New Nikon 35mm 1.8 AFS DX
February 9, 2009
Another quick post to mention the new Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX. So, after the recent 50mm 1.4 AFS comes the 35mm 1.8 AFS DX. I’m sure there are plenty of crop sensor photographers out there who are pleased to see a close to 50mm field of view lens (52.5mm to be exact) appear that offers them speed in terms of low light shooting AND AFS too…
35mm 1.8 AFS DX
Main Specifications
Max aperture f1.8
Min aperture f22
Close focus 0.3m or 0.98ft
Filter size 52mm (as apposed to the slightly larger and less standard size of 58mm for the recent 50mm AFS)
Weight 200g
Info Links
Rather than repeat all the info that’s already out there on the main Nikon sites I’ve simply supplied links to a couple of locations for your viewing pleasure…
35mm product specs from Nikon.com
35mm brochure in PDF format
It is looking like a pretty good option – I’d drop my 50mm 1.8 for this in a moment of course assuming the IQ is as good. The added FOV is a massive plus I think.
Why not introduce it as a VR lens ? The 18-55 VR is cheap enough to prove the technology is not too expensive. A 35/F1.8 VR lens would be a great option for evening and night photography. It would bring Pentax and Sony down a peg too as THEY have fast stabilised prime via the ( not quite as good ) body stabilisation.
I guess IF Nikon brings out VR prime lenses they will be pro glass and out of the reach of most of us.
Which do you think would be the better lens to buy, the 35mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.4? Taking into account usability and cost etc?
I think VR would just add more cost to a lens that doesn’t really need it – a fast wide (ish) lens just doesn’t really scream ‘put VR on me’ IMO….although I dare say they’ll end up updating them again further down the line! I see VR as more of a marketing gimmick on lenses like this.
The 35mm 1.8 makes sense to me on a DX camera if you want the FOV of the 50mm. Although I guess it depends what your main subject will be – the 50mm will be too long for interior or landscapes in many situations on DX but it makes for a great portrait lens.
I have used FX and DX nikons. I have used these lenses in the range mentioned 35mm F2D, 50mm 1.4 AiS, 50mm 1.8, 55m AF Micro, 35-70mm F2.8, 28-200mm, 18-200mm, 18-55mm, on FX and DX bodies.
I am also NO expert. Simply sharing my experiences if they are of any use to the readership here.
My findings for me are:
1. 50mm is too long on a DX body for me, a great limitation particularly indoors. it is almost into portrait territory rather than a group photograph territory. With a 35mm, if you wish to have a portrait simply walk closer to the subject. Still awaiting the 1.8 for DX body. My experience with the F2D was very good, which unfortunately does not autofocus on a D5000 (otherwise wudnt have changed) – AF is also important for me as most of pics are quick fast and at promptu
2. the 50mm is softish at F2 and only gets sharper at F2.8 (at least my Ais and F1.8 were). Heard the same about the F1.4 D lens – dont know anyone with the G type. This is where my Micro 55mm is exceptionally sharp starting from F2.8 – and on a FX body i can easily crank up the ISO. Sharpness is very important for me.
CONCLUSIONS
I would never put a 50mm prime on a DX body for my indoor usage – the 35mm is perfect FOR the job. 50mm for me is only for a FX body.
I for my usage would never consider a 50mm as the 55m on a FX body is perfect for my needs.
They are completely different lenses – old style portrait photographers would use 85mm lenses on film cameras – on a Nikon a 50mm acts as a 75 so it’s in the same ballpark and does a great job. If you don’t need af-s (ie not a D40, D60, D3000 or D5000) you can get a 50mm 1.8 for £50 on ebay
the 35mm is not as good a portrait lens, because you need to be uncomfortably close to the subject.
If you have a kit 18-55 pretend for a while that you’re stuck at 50 and 35 – which is the most suitable for your style?
I agree with Richard about VR – expensive and over-rated on this kind of lens.