CONFIRMED! New Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G Prime Lens

[diediealsomustdive]

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.

So losing that 2/3 stop advantage is the downgrade?

Dun need a noob to tell me that.

But what if at f/2 onwards the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is superior to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 all the way to f/16?

And what if at f/1.8 the lens is also superior to the Sigma at f/1.4? Cham liao!

You can give me a f/1 lens and if that lens is full of distortion, CA, not sharp, turn a green dress yellow, I will go for a f/3.5 lens that is well corrected, sharp and give faithful colour reproduction.

Bottom line - shot at controlled conditions and review the shots then we know if it is a downgrade. f/1.4 is just a number until shots fired, kills counted, prisoners taken.

And don't forget, even similar performance between the 2 lenses is an advantage to the 35mm f/1.8 due to price difference, unless you die die must shot at f/1.4 then nothing to say lah.

Having said that, I fully expect the Sigma to have an edge over the Nikon, how much of an edge is the question. After all, the Sigma is a statement product, to show that it is good and superior to the original brand names, and the Nikon is a made-for-mass market product, so they cut cost in many areas. Even the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is said to be superior to the Nikon version.

So relax, don't need to get excited, it is probably true that going to the f/1.8 lens is a downgrade, but what I want to say is that don't say that until it is proven photographically.

 

[kaikibbler]

number of pros who can really take advantage of the 2/3 stop difference b/w f1.4 and f1.8 < number of "pros" complaining about it...

I'm def not a pro and I'm keen to see this lens' IQ.

 

[Simon_84]

wa...new lens for my d40 liao :lovegrin:

 

[twisted illusion]

So losing that 2/3 stop advantage is the downgrade?

Dun need a noob to tell me that.

But what if at f/2 onwards the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is superior to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 all the way to f/16?

And what if at f/1.8 the lens is also superior to the Sigma at f/1.4? Cham liao!

You can give me a f/1 lens and if that lens is full of distortion, CA, not sharp, turn a green dress yellow, I will go for a f/3.5 lens that is well corrected, sharp and give faithful colour reproduction.

Bottom line - shot at controlled conditions and review the shots then we know if it is a downgrade. f/1.4 is just a number until shots fired, kills counted, prisoners taken.

And don't forget, even similar performance between the 2 lenses is an advantage to the 35mm f/1.8 due to price difference, unless you die die must shot at f/1.4 then nothing to say lah.

Having said that, I fully expect the Sigma to have an edge over the Nikon, how much of an edge is the question. After all, the Sigma is a statement product, to show that it is good and superior to the original brand names, and the Nikon is a made-for-mass market product, so they cut cost in many areas. Even the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is said to be superior to the Nikon version.

So relax, don't need to get excited, it is probably true that going to the f/1.8 lens is a downgrade, but what I want to say is that don't say that until it is proven photographically.

hi hi, ask u something, u mentioned 'turn a green dress yellow', can camera setting as in jpeg output setting resolve this matter... thks for reading...

 

[diediealsomustdive]

hi hi, ask u something, u mentioned 'turn a green dress yellow', can camera setting as in jpeg output setting resolve this matter... thks for reading...

That was simply a metaphor for not giving accurate colour.

Answer to this question is OT liao - basically one of white balance when shooting, or in photoshop try to colour correct. Search up how to do white balance (either through preset or custom), and colour correction during PP (that's post-processing). National library has a title "Photoshop Color Correction" by Michael Kieran, pretty good.

 

[jahyaks]

Has anyone dropped the idea of buying a Sigma 30mm for this?

Now we have 35 f2 vs 35 f1.8 vs 30 f1.4..decisions decisions....

i have. haha. dieeee
y so many choices. i was almost confirm going to buy the sigma then this comes out.
but truly alot more affordable it seems.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

i have. haha. dieeee
y so many choices. i was almost confirm going to buy the sigma then this comes out.
but truly alot more affordable it seems.

I poked around the other forum pages and it seems the Sigma cost around $610 grey set, $650 agent set, and folks bringing back from HK for about $520 (that's will the high Sing Dollar exchange rate).

This Nikkor should cost $350 or so. Definitely affordable. But I already have 35mm f/2, just no AF on D60...

 

[Cactus jACK]

they now announce and launch a AF-S35mmf/1.8DX to satisfy the DX crowd... i would speculate that a couple years down the road, they will announce a AF-S35mmf/1.4FX, of course pricing out be closer to $1k.

 

[boyboy]

I poked around the other forum pages and it seems the Sigma cost around $610 grey set, $650 agent set, and folks bringing back from HK for about $520 (that's will the high Sing Dollar exchange rate).

