Comments on: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX – now 100% sure

By: rjm

rjm — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:40:14 +0000

The Sigma 30mm is enormous, face it. On a D40 it looks completely silly.

I’m all for dropping 0.5 – 1.0 F stop if it means a more compact lens, ditto going from FX to DX. Scaling back the max aperture also means a simpler, cheaper lens, and often one that performs better in absolute terms.

That’s where I think Sigma goofed. the 30mm was timed just perfectly, but many people such as myself gave it a pass when they a) read the reviews b) saw the price tag and c) realized how big it was.

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:40:00 +0000

To clarify–I meant the only prime option at short focal length. And I guess the 60mm macro is there, too.

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:36:55 +0000

I think they’re referring to the D40/D40x/D60 line, which has no autofocus screw. This makes any non-AF-S lens a manual focus lens on those cameras. So far, the only prime option with autofocus for owners of these cameras is the new (expensive) 50mm AF-S.
I’m not in that category, but I’m interested to see how this lens performs, because this is the ideal length for some large family group shots, and currently I use the 35mm setting of a tamron 17-50 2.8, but there is still some distortion with it.

By: HDZ

HDZ — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:02:56 +0000

I buy this 4 years ago at 1,000 USD.

And sell that for 2,600 USD. big investment for me.

I deciding to buy 24 PC-E, now.

By: Janda

Janda — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:32:54 +0000

Yes I have owned Sigma 30mm, and two Nikkor 35mm’s. Comparing the two I would say Sigma is huge. Yes it’s f1.4 vs. f2, but then it’s DX vs. FX lens too.

By: James Clarke

James Clarke — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:57:42 +0000

Makes perfectly good sense to me… I use the 35f/2 on my D80 a lot and even more on my F80 (Film). However the it doesn’t autofocus on D40/D40x/D60 cameras, the point of these cameras are that they are small. If you update the 35f/2 FX to give it proper AF-S it’s going to make it bigger, you might as well make a 35f/1.4 FX, which would be too big for the D40/D40x/D60. So make a 35 f/1.8 DX with micro motor AF-S and it will be nice and small and fit nicely with D40/D40x/D60. If owned on of these camera I be putting my order in as soon as it’s released. Actually I might buy my wife a D40 with one. Just hope it has a metal mount.

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:41:19 +0000

Why DX ? Because DX is about 30x more popular than FX. Right now FX is IMHO an overpriced format (though the price should begin to drop in the next 2-3 years) and though there are some gains to the FX format over DX, the price to performance ratio isn’t reflected unless you shoot above ISO 800 all the time.

By: jovan

jovan — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:33:13 +0000

I disagree with the moaning over making this lens DX. First, a 1.8 is not really a pro lens and so has no business being FX. Secondly, ‘one day’ we may all be back to FX, but who know when ‘one day’ will come.

Given the quality of today’s DX sensors and those likely to come — it does not seem necessary for us to go back to the FX format. The sensors are far more limited by lenses than vice versa. FX may be ‘relegated’ to the equivalent of medium format, exclusive to pros and those with a huge set of legacy lenses. The consumer and prosumer (consumers with too much money) will be happy to have DX with a full line-up of lenses.

That said, after recently putting a 50mm in front of my DX format Nikon, I’m not as interested in a 35mm as I was 6mts ago. The 50mm on a DX body is phenomenal for portraits or small group shots. When consumers begin to figure out that $100 prime beats the pants off a $600 zoom, these DX lenses will fly off the shelf. If Nikon is really smart, they’ll make it an economy kit to get people interested. That way, the practically guarantee future sales of other lenses.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:20:27 +0000

Trust me it will happened – who would you trust NR or this polish site for Nikon rumors
joking…. just wait few more hours

By: Web-fotografen.dk

Web-fotografen.dk — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:16:15 +0000

I still use a DX camera (D300) + 17-55 + 80-200 AF-s, at weddings ect.
So for me the 35 1,8 sounds great! i will use it for indoor/lowlight portraits :O)

When the D400 arrives i will bye it, and still enjoy using my DX lenses, at work and in private use :O)

Carsten Nielsen
Denmark

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:11:23 +0000

“was known already 7 months ago”? Did I missed it?

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:06:08 +0000

No, I said that I am staying firm behind this rumor – I just had a thought and I shared it. Till now I have been reporting rumors with 95%, 99% certainty – this is the first time I am saying 100% and I am just a little bit nervous, that’s all – it a human nature. 100%

By: Tim Catchall

Tim Catchall — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:04:09 +0000

Shame on Nikon if this is DX. 4 years ago they needed DX primes. Today, no. I have just bought a D700 and was fully expecting them to update a couple of the old AF-D primes this year. If they replace them with lenses that I can’t use on my new and expensive camera I will not be happy. And there will many more likely, not least those who have just dropped $8000 on a D3X, only to see Nikon release new lenses which won’t even work on it. If it is DX, Nikon can expect a lot of protest.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:01:54 +0000

ok Tom, I will post some more info briefly especially for you.

By: Ricardson

Ricardson — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:55:46 +0000

I’m DX shooter.. and its great have 35mm DX!! Why people thinks DX will die? I have 17-55DX and love this lens…. also 10.5 fisheye…
I think the amauter/hobbist buy more than professionals.. that why more DX lens…. If I move to FX I have to spend more and more money….

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:55:28 +0000

I could not even find this lens on Amazon US – I guess it was not a good seller.

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:36:06 +0000

it will be cheaper than that – the euro price never translates directly. That is why you have so many europeans buying their nikon and canon gear in the US

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:35:05 +0000

I think most people get that at this point but the real question is why the big 2 (Canon and Nikon) continue down this path of DX/EFS rather than just designing FF lenses where the “sweetspot” hits the dx sensor but the lens is still useful for FF shooters…
example – the 17-35 and 17-55 2.8s are fx and dx but about the exact same size – I think the difference in the 55 is one more element – that lens could easily have been designed for ff – but targeted toward dx shooters but still allowing the fx people an amazing range on a wide angle walk around lens…
Canon has done the same nonsense – if you look at the rear of many of the efs lenses that are not “kit” the glass is almost the same size as the normal Canon mount – just the depth is different…(which nikon doesn’t do so it’s even more moot for them)
The whole thing is silly to force you into buying multiple lenses….
While I TOTALLY understand why a cheaply built (i’m guessing similar to the 50 1.8) 35 makes TONS of sense – the fact that it is dx only is a STUPID decision that will haunt them as the d200/300 buyers that are thinking of upgrading to fx will never buy it….it is marketed solely at the d40/60 and d80/90 class people which is a BIG market but a market that will be annoyed that they can NOT use this if they ever move to FF

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:27:11 +0000

I agree regarding the variable aperture lenses, but in the last 2 years Nikon has come out with
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
400 2.8 VR
500 4 VR
600 4 VR
D3, D700, D3x

I hardly think Nikon has forgotten about pros. In my opinion they have forgotten about the “enough disposable income to bypass variable aperture products, but not enough disposable income to buy their high end constant 2.8 stuff”. Some constant f4 a would be nice. 100-300 f/4 VR! TC compatible. I’d be on the wait list for that

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:27:06 +0000

so what you are saying is that with the exception of the the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 nikon ONLY makes amateur primes since the rest are 1.8 or slower…?
that is silly…
IF this lens had been built AFS and FX you would have seen it on plenty of D700′s replacing the old 35/2 but like i said earlier it makes sense to Nikon financially if not from a pro/advanced publicity standpoint