CONFIRMED! New Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G Prime Lens
- Thread starter Lord Soth
- Start date
- Status
chanjyj
New Member
To add to that, barrel width may get larger. People may not like that for a "normal" lens.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Wah, like f/1.8 very sia suai! For a long time the standard 35mm lens is f/2.8, and the more well-to-do ones go for f/2 and only the very loaded do 35mm f/1.4.
50mm f/1.8 is a well worked design from a long time ago, first appeared around 1979 shortly after the Ai mount was introduced. That plus many years of manufacturing all the tool and die cost have been fully armortized, and so can be sold for very little money. I recall I got my AF 50mm f/1.8 at $125 new in 1989. It is no slouch of a lens, and I fully expect the new 35mm f/1.8 lens would be, so I am really not sure what the moaning and cheapening of the 35mm f/1.8 is all about?
The moaning over the cost of AFS 50mm f/1.4 is understandable, but perhaps also not truly founded. As with the 50mm f/1.8, the tooling and die cost for the f/1.4 were also fully amortized, so the lens can sell for little money and still be economical. No so with a newly designed lens like the AFS 50mm f/1.4 - they need to recoup the cost.
There are many who will buy mid range lenses - balance between cost and performance is really good - like 85mm f/1.8 vs f/1.4; 50mm f/1.4 vs f/1.2; (in the old days) 35mm f/2 vs f/1.4; 105mm f/2.5 vs f/1.8. Honestly I think one will be hard pressed to tell the difference of the resulting photo, unless one goes pixel peeping.
f/1.8 is a good aperture to have. f/1.4 is too much of a luxury to many, to me. Indeed please stop basing f/1.8 but recognize that this is a good aperture that balance size, performance and cost.
If your surname is Abramovich or are descendants of certain Wee family, for example, you can get the ever popular Noct f/1.2. I have never seen one in action, so I have my doubts on the real popularity of this lens.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Hiaz.. F1.8.. if come out f1.4 i would probably sell my sigma 30mm to get it.. F1.8 is a downgrade
Really? Without seeing output of the lens? Just based on f/1.8 vs f/1.4? Oh that and probably the price...
I do have a Sigma lens, instead of buying a Nikkor. And I considered that a downgrade when I purchased it. No so now, the performance of that lens is so good, it is not a downgrade.
Will you let the lens speak for itself? Will you be so bold as to do a side by side comparison and post the photos? Show us that moving from f/1.4 to f/1.8 is a downgrade...
zac08
Senior Member
DX 35f1.8.......
Why don't they come out with FX 35f1.8 instead......
I wish also.... :cry:
take 50mm as example, do u think nikon paid differently to the design and engineering teams for that of 50/1.8 and 50/1.4? would they be using totally different tools or glasses to manufature these 2? i doubt so. what i mean is the costs are not that much different. correct me if i'm wrong. but i think the reason that nikon charges so much more for f/1.4 is because the customers are willing to pay that much for some marginal gain.
by the same token, some ppl are not willing to pay more for FX35/1.8, or DX35/1.4. particularly D40, D60 users. so here is it, a lens that suits perfectly for these users. here a source where potential money can come in for nikon.
next time there will be other new 35mm lenses. pay more if you want then.
by the same token, some ppl are not willing to pay more for FX35/1.8, or DX35/1.4. particularly D40, D60 users. so here is it, a lens that suits perfectly for these users. here a source where potential money can come in for nikon.
next time there will be other new 35mm lenses. pay more if you want then.
Saycheese78
New Member
1) Assume all the parts done in house, per unit cost should be the same. How much can raw glass, raw silicon cost? $10 can buy 1 big bag!
2) However, if any of the glass is done by guys like Hoya, Hoya will charge Nikon a premium and engineering cost.
3) Tooling is extremely expensive consider u are not selling like 1million units. The other fixed cost like Engineering time and effort is not cheap either. You will be surprised how much 1 prototype cost!
4) The way u hold the glass may be very different. If you use metal to hold the glass, you get better tolerance.. Take a 18-55 lens and you shake and hear the sound inside and you know what I mean.
