Just wondering if anyone is shooting the 35mm 1.8 G with an FX camera and the results their getting, I was in the camera store to pick up a 35mm F2 D and was tempted by the 1.8G. It seems to vignette at about 5.6 but not horribly. I ended buying the 35 f2 D but I have 30 days to go back and switch it for the 1.8 if I decide.
I shot with one for awhile, David. Besides the obvious vignette, the distortion & CA drove me nuts.
Found the 28 f1.8G more to my liking and used that FL in the brewpub music scene trenches when
I wasn't usin' the 50. The 35 f2 D and I never spent much time together, so can't help ya there. GL
Not a single tool is perfect in photography and each has its own limitations. As long as you can work around the limitations, then it's usable. Experimenting is the key.
I had a 35f2 and shot with it for years, loved it. I sent it into Nikon for a checkup about 2 months ago, problem was it never got there-UPS lost it, So I recently got $200 from UPS. Bought a Like new used one for 270. so it's like I paid 70.00 for a newer lens, my 35 had to be at least 15 years old.
david debalko wrote:
I had a 35f2 and shot with it for years, loved it. I sent it into Nikon for a checkup about 2 months ago, problem was it never got there-UPS lost it, So I recently got $200 from UPS. Bought a Like new used one for 270. so it's like I paid 70.00 for a newer lens, my 35 had to be at least 15 years old.
Wooot must be nice
I just purchased the 35mm 1.4g for use with my D500e all I can say is it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned and have no problems with CA or vignetting that lightroom can handle easily. Photozone gave a great review to this lens and actually says it's better than the 24mm 1.4. I just came over to Nikon from Canon and used the Canon 24mm F1.4 quite a bit and can tell you that the Nikon 35 G is better in every way. If you can afford the high price of this lens the optics and usability will be well worth the upgrade.
