R. Francois wrote:
if a DX lens already looks like this on FX, why didn't they made it FX in the first place? Will it really be so much larger, heavier and pricier? I mean looking at these samples it's almost fx... Or am i missing something here?
Well it's great, i will get instant vignetting so i don't have to add that in post....
Exactly what I was thinking! Hmmmm ... save me a step in ps.
Ok ... you toads better be right about the IQ here. I was taking a stroll at lunch today and walked by one of my two local shops. They got twelve of these 35 f 1.8's today at around 11am. I got there at about 1:30 .... and they still had two left. So ... what could I do?
I haven't taken any shots with it as I have only a F100 loaded with some PanF but I did mount the lens to see how it vignettes. The darn thing is that on FX this is just fine! I actually put a photoshop vignette back in in many photos and if you crop it out from full frame you probably have a 40mm lens here with pristine edges. Not bad on its own but when you think of the price - fantastic!
I did notice that the lens is much much slower feeling to focus compared to the old 35 f 2.0 which I also have ... but nothing can be perfect, right?
So ... now I hope the IQ is as good as this thread makes me think it may be. That would make this a must have lens for many of us.
Pavel wrote:
They got twelve of these 35 f 1.8's today at around 11am. I got there at about 1:30 .... and they still had two left.
What on earth was Nikon thinking, making an AF-S DX 35mm f1.8?!? Who will ever buy one of those? Those D40 owners never buy a second lens, and everyone else wants an AF-S FX 35mm f1.4!!
Pavel wrote:
Ok ... you toads better be right about the IQ here. I was taking a stroll at lunch today and walked by one of my two local shops. They got twelve of these 35 f 1.8's today at around 11am. I got there at about 1:30 .... and they still had two left. So ... what could I do?
I haven't taken any shots with it as I have only a F100 loaded with some PanF but I did mount the lens to see how it vignettes. The darn thing is that on FX this is just fine! I actually put a photoshop vignette back in in many photos and if you crop it out from full frame you probably have a 40mm lens here with pristine edges. Not bad on its own but when you think of the price - fantastic!
I did notice that the lens is much much slower feeling to focus compared to the old 35 f 2.0 which I also have ... but nothing can be perfect, right?
So ... now I hope the IQ is as good as this thread makes me think it may be. That would make this a must have lens for many of us....Show more →
How much did you pay?
Also don't shoot with matix metering at infinity because I've found it confuses the meter.
I paid $199 (plus tax which brought it to about 212)
I have only shot a few back to back shots but have noticed that both the new 1.8 and the old 2.0 have what looks to be identical IQ at f 2.0 but the old lens is waaaay better in one regard - it has a fantastic near focus limit whereas the new lens is only decent in that respect. ( it is something I always look for as well as flare characteristics)
I am very happy with the price. A bit surprised that it focuses so much slower and that it is a bit bigger than I expected. I may post some comparos later.
I can sure see that this thing is going to be a huge hit!
Pavel wrote:
I paid $199 (plus tax which brought it to about 212)
I have only shot a few back to back shots but have noticed that both the new 1.8 and the old 2.0 have what looks to be identical IQ at f 2.0 but the old lens is waaaay better in one regard - it has a fantastic near focus limit whereas the new lens is only decent in that respect. ( it is something I always look for as well as flare characteristics)
That sucks. I was hoping it would focus as close as the f/2 version. Ahh!!! the wait is killing me...
I'm torn between buying this lens and giving my 50 1.8 to my sister or just sticking with the 50. I think it would be better coverage to go with the 35 as I have a 12-24, 50, 85, 80-200. What do you guys think?
Chefdaniel wrote:
These are full frame shots with a dx lens, I don't get it? If this is DX than my 70-200 is also a dx lens because there is more light fall-of on that than this lens. wtf
Maybe since at that time Nikon had no plans whatsoever to do an FX camera anytime soon (according to them). They denied FX format right until the year before they released the D3.
Now, maybe the 35 1.8 DX was pushed out the door before it is ready to be an FX lens (backward marketing here). Once it gets popular, they will do more mod and turn it into FX. Just like the 70-200 VR is really DX
how does the new 35/1.8 stack up against the sigma 30/1.4? I'm looking for a fast prime in that area for low light stuff, and i could certainly use the extra 5mm and couple stops if its worth it. though this new lens looks fantastic.
It is much easier to get a very sharp shot with the 35/1.8 wide open for one. I was comparing them the other night both wide open and the 35/1.8 blows the 1.4 out of the water in sharpness, but I'll try to test a bit more when I have a chance. The 35/1.4 can be very 'glowy' wide open.
TWoK wrote:
It is much easier to get a very sharp shot with the 35/1.8 wide open for one. I was comparing them the other night both wide open and the 35/1.8 blows the 1.4 out of the water in sharpness, but I'll try to test a bit more when I have a chance. The 35/1.4 can be very 'glowy' wide open.
Drool...... where is mine!!! why won't adorama ship it!!!
Oh yeah, the 35G focuses where it is supposed to and doesn't make people look yellow at any WB like the Sigma. The Sigma doesn't use glass. It really uses polished fingernails from North Korean labor camps.
so i don't have to add that in post....