Here's a shot I took with the 35mm.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29754093@N02/5270404126/

Notice that the insect's body is barely in focus, even at F/3.5.

swame_sp said:
- Any ideal f-number for portraits, that could blur the background? I know it depends on the distance from the object. :)

There is no such thing, probably, but I like f/2.8 on this lens for individual portraits. Group portraits closer to f/5.6 or f/8. This is actually the lens I like to use for family portraits because the distortion is easy to remove.
TTJ has some good tips. I like the bean bag idea if you don't have a tripod.

When I get a new lens I take photos of a Mr. PatatoHead (you can pick anything) with focus on the eyes at various apertures. My camera sits on a bean bag and I take 100's of shots from the closest focus distance out to about 10-15 feet (depending on wide, tele, macro, zoom) to get an idea of what it can do at certain distances and f-stops. I do this with random objects and people until I feel comfortable with the lens and what I can do with it.
----------
Even though it is a faster lens, with a less f-number, high iso (both increasing shutter speed), in a "low light condition" a tripod is required?

---Short answer: Yes (or rest your camera on something to keep is steady). You are too worried about shutter speed. You have the right idea, but for macro or objects your main concern should be resolution. High ISOs degrade the image greatly when you are working on macro type shots. Just because the camera can take photos at a high iso it does not mean it does it well.

I'm yet to try portraits/landscapes with low f-number. Let me work on that.

- Also not to go for a close up shot in a low light which could cause camera shake?
-/It is not the cause, it is the result.
- Should I turn off the in-camera NR?
-/Personal taste - I leave mine at normal. It only really kicks in at iso 800+
- Any other suggestions?
-/play around with settings until you feel comfortable with the camera and lens.
- Any ideal f-number for portraits, that could blur the background? I know it depends on the distance from the object. :)
-/I take most of mine at f2 with 35,50,85s but I do miss the focus on the eyes. On my 70-300vr I can trow backgrounds out at f6.3. It all comes down to: Focal length vs how far you are from the subject vs how far away the background is behind the subject.

Thanks guys.... Those are some wonderful guiding (comforting) words. Sure I would do that. Glad I picked a prime lens which should allow me to learn. Will give a try and let you all know.

Appreciate all the help.

I will add that if you have used lenses with the VR then it gives you a false sense of security when shooting. After using the VR where you can shoot fairly slow shutter speeds and still get great outcomes. It will take a little more patience with this lens because it doesn't have it. As I said you could see some camera shake in at least one photo. The "fast" lens does allow you to shoot with less light, but you still have to pay more attention to having a steady hand without the VR. I did the same thing when I first got mine and was a little disappointed. After taking it out several more times I got the hang of it. Really just walk around and shoot with it. Shoot outside, shoot around the house, turn lights on, open a window....just try it out with different f-stops and situations. It has become a habit of mine now when I pick up a new lens to just walk around and shoot things. If I hadn't deleted the pictures I have ones of my book shelves, just about everything sitting on and around my desk, my flowerbed, and just about most interesting subjects within a half mile walk of my house. Especially when playing with the DOF of the f1.8 I had to test it out more then my other lenses.

For portraits just try it. Have someone stand and focus on the face and just keep stopping it down until you get what you like. Personally I tried some at 1.8 and parts of the face weren't totally in focus. So wide open you might not get the whole face in focus, but it was a fairly close pic. At a little more distance you might be OK at f1.8. As I said try it out. If I question the DOF when I take the picture I will take several more at different f stops.

I also agree with the ISO. I leave mine as low as I can. Bumping it up will always degrade the quality and I use it as a last ditch effort if all else fails. Honestly I can only think of a handful of times I actually bumped it up and they were all inside dark rooms.

It looks like you just need to get the feel for your camera.

With good light (especially natural) the 35mm 1.8 is incredibly sharp.

Play around with the camera and after awhile, you'll know what makes good and bad pictures as you get a feel for your equipment.

Some tips:

Natural light is always good.
Try to use a low ISO as possible, but with sufficient shutter speed. With good technique you should be able to take close up shots with 1/40 shutter speed.

Leave the NR on, but remember that high ISO's will degrade image quality. I dont like to use over 1600 in the d90.

The lens is not sharpest at 1.8 aperture, but it is still razor sharp. I always try to stop down the aperture a bit from wide open if there is enough light.

By getting close to your subject, and stopping down a bit, you can get a good out of focus background, yet the entire person's face in focus. I do shoot the 35mm 1.8 lens at 1.8 a lot, and still achieve spectacular results.

Try going outside and taking pictures. Ideal lighting is at the beginning and end of the day.

Thanks everyone for their views and suggestions.

Even though it is a faster lens, with a less f-number, high iso (both increasing shutter speed), in a "low light condition" a tripod is required?

I'm yet to try portraits/landscapes with low f-number. Let me work on that.