This Nikkor should cost $350 or so. Definitely affordable. But I already have 35mm f/2, just no AF on D60...

sigma cost so much?? this nikon lens IS a good deal then, for those whose camera needs AFS. i think that now, few pple will pay more for the sigma, even if it is better than the nikon

otherwise, i think better to just pay a bit more for the full-frame 35mm F2.

 

[voldisinarta]

number of pros who can really take advantage of the 2/3 stop difference b/w f1.4 and f1.8 < number of "pros" complaining about it...
I'm def not a pro and I'm keen to see this lens' IQ.

Yes, me too... Actually I am starting to save money for this lens that I've been waiting for a long time...

Am I worry about DX format? No, I believe it will be around for quite some time.

 

[Simon_84]

this is going to be my 1st prime lens until until i can afford to upgrade to sigma 30mm f1.4
finally my long wait has pay off...:cheergal::vhappy:

 

[cichlid]

I wonder are there any pre-order Qs at our local shops here ?

Has anyone enquired from shops?

 

[diediealsomustdive]

From DPReview:

Ludovic Drean (Product Manager for lenses, Europe) explains why: "The concept was to give a 50mm equivalent lens on the DX format. A lot of people have bought the 50 1.8 because it was all that was available. It may seem rather late for the APS-C system, but we believed that entry-level users wanted a standard lens."

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 &#8364;1400, rather than &#8364;200, and we wanted to make sure it was an affordable lens." Drean says.

Robert Cristina offers some context: "The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them. So far, the lens offering for that market has included some really good zooms, but this offers them something they were missing.

And, while neither would be drawn on specific future lens plans, they did hint that more primes might be seen for the DX format: "DX is not over," Drean says: "we plan to increase the offering. The prime lenses were definitely something that was missing."

... and, he adds: "this is not the last lens announcement we'll be making this year."

​

Full text DP Review's Nikon Interview on AFS 35mm f/1.8G.

Well, FX 35mm f/1.4 at &#8364;1400 or whatever the equivalent. Wonder how many of those who complain about it being DX and f/1.8 are prepared to pay the 1k+ for a f/1.4? I know I won't, what about you?

And more DX lenses in the offering... Cheers?

 

[rotisiao]

From DPReview:

Ludovic Drean (Product Manager for lenses, Europe) explains why: "The concept was to give a 50mm equivalent lens on the DX format. A lot of people have bought the 50 1.8 because it was all that was available. It may seem rather late for the APS-C system, but we believed that entry-level users wanted a standard lens."

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 &#8364;1400, rather than &#8364;200, and we wanted to make sure it was an affordable lens." Drean says.

Robert Cristina offers some context: "The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them. So far, the lens offering for that market has included some really good zooms, but this offers them something they were missing.

And, while neither would be drawn on specific future lens plans, they did hint that more primes might be seen for the DX format: "DX is not over," Drean says: "we plan to increase the offering. The prime lenses were definitely something that was missing."

... and, he adds: "this is not the last lens announcement we'll be making this year."

​

Full text DP Review's Nikon Interview on AFS 35mm f/1.8G.

Well, FX 35mm f/1.4 at &#8364;1400 or whatever the equivalent. Wonder how many of those who complain about it being DX and f/1.8 are prepared to pay the 1k+ for a f/1.4? I know I won't, what about you?

And more DX lenses in the offering.. Cheers?

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Saycheese78]

Grand Father Ni Gong, dun be like that leh.. I still saving up for a carbon tripod leh..

Anyway, from dpreview which copy from nikongear

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=14710.20

You can read the whole thread, but here's the more interesting part (Note the lens he's comparing it to is what he considers the best 35mm prime in existence; see his "best of the best" list) :

"Spent the morning shooting those boring resolution test shots with the 35/1.8 and using the 35/1.4 as a reference. In many ways an interesting comparison. The 35 is venerable and old, with a fierce temperament of its own that you have to learn in order to master. The 35/1.8 is youngish, brash, and unconcerned.

The 35/1.4 is of course sharper at f/1.4 than the newcomer. Here and up to f/2 to f/2.2, the particular veiling flare with the tinge of blue fringing around highlights, so characteristic for the 35/1.4, is much in evidence and overlies a core of image sharpness. From f/2.5 and up, the veiling vanishes to be gone by f/3.2 and very sharp image detail emerges. The 35/1.4 is not a flat-field design, but does quite well at short distances thanks to its CRC implementation. Flare and ghosting caused by strong light sources tend to be a small issue. The older lens has an endearing life-like quality of its "drawing" that I presume it is an integral part of its long history of appeal.

