p.3 #2 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
tuannie wrote:
When will the lens vignette at its worse? Out door?
At longer focus distances - so if you shoot a lot of close up stuff like I just posted, you don't see it much and it's within the range that you could correct in post (or would just disappear with a bit of cropping). If you were doing landscape work or anything where you were focusing more at infinity you'd notice it more.
p.3 #3 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
Sam Bennett wrote:
At longer focus distances - so if you shoot a lot of close up stuff like I just posted, you don't see it much and it's within the range that you could correct in post (or would just disappear with a bit of cropping). If you were doing landscape work or anything where you were focusing more at infinity you'd notice it more.
Good. Wedding isn't landscape or has a lot infinity focus so I guess I will see it less. Calm my nerve about shooting it indoor for low light situation only.
p.3 #4 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
Honestly wedding stuff can really benefit from a bit of vignetting - I add it myself. I would be more concerned about shots where I was going to have a lot of stuff in the background - shooting down the aisle, etc. The bokeh, imo, is the weak link of this lens whether you're on FX or DX.
p.3 #5 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
Sam Bennett wrote:
Honestly wedding stuff can really benefit from a bit of vignetting - I add it myself. I would be more concerned about shots where I was going to have a lot of stuff in the background - shooting down the aisle, etc. The bokeh, imo, is the weak link of this lens whether you're on FX or DX.
I want to use this mainly for indoor low light situations that I need 35mm @ f1.8. I have been able to capture everything else with my zoom (and the 50 1.4 G). I mainly want to use this for getting ready shots. As for vignette, I don't mind it. That is the reason why I never bitch about my 70-200 f2.8 VR.
p.3 #7 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
tuannie wrote:
No one is arguing otherwise. Everyone knows how DX on FX works. I am simply letting Brian know the quick answer to his question about DX lenses on FX bodies. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Tuan
Was letting him know that even though he bought it for his FX body, that it'd still be somewhat usable in some situations in FX mode. He was sad that he didn't realize it was DX only... unless I interpreted it wrongly. Then it turned into a discussion about how DX lenses work on FX hehe =) should've probably took this off the thread into a pm.
p.3 #8 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
Little side note - my local shop sold their lot of 12 lenses in two hours. I guess there really was a pent up demand for a DX 35mm f/1.8, although he did sell a few to FX guys.
p.3 #9 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
Do you think you could post a shot manually focused past infinity and wide open to show the worst possible vignetting on FX (pic of the sky or something)? I'm considering getting one on FX mostly because it's cheaper than the 35/2, but I want to see how bad it vignettes at it's worst.
Thanks in advance if you do
p.3 #11 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
Sam Bennett wrote:
However, the bokeh seems, well... less than stunning.
It's not like 35mm lenses tend to be bokeh champions. And to be fair, 50/1.4G is also in the "less than stunning" category in terms of bokeh, just like majority of normal and wide Nikkors.
p.3 #12 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
voka_gsw wrote:
It's not like 35mm lenses tend to be bokeh champions. And to be fair, 50/1.4G is also in the "less than stunning" category in terms of bokeh, just like majority of normal and wide Nikkors.
I have to disagree on both points. Canon's 35mm f/1.4L has great bokeh, so it can be done (granted, the 35L is far more expensive than the 35G). And the 50G has very nice, smooth bokeh in general and particularly in comparison to the 50D. The only reason people aren't running around touting the 50G's bokeh is because the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has such distinctively smooth bokeh wide-open. Stopped down to even f/2 it's a more level playing field and by f/2.8 the Sigma and Nikkor 50's are virtually identical in terms of bokeh. The 35G's bokeh isn't just "less than stunning", it's downright ugly in some situations.
p.3 #16 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
beepclick wrote:
Didn't go for it as I like my 35 f/2
That's a perfectly legitimate consideration. I have both and just did a review at DPR (see here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31357893 ) and I will keep both lenses because I figure on using the 35/2 on FX someday, but for my DX camera the 35/1.8 is simply better.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Now obviously this comparison is a bit unfair since the DoF is so much more narrow on the FX setup, but... here's the Nikkor at f/3.5 - stopped down enough to equalize the DoF and then some.
This confirms my fear from the DPReview examples - really not all that smooth in terms of bokeh. I certainly know which of the two setups I'd rather shoot with.
The 35G's bokeh isn't just "less than stunning", it's downright ugly in some situations.
I have a number of issues with your comparisons, starting with the focal lengths of the lenses themselves. How does the bokeh of the 35/1.8 compare to a 24mm lens? How does the bokeh of the 50mm lens compare to an equally fast 85mm lens? Then you mention the Canon 35/1.4 L, but at what apertures? Not to mention the issue of formats, so was that Canon lens being using on a smaller format?
Now I ask you, what 35mm alternative to the 35/1.8 that we can use on our Nikon cameras has better bokeh? I can tell you with certainty that it's not the 35/2 (just go check out the review I did at DPR and linked to above to see for yourself).
p.3 #17 · Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX have hit the states...
TonyBeach wrote:
I have a number of issues with your comparisons, starting with the focal lengths of the lenses themselves. How does the bokeh of the 35/1.8 compare to a 24mm lens? How does the bokeh of the 50mm lens compare to an equally fast 85mm lens?
Not really sure what point you're trying to make here, Tony. The comparison was intended to compare the results you'd get using the 35G on DX compared to the 50G on FX. Something very relevant to me, since I'm thinking of getting a DX camera. Needless to say, the most noticeable difference is the DoF which really makes it an apples to oranges comparison, and the 50mm f/1.4G gets smoother as you stop down, so... it's tough to compare the two. But generally speaking, all else being equal I would personally prefer to use the FX/50mm combination for the greater DoF flexibility on the shallow end and the overall smoother results in this case in particular. If you disagree, fine - feel free to share your reasons, we all have our own needs.
TonyBeach wrote:
Then you mention the Canon 35/1.4 L, but at what apertures? Not to mention the issue of formats, so was that Canon lens being using on a smaller format?
The bokeh is what it is. What you notice or don't has less to do with the format you're using but your subject matter itself. I've used the 35L on 1.6, 1.3 and FF dSLRs and the bokeh is fantastic on all of them. Obviously what you accomplish on each format is slightly different since the FoV is different, but the bokeh is still exemplary in each case. I primarily used mine between f/1.4-f/2.8, so I won't comment on it's bokeh outside of that range.
TonyBeach wrote:
Now I ask you, what 35mm alternative to the 35/1.8 that we can use on our Nikon cameras has better bokeh? I can tell you with certainty that it's not the 35/2 (just go check out the review I did at DPR and linked to above to see for yourself).
I haven't used a 35/2, so I don't really have a sense of what its bokeh characteristics are like - the examples you've posted are not very helpful to me. I know that the examples I've seen from the Zeiss 35mm f/2 have been very smooth indeed, but I personally would prefer an AF lens with poor bokeh (in some situations) than an MF with excellent bokeh. Most gear is about compromise, so for me the convenience of AF outweighs the ultimate in optical quality in this case.
For what it's worth, I'm definitely keeping the 35mm f/1.8, I think it's a fantastic value even for FX users if they shoot material that isn't impacted negatively by vignetting. It will be part of my walkaround kit alongside the 50G.