- Also not to go for a close up shot in a low light which could cause camera shake?
- Should I turn off the in-camera NR?
- Any other suggestions?
- Any ideal f-number for portraits, that could blur the background? I know it depends on the distance from the object. :)

Still learning the camera..!!!! Thanks again to everybody. :)

Lol I don't think I have made too many poor posts ;)

Thanks for the vote of confidence there guys :(

jonnyapple said:
By the way, when did you get so smart, tcole? ;-)

Must live with a 5yr old who took over his account. LOL :()

I like it, swame. The lens isn't perfect, but it's fun. That's a tricky scene you decided to start your lens test with!

By the way, when did you get so smart, tcole? ;-)

swame_sp - I can't get the Exif data that Tcole pointed out. Can you post what the F, ISO, and all the settings you are using?

I'm not sure that we are seeing the same photo you are referring to. The V looks fine to me. I can also see some camera shake and some normal Noise reduction going on.

+1 tcole

I guess my question is what you are expecting with what seems to be hand holding a closeup pic in not great light? I also don't think the lighted keyboard with the black and white contrast is helping. I can see at least one has some pretty bad camera shake and you are shooting at ISO 6400.

Just because everyone says it is a good lens doesn't mean it is full proof...you still have to use it correctly for it to work well.

Looks like depth of field to me as well. If you want to be really sure try taking a shot of a page of text, in the same way as you shot the keyboard. It'll be easier to judge the sharpness on that I think, right now it's kind of dodgy, with the light and black of the keyboard.

I'm not looking for full KB in focus, I did try various different shots, here in the above capture I was expecting a sharper letter "V", felt it is not so.

That looks perfect to me. What you see as bad, I see it as awesome. You can use anything as a macro lens. Take my 105vr or 60 and I would get the same results just allot closer to the keys. What are you hoping for or trying to achieve? If you are wanting the whole keyboard in focus you need to stop down more.

Take a look above about Depth of field (DOF). Shoot in "A" and don't worry about shutter speed. Then set the camera on a bag or something and set the aperture from F1.8, then 5.6, 8, 16, 22 so you can see what you need to shoot at to get the desired look.

It sounds like you just need to learn a bit more about how the lens works and reacts to different shooting situations.

Know thy equipment.

That's depth of field working there, I have the 35mm 1.8 as well.

This is one of the capture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28580023@N05/5265296550/in/photostream/

I'm unable to put the photo here as the link in flickr is not popping up. So the above picture is one of the series that I'm talking about.

Have I tried this as a macro lens, which I should not have?

I have the 35mm 1.8 and it is really sharp.
There are so many missing details with your post that there is allot that could be going on. My main guess is DOF or depth of field is very shallow thus it will not be sharp. This is a result of close focusing. For sharp results you should shoot at least at 1/60th to give yourself some room. Tripod obviously is the solve all but who wants to use one of those ;)
Here are some quick hit Numbers that may help.

Macro distance help:
-Closest focus distance of the lens = 1ft
-At 1ft away your depth of field focus: F/1.8 = 1/4", F/5.6 = 5/8", F/11 = 1'1/4"
-Focus plane runs parallel to your front lens element. / / If your camera is at an angle, your focus will run at the same angle.

Camera settings:
-Higher the iso, less sharp a photo will be. (Probably not the main issue but a contributing factor.) Anything above 1600 for macro you should not expect too much.
-Make sure you are shooting Jpeg Fine, auto sharping, AF is on (I would set it to AF-C for continuous focusing at close distances) Shoot in P or A. Watch your shutter speed so it stays above 1/60th. Set ISO to Auto.

You can run a test shot on a ruler.

Here is a quick example of my 35mm 1.8 and shot from about 16" away, handheld, iso 220, f/1.8, 1/60th, and no flash.

swame_sp said:
I had ISO at 25,600 - 400 as less than that made the shutter speed go less. I was trying to see different DOFs.

ISO 25600 may look soft because there will be some heavy noise reduction applied. Any chance of shooting something outside?
Here's a link to another thread where I posted a few samples (D300 was the body used):
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1146#post-19204

You should also holds your hands steady, wrapping yourself around the camera to make things as firm as possible. Look at self portraits on flickr to get an idea. Honestly, I've met very few blurred shots with the 35mm unless I use manual focus and take pictures closer than the lens allows, or intentionally blur them. This lens is SHARP!

I use it on: D200 and D5000

Try the same experiment with a tripod and remote release. That eliminates the human shake element.

The other thing to beware of is low light focusing. Make sure the area is reasonably well lit to ensure the autofocus works at its best.

the rule is 1/focal length on 35mm/FX so for the 35mm dx its more like 1/50 an mentioned in the post by PBPM. However, at "macro" ranges you need to increase shutter speeds even more. In your case Shooting at the minimal focus distance of the 35mm you should probably use 1/70 or more.

please post pictures with all EXIF data (unmodified)

gelu88 said:
ALso, note that that rule takes care of camera shake, but subject movement its completely different

I rather suspect his keyboard wasn't squirming! ;)