some vignetting in the corners, but that's it.

)

I've actually tried it. It's a lot of vignetting. And only works with things that are relatively close. You have to keep it under f2.8. So yes it works. Will I use it on it. I wouldn't. You can't stop it down without horrible vignetting.i read the same reviews so I was curious lol.

 

[pgriz]

When we get a new piece of equipment, it's not a bad habit to "calibrate" it. Mainly, that is to work with it in controlled settings to understand its "operating range". Then with that knowledge in place, you will know what your new equipment can do well, and what area it will be weak in.

When it comes to lenses, sharpness across the field (a function of center vs. edge) and across aperture range, is something that can be tested. You can rely on the various sites posting lens testing results, but your copy may not be the same as the one that was tested - doing your own testing allows you to know whether your copy behaves like others, or whether you have an "outlier".

If those characteristics are important to you, you can also test for flare, the appearance of OOF highlights (bokeh), vignetting, CA, etc. These tests will allow you to really know your lens, and then you can use that knowledge effectively in your image-making. I know for myself that following this process allowed me to figure out the reasons some of my images were not working as expected, and in most case, it was "user error" on my part, which I was able to figure out with the testing.

If the characteristics of the lens "work" for you, then what the other reviewers think doesn't really matter. But each of us has to decide whether the behaviour we expect from our equipment is adequate to the task asked of it.

 

[480sparky]

......doing your own testing allows you to know whether your copy behaves like others, or whether you have an "outlier"...........

This is exactly what I do with all my lenses. I know where the 'sweet spot' is for each one, and if it's a zoom that spot may change over the focal length change.

 

[o hey tyler]

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

You realize that you or they just rounded the size of the D40s sensor up right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_DX_format#Real_sensor_size

Please stop perpetuating false information.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Whats the problem? I dont see a problem on the 2 photos.

I agree with you, the two photos are what I would call okay. They are not razor sharp but certainly usable. However I should mention that these were the best two photos of approximately 15 I took in those few minutes. For every one photo (like the one I posted) I would get 4-5 that were just worse, some more blurry some ridiculously blurry. What's more frustrating is that it was impossible to tell which ones came out okay which ones didn't until I uploaded them (it wasn't anything obvious like my hand shook or something). So I would say this lens is less consistent in giving me decent pictures when compared to my say 18-55 kit lens where I can count on at least 1 out of 2 photos looking great. This is contrary to what I read about hundreds of people saying something along the lines of "this lens is razor sharp and produces crisp and consistent photos every time." I can only suspect that this inconsistency in my hand held shots is due to lack of VR in the lens which everyone seems to think the lens doesn't need. Another thing is I was actually able to replicate similar pictures, with similar consistency in similar lighting conditions with my 18-200 lens without flash, yes I agree the prime lens was better, but marginally (unlike what everyone claimed it blowing the kit/zoom lenses out of the water).

 

[07Vios]

To see which focal length would better suit you, I would do what I told my friend to do. He was trying to decide between the 35mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8. I told him to throw on his 18-55mm kit lens, and go out shooting random things for a day or so. That's all I told him. After he did that, I asked him where most of his pictures fell in terms of focal length. Majority of them were between 28-35mm. Finances was an issue as well, and he was looking to only spend around 200 bucks on a lens. His copy is also sharp, but I don't know what settings he was using on his D3000.



As for the Sigma 30mm f1.4. That's what I'm using now as my everyday lens on my T2i. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 is sharper than it, focused faster and more constantly than it, but the OOF area/bokeh looked better on the Sigma. Who knows, I might have just gotten a really good 35mm f1.8. Oh, and I had my Sigma sent to Sigma NY to have it calibrated as well.

 

[nola.ron]

Whats the problem? I dont see a problem on the 2 photos.

I agree with you, the two photos are what I would call okay. They are not razor sharp but certainly usable. However I should mention that these were the best two photos of approximately 15 I took in those few minutes. For every one photo (like the one I posted) I would get 4-5 that were just worse, some more blurry some ridiculously blurry. What's more frustrating is that it was impossible to tell which ones came out okay which ones didn't until I uploaded them (it wasn't anything obvious like my hand shook or something). So I would say this lens is less consistent in giving me decent pictures when compared to my say 18-55 kit lens where I can count on at least 1 out of 2 photos looking great. This is contrary to what I read about hundreds of people saying something along the lines of "this lens is razor sharp and produces crisp and consistent photos every time." I can only suspect that this inconsistency in my hand held shots is due to lack of VR in the lens which everyone seems to think the lens doesn't need. Another thing is I was actually able to replicate similar pictures, with similar consistency in similar lighting conditions with my 18-200 lens without flash, yes I agree the prime lens was better, but marginally (unlike what everyone claimed it blowing the kit/zoom lenses out of the water).

There's absolutely no need for VR on such a short lens. Use 1/40 or 1/50s and good holding techniques and you won't suffer from camers shake. Zoom or telephoto lens is a different story because as the focal length grows your shutter speed will need to speed up for hand held shots.

Hell, I don't have VR on any of my lenses and I don't have camera shake issues. It's all in proper holds and sufficiently fast shutter speeds for the focal length.