At the end of the day, say for example a handphone. If you can do the IC, the antenna, battery in house, removing away fixed cost and engineering cost, per unit cost will not be more than $5. Why,?the stupid silicon to make all the IC cost a few cents but is sold at a few $ to manufacturers, cos the fixed cost is high.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Some truth to what you said, but why wouldn't the tools be totally different? How do you manufacture a lens, sit in front of computer and presto - here's a lens? Or fiddle around with a lego set and come up with f/1.2, f/1.4 or f/1.8 as desired using the same glass elements, just choose different plastic parts?
These lenses do not share elements, and in many instances even the materials used for the glass are different. Each lens element needs a mould to do the moulding, as with each plastic component, and tooling required for different cam (to move the lens element). And moulds are very expensive to make, as they are precision moulds that give the correct tolerance in the lens elements moulded.
Take a 50mm f/1.8 and play with the aperture ring vs that of a 50mm f/1.4 and you'll see that the materials used are different. My son dropped the 18-135mm and it ended up in 3 pieces. I venture to say that the 50mm f/1.8 can take less punishment than the 50mm f/1.4.
Every dollar more in materials in manufacturing will make product cost many dollars more. Replace a rare earth element here with a normal glass, a metal cam there with a plastic cam, precision bearings with cheap bearings, and you get the picture.
With older aspherical elements, each one of them were CNC milled out, that's why the old 20-35mm f/2.8 cost that much more!
If market segmentation is the only reason why the f/1.2 cost more than the f/1.4 than the f/1.8, the someone, like Sigma, or Tokina, or Tamron would be able to offer the lenses way way cheaper. As it stands the equivalent independent lenses are usually cheaper, like the f/2.8 zooms, but in the case of Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.4, they are not. Why not?
And add that for every Nikon 50mm f/1.4 sold, you might get three or more 50mm f/1.8 sold. Lower margin for each but higher profit!
Market segmentation accounts for some of the cost difference certainly. The margin of a f/1.4 lens is higher for Nikon Japan, and for Nikon Singapore and for XXX (replace with the retailer's name) and cost more in GST. So there is truth in what you say, they will charge what the market will bear, but only just, because the market will move to Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc. Only silly money equipment like Leica can command that sky high price.
On second thoughts, I think I had been too quick to denounce Nikon for coming up with this cheap-looking DX lens. I think they might have a winner here in terms of maximising what they can achieve in IQ with the smaller DX image circle, and at a good price point. Nikon's lens lineup has always been a little thin compared to Canon, and they are certainly moving in the right direction.
The following offers some explanation from Nikon on why they chose to make the 35/1.8 DX:
Nikon already builds a full-frame 35mm F2 lens, but this doesn't quite fit the bill, he says: "That's an older lens, a slower lens and, in terms of product placement, a more expensive lens. Updating that and making it an AF-S, 'G' version might have cost twice as much. The new lens is a step above the 35mm F2 in terms of image quality. It's specifically designed for DX and the aspherical element helps it give better results."
The other obvious question was why the lens should be restricted to the DX format, given that Nikon now makes three FX, full-frame bodies: "It's about price, size and weight. We wanted this to be a lens for the entry-level. If we'd tried to make an FX 35mm F1.4 it might cost 1400, rather than 200, and we wanted to make sure it was an affordable lens." Drean says.
"DX is not over," Drean says: "we plan to increase the offering. The prime lenses were definitely something that was missing."
For more details, see link below:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021002nikoninterview.asp
The following offers some explanation from Nikon on why they chose to make the 35/1.8 DX:
Nikon already builds a full-frame 35mm F2 lens, but this doesn't quite fit the bill, he says: "That's an older lens, a slower lens and, in terms of product placement, a more expensive lens. Updating that and making it an AF-S, 'G' version might have cost twice as much. The new lens is a step above the 35mm F2 in terms of image quality. It's specifically designed for DX and the aspherical element helps it give better results."
The other obvious question was why the lens should be restricted to the DX format, given that Nikon now makes three FX, full-frame bodies: "It's about price, size and weight. We wanted this to be a lens for the entry-level. If we'd tried to make an FX 35mm F1.4 it might cost 1400, rather than 200, and we wanted to make sure it was an affordable lens." Drean says.
