Not sure I've thought this all the way through - but IIUC you could not hood a FX 35mm as aggressively as a DX 35mm. I'd actually expect the stray-light resistance to be better on the DX one, all things being equal.

As far as in-frame light-sources, that should be only implementation differences. (and where you would expect a $200 lens to suffer)

shivaswrath said:
the "new" 35 1.4 is probably what he's referring to, no?

Photokina is 60 days away - let's see!

Yes that one

Pete

the "new" 35 1.4 is probably what he's referring to, no?

Photokina is 60 days away - let's see!

bmxdad said:
Maybe we should wait for the new 35mm FX lens, not you Soap, we are talking about "new"

I'm totally lost.

Maybe we should wait for the new 35mm FX lens, not you Soap, we are talking about "new"

Pete

bmxdad said:
Actually I would not mind to see a comparison to the old 35mm F2D FX lens, I have been debating on getting that one so it would work on FX

The 35 f/2 is softer, more prone to flare, and I doubt any of us have both. ;) Seriously, the 35 f/2 is a flare machine. It's the only lens I have ever put a multicoated UV filter on.

All that said - I too would like to see a 1:1 comparison 'tween them, but the 35 f/1.8 appears to _never_ pop up on my used radar, so I'm unlikely to have one pass through my hands again anytime soon.

optimaforever said:
I guess shivas 's talking about longitudinal CA (not lateral) so it's difficult to correct even with DXO.

Yes, actually both - but I'm using a D200, so it isn't capable of doing the automatic corrections. . .DxO manages both, but I don't have a module for the 35 1.8G yet (they have one for the D80 and D300 though!)

Actually I would not mind to see a comparison to the old 35mm F2D FX lens, I have been debating on getting that one so it would work on FX

Pete

the other option is the sigma 30. I hear its not as sharp at the edges. but from the samples i have seen I like the bokeh better. I believe it flares less but I dont know for sure. I am still looking for confirmation comparing the flare of both lenses. I am fairly certain that it controls CA better. if anyone knows of a detailed comparison of these 2 lenses I would be interested to see it. or even better is if anyone here has both !

I think, like optima, I just experienced this lens' tendency of producing flares shooting at lights. Is there anything I can do to avoid this? I shot from several different angles while standing and that didn't seem to help as much as sitting down. Does overall light level matter?

I bought this lens for indoor, available-light shooting. Is there anything else as wide and nearly as fast that I should be looking at?

Not complaining really, but trying to understand how best to work with this lens.

NSXType-R said:
That's great!

Attached to your D60, the lens just sort of disappears, right? I love it on the D40.

Thanks I love it.

I think it looks awesome. It looks pretty cool on a D60 with a battery grip.

That's great!

Attached to your D60, the lens just sort of disappears, right? I love it on the D40.

Well I got it for Christmas and so far I love it. I haven't been able to play with it to much other then holiday photos. Can't wait to get out and play with it for real.

I guess shivas 's talking about longitudinal CA (not lateral) so it's difficult to correct even with DXO.

Which body, shivaswrath? Or does this get automagicly fixed on D90 and more recent bodies?

that is very true, and it does have a tendency to have STRONG purple fringing in high contrast/light situations. . .but all of this gets cleaned up post processing when I use DxO, so it rarely stops me =)

Ok I tested the lens day and night and I must warn that besides its undeniable IQ, it has very nasty flares against artificial light if you were to shoot nightshots in urban situations (say street lights for instance, produce very obvious blue-green ovnis everywhere if you aren't careful enough to try to avoid them). 35 f/1.8 doesn't use ED nor Nanocoating so I presume it's the price to pay for its - ahem - low price. :D

NikoDoby said:
The 35mm is a great lens but it is a DX lens. So if photography is your major then you will eventually want to make the jump to full frame. So I personally wouldn't buy it.

I disagree, the 35mm is an excellent lens that is being given away for nothing (compared to other proper lenses) and later on you can sell it for a little less than nothing if you get tired of it.

I got the 35 f/1.8 two days ago and must admit it's a great lens for the money!
I regret the relatively slow AF though (but I'm used to 17-55, 14-24, 70-200 so the comparison wouldn't be fair).
its low light capabilities amazed me, not to mention its weight! soooo featherlight.
and... it's very sharp even wide open. so all in all a very fun lens for DX reporters!

Our jonnyapple here showed everything you need to know about this cute little 35 f/1.8.
I will just add that I find 50mm much more useful on DX especially for portraits and similar stuff, and it is lovely with extender rings. I would go for something wider like 20 to 24 for "normal" shooting (or longer but that is another story).
On the other hand you can not find any AF-S lens as sharp as this fast little 35 for this kind of money.

jonnyapple said:
Niz, here are a few sample shots for you.

Sample 1 f/4 1/160s ISO 200
Sample 2 f/7.1 1/125s ISO 200 Skip this on a slow connection. There's lots of high frequency stuff here, so it's a big jpg.
Sample 3 f/8 1/2000s ISO 320 this is to show flare handling. That's the sun in the lower right, and the shadows on the underside of the bridge still have great contrast, I think.
Sample 4 f/2.8 1/320s ISO 200

Nice pics JA!!

jonnyapple said:
Niz, here are a few sample shots for you.

Sample 1 f/4 1/160s ISO 200
Sample 2 f/7.1 1/125s ISO 200 Skip this on a slow connection. There's lots of high frequency stuff here, so it's a big jpg.
Sample 3 f/8 1/2000s ISO 320 this is to show flare handling. That's the sun in the lower right, and the shadows on the underside of the bridge still have great contrast, I think.
Sample 4 f/2.8 1/320s ISO 200

Thanks, that helped out a lot. It looks like it does a great job, if I don't get it for Christmas I have a lot to think about now.

Since I got my 50mm it has been on my camera and hasn't come off. It would be nice to have a choice that will work just as good, but give me different options and the advantage of AF when I get lazy or when my eye doesn't want to be tac sharp that day.

Niz, here are a few sample shots for you.

Sample 1 f/4 1/160s ISO 200
Sample 2 f/7.1 1/125s ISO 200 Skip this on a slow connection. There's lots of high frequency stuff here, so it's a big jpg.
Sample 3 f/8 1/2000s ISO 320 this is to show flare handling. That's the sun in the lower right, and the shadows on the underside of the bridge still have great contrast, I think.
Sample 4 f/2.8 1/320s ISO 200

Niz, I have about 5 months experience with the 35 1.8 and 3 years with the 50 1.8 (is this post sounding like a job application so far to anyone else?). The 35 is as sharp as the 50, but it's got noticeable barrel distortion if you've got straight lines in your image.
I'd get it.

Also, you can use the DX lenses on full frame Nikon bodies - for example the Nikon D3x in DX crop mode will result 10.5MP if I am not mistaken, so you can still use your DX lens after you upgrade one day (by then all full frame Nikons will be 24MP or more).