TWoK wrote:
I just did minor editing: resize, sharpen, and border in CS2. All were out of camera JPGs.
I just went out shooting today with my friend who picked up the first copy. He's only had his D70s for a few days and it is his first SLR. I think he really took some great shots. All of them are on his flickr and all were taken with the D70s and the 35/1.8G DX. http://www.flickr.com/photos/31732618@N07/
This lens is looking really good for FX. I shoot weddings and really don't mind the vignetting! I assume the vignetting control was on D700. Can you take a picture in raw and process it without fixing the vignette, just to see how severe it is. Thanks a lot for your posts, it is very educational!
For those wondering why Nikon didn't make this lens "just a little bigger" and call it FX, I'd point out two things:
1) Just a little bigger still costs more, and the target market is very price sensitive. Even $20 price difference will have a significant impact on unit volume. And this isn't just about the volume of this lens, either. The more of these Nikon can sell to casual amateurs, the better chance it has of selling extra AF-S 50mm f1.4G's and the like.
2) By calling it DX and having it sorta kinda usable on FX, people will totally ignore how soft the corners are on the large frame, etc and contentedly buy it to use on the D700 and just work around the problems. If they'd made it just a bit better and called it FX, people would whinge on endlessly about the vignetting and corner softness (see: AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR).
To add to dougjk's post, it's also because they wouldn't want to kill sales of the 35/2 by releasing a cheaper, better 35/1.8. By making it FX, they hurt one end of their market or the other. Looks like the cat could be out of the bag now though
ehhh wrote:
To add to dougjk's post, it's also because they wouldn't want to kill sales of the 35/2 by releasing a cheaper, better 35/1.8. By making it FX, they hurt one end of their market or the other. Looks like the cat could be out of the bag now though
I don't think they care about that. They've killed sales of the 60D and 50D, so the 35 could have easily replaced the 35D. It looks like Nikon may have made this DX on purpose as opposed to doing it for cost reasons. I really think when I remove the lip on the rear baffle we will see A LOT less vignetting and possibly none at all.
This is the best I have for now. Close to infinity at f/2.8:
TWoK wrote:
I don't think they care about that. They've killed sales of the 60D and 50D, so the 35 could have easily replaced the 35D. It looks like Nikon may have made this DX on purpose as opposed to doing it for cost reasons. I really think when I remove the lip on the rear baffle we will see A LOT
less vignetting and possibly none at all.
Can you post a photo of the rear of the lens? I'm curious what that baffle looks like.
Swung by kitamura yesterday (sunday). Next order supposed to come in Wednesday. Guess I have something to do at lunch and on the way home if I am local that day lol....have some film to kill, maybe I'll bring the F100 to kill a roll as well and develop if I can get access to a sample .
TWoK wrote:
I don't think they care about that. They've killed sales of the 60D and 50D, so the 35 could have easily replaced the 35D. It looks like Nikon may have made this DX on purpose as opposed to doing it for cost reasons. I really think when I remove the lip on the rear baffle we will see A LOT less vignetting and possibly none at all.
Wow, that is very acceptable! Heck, I add vignette myself anyways! It'll save me time!
I loved my Canon 35L, this one looks like will get me closer to my favorite lens.
One question remains though: is this picture jpg out of camera or raw processed afterwards? The reason I ask is because d700 and d3 fix the vignetting in camera if set properly. I hope these examples are untouched files.
ISO1600 wrote:
Brian, don't even think about just trying it out- if you can get your paws on one, BUY IT!
this lens is so so so so great.
Yeah the NAS is calling and with shipping.....only way to make out on shipping would be to order a fliter or something small. To save 50 bucks....I spend another 150 . Oki and hawaii coming up, who the hell needs filters, when not grey, the skies are blue as hell to start off with .
Probably make the rounds starting Tuesday in case of early shipping. At least its next to a McD's.....can get lunch so don't feel like I am wasting gas if not there
TWoK wrote:
I don't think they care about that. They've killed sales of the 60D and 50D, so the 35 could have easily replaced the 35D. It looks like Nikon may have made this DX on purpose as opposed to doing it for cost reasons. I really think when I remove the lip on the rear baffle we will see A LOT less vignetting and possibly none at all.
This is the best I have for now. Close to infinity at f/2.8:
What I mean is that it is priced under the 35/2 and that effectively kills sales of that lens. They didn't kill sales of the 60D and 50D in the same sense that I'm talking about because the newer lenses are more expensive. They'd have to price it above the 35/2 for it to make sense as an FX lens, which kinda steps on the toes of the target audience (inexpensive DX shooters). Anyhow, thanks for the shot. The corners aren't completely terrible, but the vignetting comes into the picture pretty far if you look at the sky (blown in the middle, not at the borders). Still for $200, it seems pretty nice for FX.
Would love to see a manually focused to infinity shot at 1.8 if you ever get the chance
ISO1600 wrote:
i don't know what you even mean by this.
I see what he's talking about. If you look at the first image in the thread, especially the top of the wall cutout along the top right hand side of the image... or the image of the guy in the parking lot, you can see the horizontal lines of the parking spaces - they just aren't as soft as the rest of the OOF areas.
That said, I only noticed because I went back and looked. I think the OOF areas are very pleasing.
. 
. Oki and hawaii coming up, who the hell needs filters, when not grey, the skies are blue as hell to start off with 