"DX is not over," Drean says: "we plan to increase the offering. The prime lenses were definitely something that was missing."
For more details, see link below:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021002nikoninterview.asp
wow, thanks Saycheese78 and diediealsomustdive for your great insights!
i do not deny that materials and processes vary broadly for the entire lineup of lenses. after posting i was wondering how come anything with focal lengths longer and shorter than 50mm the price increase exponentially. anyway, i should have stated that my assumption is that this 35/1.8 will be the de facto prime lens for DX format shooters as 50/1.8 is for most budget conscious shooters. see i deliberately limit my discussion to that 2 only.
with the aid of technology isn't that most design and engineering work can be done and simulated before coming to the shopfloor to produce prototype? while u mentioned the materials for individual elements may be different, not to mention different lenses, good design principles encourange the use of common materials to benefit from the economies of scale. my point is that for the case of 50mm it shouldn't be too far from that.
also i believe f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions are priced higher to portray them as high end products for the sake of maintaining the brand name. ppl look at the quality of those products and infer that f/1.8 version will be as good. that's why they sell they are ok selling many 50/1.8 while not that many 50/1.4.
coming back to this new AF-S 35/1.8, it should be evidence that cost of making aspherical element has become very low, right? or is it a piece of aspherical plastic being glued onto another glass element like what kenrockwell said about AF-S17-55?
i'm engineer by training, not a marketing or economics guy, but currently not practising what i learned in school. it is interesting to learn about mfg from u all. thanks again!:thumbsup:
i do not deny that materials and processes vary broadly for the entire lineup of lenses. after posting i was wondering how come anything with focal lengths longer and shorter than 50mm the price increase exponentially. anyway, i should have stated that my assumption is that this 35/1.8 will be the de facto prime lens for DX format shooters as 50/1.8 is for most budget conscious shooters. see i deliberately limit my discussion to that 2 only.
with the aid of technology isn't that most design and engineering work can be done and simulated before coming to the shopfloor to produce prototype? while u mentioned the materials for individual elements may be different, not to mention different lenses, good design principles encourange the use of common materials to benefit from the economies of scale. my point is that for the case of 50mm it shouldn't be too far from that.
also i believe f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions are priced higher to portray them as high end products for the sake of maintaining the brand name. ppl look at the quality of those products and infer that f/1.8 version will be as good. that's why they sell they are ok selling many 50/1.8 while not that many 50/1.4.
coming back to this new AF-S 35/1.8, it should be evidence that cost of making aspherical element has become very low, right? or is it a piece of aspherical plastic being glued onto another glass element like what kenrockwell said about AF-S17-55?
i'm engineer by training, not a marketing or economics guy, but currently not practising what i learned in school. it is interesting to learn about mfg from u all. thanks again!:thumbsup:
Last edited:
blue_quartz
Member
So are we all just waiting for comparisons between this and the Sigma 30 f/1.4? 
30/35mm focal length will make an interesting pair with an 85 I reckon.
30/35mm focal length will make an interesting pair with an 85 I reckon.
Saycheese78
New Member
wow, thanks Saycheese78 and diediealsomustdive for your great insights!
i do not deny that materials and processes vary broadly for the entire lineup of lenses. after posting i was wondering how come anything with focal lengths longer and shorter than 50mm the price increase exponentially. anyway, i should have stated that my assumption is that this 35/1.8 will be the de facto prime lens for DX format shooters as 50/1.8 is for most budget conscious shooters. see i deliberately limit my discussion to that 2 only.
with the aid of technology isn't that most design and engineering work can be done and simulated before coming to the shopfloor to produce prototype? while u mentioned the materials for individual elements may be different, not to mention different lenses, good design principles encourange the use of common materials to benefit from the economies of scale. my point is that for the case of 50mm it shouldn't be too far from that.
also i believe f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions are priced higher to portray them as high end products for the sake of maintaining the brand name. ppl look at the quality of those products and infer that f/1.8 version will be as good. that's why they sell they are ok selling many 50/1.8 while not that many 50/1.4.
coming back to this new AF-S 35/1.8, it should be evidence that cost of making aspherical element has become very low, right? or is it a piece of aspherical plastic being glued onto another glass element like what kenrockwell said about AF-S17-55?