The 35/1.8 goes straight off at f/1.8 with a high-contrast image rendition, totally unlike the f/1.4 lens. It keeps the high contrast fairly well up to f/5.6 or so, from which setting the contrast gradually declines. Yet, even at f/22, wholly acceptable sharpness is observed. Still not a flat-field design and I have no information as to its optical design except it's a double Gauss derivation, which shows in the tendency for a mild barrel distortion (the 35/1.4 is no better, by the way). Flare is kept well under control, but shooting into the sun will provoke a few rainbow-coloured ghost spots. There is a mild tendency towards CA that is fairly evident when the lens is stopped down, but sharpness is scarcely impacted and I assume Nikon relies on the EXPEED processor to relieve the in-camera jpgs from the vestiges of CA. As this lens clearly is targeted at the volume market segment dominated by D40/40x, D60, D70, D80, D90 and similar models, shooting in-camera jpgs will likely be the prevailing approach. If you stray away from the majority and try raw files instead, Nikon is eager to stress that their NX2 software will remove CA automatically also from NEFs.

In direct A/B comparison, the 35/1.8 is sharper up to f/2.8 by virtue of having much less internal flare and better contrast, but the 35/1.4 gets the upper hand from f/4. So I'd call it a tie between them. Both are capable of delivering excellent imagery, but only the 35/1.4 can safely be used with an FX camera. The 35/1.8 DX G is not for FX use (unless you always shoot in the near range). Do not let its low price fool you into thinking the 35/1.8 G is just a toy for low-end cameras, though. This lens shows what Nikon can deliver at an unbeatable price point."

 

[bruggink]

Initially, I'm thinking of getting a AF 50mm f1.4D but looks like I may as well give up the idea and get this 35mm f1.8G glass..

I need someone to tell me that this is a good move. Anyone? =)

BTW, I'm using D200...

 

[diediealsomustdive]

So we have a lens that is a close match with the 35mm f/1.4, at least according to that review!

Sharper than the 35mm f/1.4 up to f/2.8? Wow!

Bravo, reminds me of the 75-150mm f/3.5 E lens at ~1/4 the price of the 80-200mm f/4 AiS, and was sharper than the 80-200mm f/4. And there was a modern photography article that said that the 75-150mm f/3.5 E lens was sharper than the 105mm f/2.5 and 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor!

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Initially, I'm thinking of getting a AF 50mm f1.4D but looks like I may as well give up the idea and get this 35mm f1.8G glass..

I need someone to tell me that this is a good move. Anyone? =)

BTW, I'm using D200...

Pro AFS 35mm f/1.8G
1. Cheaper.
2. Probably sharper, have to wait to see to be sure.
3. Lighter (but difference not significant).

Pro AF 50mm f/1.4D
1. FX useable when you upgrade.
2. Faster by 2/3 stop.

Difference, neither pro or con
1. 50mm has FOV 75mm = portrait lens
2. 35mm has FOV ~50mm = normal lens, slightly more versatile, can take half body portrait, and small group photo.
3. AFS vs AFD, difference is really not important for D200.

Consider:
1. If you might move to FX (pro-50mm), although this point may be moot, better enjoy today with a DX lens than to spend money on a phased out lens which a lot of people say slightly soft in the corner. By then maybe you can buy the AFS 50mm f/1.4G.
2. (Pro-35mm) You can buy the AFS 35mm f/1.8G and AF 50mm f/1.8D for not much more than the cost of AF 50mm f/1.4D. My heart is with the 50mm f/1.4, have had the Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-S, Ai, AiS and AF versions in various times. Sold them all (except the Nikkor-S which I still have), and bought the AF 50mm f/1.8D. Difference is small, if any, and I don't miss the f/1.4.
3. If you might stay DX for long term (pro-35mm). I will. My primary tool is the D300, but use D60 more often for its light weight (shutter count about the same though - I shot less often with D300 but shot more each time). Even when I upgrade to FX, I will keep a DX camera (D60 equivalent then), for size and portability, cheap enough to have one around. My D60 has completely replaced the digital compact (Canon G2, then S70) I used to carry around.

My 2c.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Just a thought, now you can have at about the price of AF 85mm f/1.4D a trio of f/1.8 "trinity" lens:

AFS 35mm f/1.8G
AF 50mm f/1.8D
AF 85mm f/1.8D

Triple the fun with little loss in quality!

I definitely should buy the AFS 35mm f/1.8 cos I will have the "f/1.8 Trio"!

 

[bigpond]

Nikon was not joking when they said the new 35 f1.8 exceeds the performance of the 35 f2. Check out the samples from dpreview, especially the one of a crane and building taken at f1.8 -- it is very impressive. Sharp all the way to the corners. Bokeh and colours are very nice (kiwi fruit looks almost edible). Good job Nikon!