mshi - I would say that's partially from camera/lens and also due to my pp. There is vignette going on usually in dim lighting. The alley shot is the one i think you're talking about, and i corrected SOME of the vignette by bumping up exposure and back lighting in LR3 (so it's not added, but i left some because i liked it better)
Here are 2 examples of vignette in horrible lighting:
Ryan, i agree, i really like the color/contrast that the new Nikons have! The 35G does have CA present (as Kai points out in his DigitalRev review), but it's not a concern for me... you can see it in the fence in the pic below:
My copy has issues. I am going to have to send it back. My 35 f/2 takes sharper pictures than the 35 1.4 at f/2. Same thing happened with my 24G as well with the focusing. Hopefully, i will get a better working copy this time.
linn maung wrote:
My copy has issues. I am going to have to send it back. My 35 f/2 takes sharper pictures than the 35 1.4 at f/2. Same thing happened with my 24G as well with the focusing. Hopefully, i will get a better working copy this time.
Sorry to hear that... hopefully you get your hands on a good copy soon!
Why aren't there more samples of this lens being posted? I know we have about 5-6 of us on FM that have this lens now...
Anyone own both the 35G and 24G? If so, how do they compare in performance aside from the obvious difference in FL? I'm not sure there is a way to measure a difference. I'm just curious if after using them both if you're more amazed by one than the other.
I'm planning to get the 35 as soon as I recover from my post holiday/vacation lack of funds. If the 24G was somehow a much better lens, I would likely get it instead. Owning both isn't really an option for me.
mfletch wrote:
Anyone own both the 35G and 24G? If so, how do they compare in performance aside from the obvious difference in FL? I'm not sure there is a way to measure a difference. I'm just curious if after using them both if you're more amazed by one than the other.
I'm planning to get the 35 as soon as I recover from my post holiday/vacation lack of funds. If the 24G was somehow a much better lens, I would likely get it instead. Owning both isn't really an option for me.
Owned the 24G... sold it to fund the 35G.. I haven't noticed much difference in AF performance
24 1.4G
Pros (for me): very SHARP wide open, better flare control (from my experience shooting toward the sun), unique lens (no other like it!)
Cons (for me): 24mm was a bit wide for my everyday use, didn't like switching between 24 & 50 (rarely used the 50 because of that), have to get CLOSE to subjects to get good DOF/bokeh
35 1.4G
Pros (for me): SHARP wide open, 35mm is a focal length that I find useable indoors/outdoors, and is "wide enough" for 90% of what i want, similar look in my eyes to the images produced by the 24G
Cons (for me): Shooting into the sun creates a bit more flare - maybe due to no ED glass?, more options at 35mm (f/2D, future Zeiss & Samyang 35 1.4)
I could see owning BOTH lenses, but I don't have the funds at the moment to do so... so I picked the one i thought it'd get more use out of... I would love to own another 24G in the future! If you had to pick... pick one you think you'd use more often since both are great lens!
Thanks for your input. I feel the same about the usefulness of the 35mm FL. In fact, when I have to go "light", I grab the 35/2 and leave the fancier glass at home.
I own the 24 1.4G and it is a brilliant performer - very sharp even wide open.
So I decided to go for a 35 1.4G aswell, but I was terribly disappointed. Most of the images were unsharp, mostly backfocused and blurred. I got a second copy and this one did much better. But I noticed an inconsistent autofocus - no way to get reliably sharp images. The lens was exactly as Lloyd Chambers described.
As the focal length is different from the 24mm, I hope to get a (better) 3rd copy soon.
I know we have about 5-6 of us on FM that have this lens now... 