i'm engineer by training, not a marketing or economics guy, but currently not practising what i learned in school. it is interesting to learn about mfg from u all. thanks again!:thumbsup:
Yes. with the use of computer and simulation, design cycles had greatly reduce. With introduction of ICs, the time and number of Engineers to produce a product, no doubt has greatly cut down. Thats why you can buy TV at such cheap prices. However, the number of marketing, sales, management stuff has remained the same or even increase. That's why the price reduction and reduction in development cost is not proportional. Nonetheless, electronics (example handphone) had become much much cheaper. It used to take 2 years to develop a handphone, but now, I suspect max 9 mths. Not to forget there used to be a whole floor of Engineers.. Now.. ermm..
On the part of high end vs low end and price, it is a marketing pricing strategy and a play with the demand and supply curve. Take note the fixed cost of high volume and low volume products is at least similar. So low volume products very ex lah.
Saycheese78
New Member
when lighting condition is poor u will know what thes different f1.4 vs f1.8 Dun need a noob like me to tell u right? Anyway i wish their next lens would be 35mm f1.4.. perhaps that would be a fair comparision against the sigma 30mm.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
wow, thanks Saycheese78 and diediealsomustdive for your great insights!
i do not deny that materials and processes vary broadly for the entire lineup of lenses. after posting i was wondering how come anything with focal lengths longer and shorter than 50mm the price increase exponentially. anyway, i should have stated that my assumption is that this 35/1.8 will be the de facto prime lens for DX format shooters as 50/1.8 is for most budget conscious shooters. see i deliberately limit my discussion to that 2 only.
with the aid of technology isn't that most design and engineering work can be done and simulated before coming to the shopfloor to produce prototype? while u mentioned the materials for individual elements may be different, not to mention different lenses, good design principles encourange the use of common materials to benefit from the economies of scale. my point is that for the case of 50mm it shouldn't be too far from that.
also i believe f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions are priced higher to portray them as high end products for the sake of maintaining the brand name. ppl look at the quality of those products and infer that f/1.8 version will be as good. that's why they sell they are ok selling many 50/1.8 while not that many 50/1.4.
coming back to this new AF-S 35/1.8, it should be evidence that cost of making aspherical element has become very low, right? or is it a piece of aspherical plastic being glued onto another glass element like what kenrockwell said about AF-S17-55?
i'm engineer by training, not a marketing or economics guy, but currently not practising what i learned in school. it is interesting to learn about mfg from u all. thanks again!:thumbsup:
Thanks for the kind words.
And what Saycheese said is correct, precision tooling is expensive, fixed cost is significant when there is limited product run. Rare earth glass is not cheap. And to make 18-55 at the price Nikons sells it compromises were made (side issue - I am just glad that when corners were cut, it didn't compromised the optical performance greatly, unlike a certain C camp).
Firstly, why lenses longer or shorter than 50mm cost exponentially higher. This is physics - you are bending the light more in the case of WA, and collecting light from smaller angle of view for tele. Add to that the need to correct for distortion, CA, etc. You have your answers - it is that much more complicated to do all those things well.
Why not common materials? Take a prism and white light going through it will split. Bend the light through lenses, 15 elements in 12 groups, and the splitting will be significant. Presto chromatic abberation, in a simplistic explanation. So optics engineers come up with aspherical elements, lenses with different dispersion characteristics - so you have ASP, ED. At the end of the day the light from a point source must bend in such a way that when it arrived at the destination it does not split. Or that plus linear distortion. You'll get the point.
All these are after simulation.
Today they mould the aspheric element, and yes it is plastic, starting from the old AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5. So the newer AFS 17-35mm f/2.8 was released at about the same price as the AFD 20-35mm f/2.8. And you are right, I suspect they priced the 17-35 at about 20-35 because people expect to pay that much for the lens. But when you consider the price of f/2.8 lenses from third party makers, you will see why it is some truth and not the absolute truth.
Cheers! If it is not the recession, I will buy the AFS DX 35mm f/1.8. But it on hold cause I have the AFD 35mm f/2.
Last edited:
- Status