I'm thinking of switching to a FF camera and just trying to see what the cost of lenses for FF camera would be compared to what I have on my DX.
I have a AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G, does Nikon make this same lens for a FF camera? I've did some digging and I can't seem to find one, however, I do see a AF-S 35mm f/1.4G. Just wondering about the 1.8G because it might be less expensive. Thanks
One thing you need to consider is that your current 35 on your current camera is more like a 50mm on a full frame.
That said, there are a few 35's worth looking at should you switch up to FX.
The 35 1.8g works on full frame, but it vignettes heavily at a distance, especially when stopped down.
The 34 1.4g is great. It is expensive, but I have no complaints. Sigma should be shipping their version of the 35/1.4 within a month...MSRP is around $900, should retail for less than that.
I think the best 35mm for the money is the 35/2 AFD. Small, cheap, great IQ in my books, lightning fast AF.
Then of course there is a host of MF lenses you could look at.
But, if you like the 35mm look on your current DX camera, I would get a 50mm as your first lens on FX.
DTOB has given some great advice. That being said, try out the 35 1.8G on full frame first when you get your full frame body; I have been using it for a few months and its limitations have not been issues for me. I have grown to really like 35 on full frame (coming from crop) and the vignetting generally isn't that much of an issue for me at the distances I shoot with at 35mm. It is at least still very sharp.
I have a complaint about the 35 1.4g: Focus is poor in low light for me. So bad that I'm getting it exchanged to try a new one, and if it doesn't work then....I may have to go back to Canon.
I just sold my 35mm f/1.8G -- all of my DX lenses are now GONE! I am putting together a prime kit right now that will consist of the 28, 50 and 85 f/1.8 AFS lenses
I like the 50 1.4 way more than the 50 1.8 and it is still a great value... Also if you go with a 35, what about the 60 macro vs a 50. I do not have it but it is suppose to be a razor.
I'm in the same dilemma as well. It doesn't look like the 35 f2 can keep up with the D600 but I'm not gonna pay for the 1.4. I can't wait to see reviews for the new sigma but it's actually heavier than the nikon version so that's a big disappointment. I think the best value for the money would be the 28mm but I'm not a huge fan of that FL and i would shoot with it about 10-15% of the time.
there was a smoking deal on a manual focus 35/1.4 Ai in a canon for nikon trade/sale thread. Don't know if ti is still there. Or if you are considering MF lenses. And it is not mine, just passing info along. Good luck with your search
I find the 35/2 more than adequate on the D600. It's very sharp in the center from just about wide open (f/2.2 is better than f/2, which is normal). By f/4, it's crazy sharp across most of the frame, though the corners don't really come in for another couple of stops. I use the lens almost exclusively for shooting people at events in natural/low light. It's perfect for that.
I find the 35/1.8G unacceptable on any full body, and the 35/1.4G is far more than I'd be willing to pay, given its relatively modest improvement over the f/2.
Smiert Spionam, could you post some pictures with the 35mm f2? The 1.4G is definitely more than i'm willing to pay but with the new sigma 35mm coming out, i'm not sure if i should wait, get the f2, or settle with the 28mm.
I've loved my trusty 35 f/2 for a few years now. It's my go-to during receptions and prep during weddings and for family stuff. It's definitely 'sharp enough' wide open in the center. I find for more serious landscape stuff that I stop down to at least 5.6... usually f/8 or more tho.
I've tested the new 28G and really liked it... I can see potentially grabbing that and making a decision between the two. Or eventually just go for the 1.4G
Hope it helps.