Taylor Barrett wrote:
Yes, its fairly simple but hard to find. Its in the shooting menu, under Image Area. Disable automatically switching to DX when a DX lens is mounted and set the default frame as FX.
This is the first thing I did when I recieved mine.
Methinks I remember that back in my film days (FF to you digitrons) there were a number of lenses that would vignette. I sure you guys also know that most PP software will fix this easily. I also remember that we would always crop the image due to the fact that the proportions of the frame did not match the size of the paper. We could use these lenses by adjusting our POV with a crop in mind.
Taylor was just pointing out that a DX lens could be used on an FX body with little trouble. I'm really surprised by some of the responses...everything from confusion to Nikon conspriracy(?).
Bottom line is that this lens will work fine on an FX body with a little PP or cropping.
From what I have seen so far, the 35mm f1.8 is reasonably priced and looks like a great lens to have. Its performance, wide open, appears to my eyes better than the 35mm f2 AIs but I do not shoot my f2 wide opened often and even when I do I am pleased with the images I get.
It is great to see that it works nicely on the FX format and surely will be very useful for someone like Tuan who is heavily into wedding photography. It also looks like a great street photography lens.
I bet some more primes are coming!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
What I find amusing is that you constantly hear all the whining about how HORRIBLE the 70-200 is on FX because of the DISASTROUS corner performance - but this one is wonderfull on FF
We're just accustomed to different things. I would say the vignetting with this lens on the D700 is about the same as the 50mm f/1.8 on the Canon 5d. Nikon users were spoiled by unsustainable performance.
What I find amusing is that you constantly hear all the whining about how HORRIBLE the 70-200 is on FX because of the DISASTROUS corner performance - but this one is wonderfull on FF
That's because the 70-200 VR is an $1,800 FX lens vs the 35mm 1.8 is a $200 DX lens.
rhyder wrote:
I also remember that we would always crop the image due to the fact that the proportions of the frame did not match the size of the paper.
I've carried that habit over to my digital days, I still prefer to crop things to a 5:4 ratio, especially for vertical shots.
rhyder wrote:
Taylor was just pointing out that a DX lens could be used on an FX body with little trouble. I'm really surprised by some of the responses...everything from confusion to Nikon conspriracy(?).
I think it really comes down to what you shoot. For me, the vignetting is a pain in the ass - I sometimes print hundreds of photos a day. Doing vignetting correction on every single photo is annoying and adds noise to the corners of my photos, which are already fairly noisy since I shoot at ISO 6400 for many of these events.
The premise of this thread is simply false. It's not an FX lens, it clearly was not designed to work on FX and anyone going into the purchase thinking that it's "fine" will be disappointed. These are not results that I would accept from a lens with the "FX" distinction on it:
ISO 3200, 1/250th, f/2
ISO 400, 1/500th, f/2.5
ISO 2500, 1/200th, f/2.8
With that said, the lens is a great value for someone who wants a cheap, fast 35mm lens and doesn't mind a bit of vignetting and softness - there are plenty of people like that. But let's be realistic, alright?
For a bit of perspective, here's a couple shots with the 50mm f/1.4G, a lens that isn't exactly vignetting-free on FX:
rhyder wrote:
Bottom line is that this lens will work fine on an FX body with a little PP or cropping.
If you call that "fine", why on earth do you own such an expensive camera? Talk about wasting money.
Why not try the 18-55 when you are on it too? I promise, it does "fine" from 24 mm on FX. I've tried.
Was out shooting with the dogs and accidentally took a shot at f/22, which shows how bad the vignetting gets on the other side of the aperture spectrum...
Sam Bennett wrote:
Was out shooting with the dogs and accidentally took a shot at f/22, which shows how bad the vignetting gets on the other side of the aperture spectrum...
Shot from this evening at ISO 6400. This lens really is remarkably sharp wide-open. Every time I take a shot I think "Wow, this lens is really, really sharp":
If you call that "fine", why on earth do you own such an expensive camera? Talk about wasting money.
Why not try the 18-55 when you are on it too? I promise, it does "fine" from 24 mm on FX. I've tried.
New lens, 1.8, $200 BNIB vice the lowest price I have seen for a used 35 F2 (lowest I have seen is maybe 250 before paypal/shipping in B&S for one a few years old, have not checked current market to be honest) . Lots of reasons to buy this for an FX user.
Well, and I think it's great for people who have both FX and DX. If you're shooting something that won't necessarily reveal its flaws on FX it's a nice lens to use since it's so light and compact. Some shooting requires high quality at every level, some shooting doesn't. I certainly won't be using it for my Dog Sports stuff since it vignettes far, far too much but for farting around I like it a lot. Once I get a lightweight DX camera this lens will be on it 90% of the time, I suspect.
Makten wrote:
If you call that "fine", why on earth do you own such an expensive camera? Talk about wasting money.
Why not try the 18-55 when you are on it too? I promise, it does "fine" from 24 mm on FX. I've tried.
Rockwell just posted his test and the lens is not FX.
Also, I cannot believe the hype over this new lens. I have been using the 35mm F2 AFD for years. It is FX. Forgotten now? No way. Get real.
I bought this lens last week, and it's great on my D90. For that use, it seems better all around than the 35/2 I had for years -- quick, sharp, good handling. It's dopey to call it an FX lens, though. It just confuses people who don't have the lens. If you've got an FX camera, stick with the 35/2 -- or, if you're satisfied with the cropping necessary to reliably use the 35/1.8, just get a 50/1.8. Even cheaper still.
I generally agree with their reviews, but I can't really here. I'm wondering if their insistence that the lens is only sharp at the center wide-open is indicative of extreme field curvature - I've shot a lot of stuff out of the center, and it's very sharp. The lens is also quite contrasty, in my experience.
Talk about wasting money.
