Nikon 35 f/1.4G DX

[KenjiS]

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.8G.html

Brand new, Apparently JUST announced

So Nikon is trying to be Sigma?

[davidfig]

Finally a standard lens for a crop camera on nikon. But alas its $200us. Canon's is $240us. Guess we are never going to see an standard crop like the nifty fifty.

[KenjiS]

Finally a standard lens for a crop camera on nikon. But alas its $200us. Canon's is $240us. Guess we are never going to see an standard crop like the nifty fifty.

But look at the build difference in it :/

I'd pay extra for that build! Hell even Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 is built VERY well...and its $120

[bacchanal]

What!? DX?? C'mon Nikon release some real lenses!

[John_TX]

I'm just glad Nikon is starting to release more primes. Maybe that will put some pressure on Canon to get some more affordable primes on the market. Their current f2.8 primes suck, to put it nicely....

[KenjiS]

I'm just glad Nikon is starting to release more primes. Maybe that will put some pressure on Canon to get some more affordable primes on the market. Their current f2.8 primes suck, to put it nicely....

Exactly my thoughts

I'm also hoping Canon takes a page from Nikon's book and ups the build quality a bit :/

In these tough economic times I'd enjoy non-L lenses to have that REALLY nice feel to them, versus the plastic nasty mess most of them have

And note on the crop thing, I personally love my 1.6 crop, but I feel like I'm having to get a Full Frame DSLR to actually use most of Canon's good glass, which means i have to avoid EVERY crop lens like it has a disease :/ at least Nikon gives their crop users an upgrade path!

[thebac]

Yeah, not too fond of the DX factor here.

On the flipside, it's very cheap ($200 MSRP? That's crazy), well built, and has ring-type AF-S/USM. Plus, it's a new design (so presumably sharper), and f/1.8 does buy you a bit over f/2.

I still can't get over the price tag. That's less than half of a Sigma 30mm/1.4, and it still comes with hood and lens pouch.

In fact, the price is just a little more than half what an old-school Nikon 35mm f/2 with screwdriver AF and no supplied lens hood or pouch costs. But that lens will work on FX.

The funny thing is that if Nikon hadn't gone into FX, they'd probably charge a premium for a slightly faster 35mm with AF-S than the older one, even though it's DX. Instead, it's a bargain.

[KenjiS]

Yeah, not too fond of the DX factor here.

On the flipside, it's very cheap ($200 MSRP? That's crazy), well built, and has ring-type AF-S/USM. Plus, it's a new design (so presumably sharper), and f/1.8 does buy you a bit over f/2.

I still can't get over the price tag. That's less than half of a Sigma 30mm/1.4, and it still comes with hood and lens pouch.

In fact, the price is just a little more than half what an old-school Nikon 35mm f/2 with screwdriver AF and no supplied lens hood or pouch costs. But that lens will work on FX.

The funny thing is that if Nikon hadn't gone into FX, they'd probably charge a premium for a slightly faster 35mm with AF-S than the older one, even though it's DX. Instead, it's a bargain.

See the thing is, it wont be a FX but it will still work FULLY on a full frame nikon by flipping a switch that puts it into crop mode

So its $200 well spent and never wasted :D

[tkbslc]

Well it is actually a f1.8, not f1.4. Big difference. At F1.8, well no real benefits to the 35 f2

[KenjiS]

Well it is actually a f1.8, not f1.4. Big difference. At F1.8, well no real benefits to the 35 f2

Price and I bet it will be sharper, it has an aspherical element in it where i do not believe the 35 f/2 does...

[tkbslc]

yeah, Canon could probably update their 35, but not much incentive for them. The 35 is old, but it works great and is reasonable sharp for the money. Whereas NIkon needed a cheap prime that could AF on the D40/60 cams. It probably means they intend to keep producing cameras without AF motors as well.

[KenjiS]

yeah, Canon could probably update their 35, but not much incentive for them. The 35 is old, but it works great and is reasonable sharp for the money. Whereas NIkon needed a cheap prime that could AF on the D40/60 cams. It probably means they intend to keep producing cameras without AF motors as well.

Given how Nikon works, id take that bet

That was a primary reason i left nikon, Their compatability charts made my head hurt

[John_TX]

Given how Nikon works, id take that bet

That was a primary reason i left nikon, Their compatability charts made my head hurt

Their reasons for doing this are beyond me as well.
From both the companies perspective, as well as the consumers, compatibility between their lines is a manufacturing cost-reducing measure.
Maybe that explains why, historically, they've lagged behind Canon in their offering of lenses.

[KenjiS]

Their reasons for doing this are beyond me as well.
From both the companies perspective, as well as the consumers, compatibility between their lines is a manufacturing cost-reducing measure.
Maybe that explains why, historically, they've lagged behind Canon in their offering of lenses.

It is a cost reducing measure in the bodies thats also designed to spur sales of new lenses....

Because a lot of the old MF nikkors share their optical design with the AF ones, many people see little reason to upgrade, so they're trying to force people to upgrade instead..

Nikon still relied on a lot of mechanical linkages for a lot of information, Even now they still do, the G series drops most of them [Though the aperture is still mechanical]

[thebac]

See the thing is, it wont be a FX but it will still work FULLY on a full frame nikon by flipping a switch that puts it into crop mode

So its $200 well spent and never wasted :D

I'm assuming the smiley means that it's meant as a joke--technically, yes, you can use it in DX mode, but that makes a 5 MP camera out of the D3. A bit of a waste, IMO.

Of course, it's possible that the lens covers most of the frame, and maybe it's fully usable in 5x4 mode, in which case it wouldn't be a total waste.

[KenjiS]

I'm assuming the smiley means that it's meant as a joke--technically, yes, you can use it in DX mode, but that makes a 5 MP camera out of the D3. A bit of a waste, IMO.

Of course, it's possible that the lens covers most of the frame, and maybe it's fully usable in 5x4 mode, in which case it wouldn't be a total waste.

True, I was just saying at least the option is THERE

Guess that really tells about pixel density on those big full-frame DSLRs though...

[thebac]

True, I was just saying at least the option is THERE

Guess that really tells about pixel density on those big full-frame DSLRs though...

I agree, it's at least a possibility. And some DX zooms do a decent job of covering full frame for at least part of their range, so it's not an entirely useless feature. A DX prime, though, doesn't cover full frame, so if it at least covers the 5x4 crop, it might be OK.

But yeah, the pixel density obviously isn't that high, which helps the high ISO performance of the original 5D, the 1D III, and the D3 and D700.