Love this little lens. I've only taken a few frames with it, but I'm very happy I chose this over the Sigma. I much prefer the smaller size & lower weight. I handed it to the wedding photographer I 2nd shoot for and he couldn't believe how small & light it was.
Anyways, here's one I grabbed, excuse the color temp, it's a bit warm, I know. Shot wide open, forget the rest of the settings.
chuhsi1 wrote:
I'm still tempted to sell my 28mm and get the 35mm.
Interesting. Could you explain why? I currently have the 50mm and don't like the focal length, and was planning on picking up the 35mm or the 28mm. I look through image threads and I find the 28mm images have more "character" to me, but the focal length just seems so weird to me. I have never shot with a wide angle prime before so I have no idea what kind of focal length I would prefer.
Something is not right with this lens, and that is the color coming out of it. It doesn't look normal. Way to warm and saturated. The next thing is over contrasty, heavy vignetting and higher distortion compare to other 35mm.
This is the lowest performing of the 1.8G series coming out of Nikon. Should have gotten the 28mm f1.8G instead if one wants to stick with Nikon or go for the 35mm f1.4 Art for about the same price.
hans98ko wrote:
Something is not right with this lens, and that is the color coming out of it. It doesn't look normal. Way to warm and saturated. The next thing is over contrasty, heavy vignetting and higher distortion compare to other 35mm.
This is the lowest performing of the 1.8G series coming out of Nikon. Should have gotten the 28mm f1.8G instead if one wants to stick with Nikon or go for the 35mm f1.4 Art for about the same price.
I think I concur with your observation but not entirely sure myself unless I've shot it under different lighting scenarios.
myboostedgst wrote:
Interesting. Could you explain why? I currently have the 50mm and don't like the focal length, and was planning on picking up the 35mm or the 28mm. I look through image threads and I find the 28mm images have more "character" to me, but the focal length just seems so weird to me. I have never shot with a wide angle prime before so I have no idea what kind of focal length I would prefer.
To me, the nikon 28mm is tricker to use than the 35mm and sometimes, I'm just too lazy to learn how to use it properly. The 28mm has some field curvature, which can be helpful or not helpful depending on how you use it. There's also more distortion. The 35mm is relatively flat so there's nothing to compensate. However, the 28mm is a great lens and can be bought used for cheap.
Agree if one is doing it for fun and only shoot just a few pictures. But if someone is doing it for a living, Nope!
Try correcting a few hundred pictures as in events and tours with different lighting and scenes. You will know what I meant.
As for information that is not already there or already distorted, there is no way to regenerate it other than to trim even more information away. This makes your framing very unpredictable, definitely not for billboard advertisements or fine art duplications.
mshi wrote:
if you shoot raw in digital age, those things that mattered in film days don't matter anymore. You can change look very easily.
Maybe I should go into more detail of why this is one of the worst performing lens in the 1.8G series.
This lens is known to have a greenish cast especially for subjects that are slightly out of focus. This is caused by design, selection of elements and coatings.
With the green cast mixing with green leaves, we get an over saturated green. That's what we are seeing in the field. Next is with green cast mixing with blue sky. We have a sky with an unnatural blue, more like turquoise. Then with green mixing with sunrise and sunset orange. We have something towards brownish. And that is why we are seeing photographers modifying the color or converting them to monochrome because they just couldn't get it right.
This lens is also not known to be sharp off center, in order to make up for it, I think Nikon have selected to increase the contrast of this lens to give it the perception of sharpness. But increasing contrast will degrade resolution because they go in opposite directions, which produce pictures that doesn't have a natural look in color and rendition.
Finally, this lens is also known to have a mustache distortion rather than just barrel distortion for a wide angle lens, a kind of distortion that contain both barrel and pin cushion, which are difficult to correct. Worst if one get a de-centered copy, which is almost impossible to correct. And this can happen more often on entry level lenses due to looser tolerance.
So this is it! Go for the 20mm f1.8G or 28mm f1.8G for Nikon or go for the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art for this price range.
Interesting. I've owned the lens for about a month now and haven't noticed any of the problems you describe. I find the colors to be quite accurate and the lens to be very sharp across the frame. I'll go back and do some more detailed tests with your findings in mind, but so far this has been a great performer for me (and a more useful focal length for me vs. my 50mm f/1.8).
hans98ko wrote:
This lens is known to have a greenish cast especially for subjects that are slightly out of focus. This is caused by design, selection of elements and coatings. With the green cast mixing with green leaves, we get an over saturated green ... This lens is also not known to be sharp off center, in order to make up for it, I think Nikon have selected to increase the contrast of this lens to give it the perception of sharpness. ...
