Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX Reviewed at DPReview

[KenjiS]

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/

like or hate Dpreview's lens tests, I must say I could see that longitudal chromatic aberration in the thumbnails without making them 100% or looking at the stupid crop, its THAT bad there..even with correction...and I'm not a pixel peeper

Either they got a bum copy or the lens isnt too great..I'm going to weigh on that second one there

Heres hoping Canon shows Nikon how to make a good cheap prime (Besides the 50mm f/1.8..which come to think of it, doesnt have these issues does it?) and counters with a EF-S 35mm of some sort...Though that said, the 35mm f/2 doesnt have these sorts of problems either...)

The bokeh on it is amazing, and certainly better than the 50mm f/1.8, I havnt seen the 35mm f/2's to comment on that comparison


oh hey, photozone did too and came to a similar conclusion on the LCA issue

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g

[liquefied]

Heres hoping Canon shows Nikon how to make a good cheap prime (Besides the 50mm f/1.8..which come to think of it, doesnt have these issues does it?) and counters with a EF-S 35mm of some sort...Though that said, the 35mm f/2 doesnt have these sorts of problems either...)
I'm assuming you wanted Canon and Nikon switched in that first sentence.

I hope Canon makes a new 35mm f/2 that is not EF-S but rather EF to replace the ancient lens we have now. A nice EF 35mm f/2 USM for <$250 would be fantastic.

[KenjiS]

I'm assuming you wanted Canon and Nikon switched in that first sentence.

I hope Canon makes a new 35mm f/2 that is not EF-S but rather EF to replace the ancient lens we have now. A nice EF 35mm f/2 USM for <$250 would be fantastic.

Indeed...

And the Nifty Fifty is evidence that Canon does know how to make a good lens VERY cheap (Personally, I wish it was $20 more expensive with a more rounded aperture and a slightly improved build..but optically I admit its a heck of a lens!) and I just hope they can repeat their recent string of success in the EF-S line, although I admit that a 35mm f/2 USM would be amazing I also dont see Canon doing it, I see Canon upgrading the 50mm f/1.4 before it actually

[Grimes]

I am also hoping the 35mm f/2 is updated. I love mine in terms of image quality, but USM and full time manual would be just oh-so-sweet!

[KenjiS]

I am also hoping the 35mm f/2 is updated. I love mine in terms of image quality, but USM and full time manual would be just oh-so-sweet!

Ah good a user

Comparing the examples from the 35mm f/1.8 to your 35mm f/2 hows the chromatic aberrations and that? better or worse?

[Grimes]

Ah good a user

Comparing the examples from the 35mm f/1.8 to your 35mm f/2 hows the chromatic aberrations and that? better or worse?


Oh, the CA is much, much, better controlled on the 35. It's not even a contest. Bokeh is a tie in my opinion.

[KenjiS]

Oh, the CA is much, much, better controlled on the 35. It's not even a contest. Bokeh is a tie in my opinion.

So Nikon really messed up in other words given you can get the Full-frame compatable 35mm f/2 for almost the same amount of money...

[thebac]

So Nikon really messed up in other words given you can get the Full-frame compatable 35mm f/2 for almost the same amount of money...

I think you're way off on this one.

First, the Nikon 35/2 is substantially more expensive than the new 35/1.8 (more than 50% more expensive than the 35/1.8; even the Canon version is 20% more expensive). Second, when comparing prices, note that the new 35/1.8 includes the hood, a pouch, and features ring-type AF-S/USM.

The target market is the new D40(x)/D60 who did not have access to any affordable primes that would AF on those bodies.

Wide open, it's much sharper than the Nikon or Canon 35/2 according to Photozone tests (I understand that the numbers aren't directly cross-comparable from Canon to Nikon, but the borders are in a different league, and the new 35/1.8 is f/1.8 wide open, not f/2).

It does have a bit much distortion considering it's a prime, and CA's are a bit high. However, given the low price, this lens is a winner.

[madhatter04]

I agree with posts above... my Canon 35mm doesn't have nearly the CA of that new Nikon one... wow... some of that is pretty harsh!

[KenjiS]

Wide open, it's much sharper than the Nikon or Canon 35/2 according to Photozone tests (I understand that the numbers aren't directly cross-comparable from Canon to Nikon, but the borders are in a different league, and the new 35/1.8 is f/1.8 wide open, not f/2).

It does have a bit much distortion considering it's a prime, and CA's are a bit high. However, given the low price, this lens is a winner.

I think a bit of softness would be acceptable given the VERY harsh CA on that thing!

And I realize all that, its 20% more, $40 more for a lens with much less CA (Though sans hood and case)

That CA is more distracting to me than the softness would be usually, Because the CA grabbed my eyes, smacked them and practically screamed "I WONT BE IGNORED" :/ the CA to me would ruin those shots more than them not being "perfectly" sharp...

And I understand that entire "Yeh yeh we D40/D60 users are neglected, waah waah wahhh we cant shoot any AF lenses" They could just MF them...I had to do that on Nikon an aweful lot (I shot my N70 exclusively MF and my N75 was shot MF a LOT and I did a pretty fantastic job! The only Nikon I could shoot AF comfortably was the D70...)

But I also would say they should have maybe done a bit of research, the D40 is pretty much a D70 in a new suit when it comes to the sensor and electronics..they could have just got a D70 for less money..and even the D80 is retailing used/new for the same as a D40....

But you're right, it is a very good choice for a lot of people on Nikon...but its certainly not the "woe is us" a few of us Canon users were freaking about...its NOT worth switching systems over or anything..