@NSX: Yes, I bought it - seems sharp as heck with no real CA in normal use. I hope to post some snaps on PAD soon.

@El_Pickerel: I learned here that you look at a small JPEG on the camera which shows the CA clearly as does a 1:1 .NEF view in LR. I don't know if shooting in JPEG makes a difference, but it is there on the camera.

What I found when pixel peeping was that it is quite well controlled in sharp focus areas, but as it goes out of focus it really shows.

tcole1983 said:
Well let me see. I don't have it automatically correcting for the lenses, but maybe the camera is correcting the jpgs (I know others have said the 18-200 has lots and I never saw any on mine)? I usually notice CA if it is bad enough, but I am interested to go back and try it out. I will have to let you know when I get home.

I think the JPEGs get corrected in-camera... the CA on my Tokina 12-24 was extremely noticeable once I started shooting RAW (and had to correct manually since there are no Tokina lens profiles in LR), and looking at the in-camera JPEGs full size I saw none of that!

The more important question is, are you buying it or not? :D

I own the lens too, one of my favorite focal lengths to use. It practically lives on the D40, it's a very pocketable and manageable package. I could cover 95% of what I shoot with the 35mm 1.8 and the 18-135mm. Out of that 95%, I probably shoot the 35mm 1.8 about 35% of the time, probably only because I've had the 18-135 longer.

I love to shoot kids with it too, it's so small that they think it's a large point and shoot and act naturally around it. (Pun intended.)

There is chromatic aberation, but you'd really need to push it to see it. I wouldn't be too worried about it.

Just checked - I have deleted most of them and it is not worth posting what is left.

What also came to light is that slightly out of focus letters (where the name was viewed at a more obtuse angle) were far worse for apparent CA than in-focus parts. I don't know what that means or why it is, but that is how it looked.

Ok here are some samples...maybe I am just being dumb.

@F1.8

@F2.8

F2.2

Rest are at F1.8

(just took these a couple minutes ago, unedited straight from the camera jpg fine)

We just lost our phone and internet for a couple of hours - back now obviously. I'll see what I can do about posting some examples, I may have deleted some by now.

warprints said:
Wow. Now you've got me curious. I'm going to have to go check out my 35. I've never noticed bad CA with it, but upon closer inspection .... who knows.

Lol. I think I am going to get mine out and do some test shots. Actually weather is supposed to be nice so maybe I will get out and just take some pictures as well.

Maybe you could post an example spray?

Guess it doesn't matter since we all seem to already own it, but I am just curious if I have been missing it on mine.

I'm planning on getting one for myself as well, so I will check this out. I suspect I probably won't care, but you never know.

If anything, I guess this shows that the 18-105 is not too shabby then.

Wow. Now you've got me curious. I'm going to have to go check out my 35. I've never noticed bad CA with it, but upon closer inspection .... who knows.

I just got back from the shop with the new lens. The good news is that I was right to not get the display example because the CA is worse on that one by almost double. The 35mm f1.8 I got is the same or better than my 50mm f1.4. Having said that, both lenses are good when stopped down a little, but like Mike said - you don't buy a fast lens to not use it wide open.

PB, Gabbb and NSX are on the money I'm sure and as said above, a solid white on solid black edge is a heck of a test for LOCA.

@tcole: The CA is still apparent on my PC in Lightroom.

In conclusion, stopped down some it is a lovely lens as everybody here says so I'm off to make pics with it.

Thanks for your contributions guys, I appreciate them.

Unless I am a totally lost doesn't the camera automatically correct the CA when paired with Nikon lenses? I looked through lots of pictures RAW and jpg zoomed in and not and I couldn't find any CA. The only time I have ever noticed any way on my Tokina once or twice. So is it viewing it on the camera that you are able to see it? I have the newest firmware on my D5000...maybe that has something to do with it? I think the D90 would correct for it also though.

(I looked at all the shots I could find with the 35 @ f1.8 and still didn't notice any)

Hi all,

In Adobe Camera Raw, one can, and I recommend, that the converter be 'tuned' to the lenses used to note which lenses are used and account for and calibrate and correct for the lens when used.

That won't work for a lens used in an adapter, such as a 35mm f1.8g in a Panasonic G3, like I'm using right now and I've tested this morning after reading the thread. There is some CA there, but ACR will correct it. In the FWIW category, you can also apply profiles to lenses manually in other mounts.

In my viewing in Adobe Bridge and CS5 and some evaluation software, Panasonic does a better job of correcting the CA than the Nikon D90, but I not sure quite how to take that. Aggressive noise correction, CA correction, and such can also be disruptive to good imagery in the end - at least I think that is a possible outcome.

Naturally, the notion that one would get a fast-ish lens and want to stop it down and lose the speed is contrary to the reason to the fast lens. ;-)

My best,

Mike

Well let me see. I don't have it automatically correcting for the lenses, but maybe the camera is correcting the jpgs (I know others have said the 18-200 has lots and I never saw any on mine)? I usually notice CA if it is bad enough, but I am interested to go back and try it out. I will have to let you know when I get home.

tcole1983 said:
I must not pay attention enough because I never noticed it, but then again it could be getting corrected in LR3 or ViewNX2 and I not even know it :)

I will have to look at some pics and see what it looks like.

So do you have a preset for that or is it being corrected automatically by the lens correction software?

I just checked out my 50mm f1.4 G at the same settings on the same subject and found it to be only a little bit better than the 35mm f1.8 G. Certainly stopping down sorted it out completely so it looks like it was too hard a test for it.

The massive surprise was no CA on my 18-105 under these circs - it even looks better than the 50 at f4.

I must not pay attention enough because I never noticed it, but then again it could be getting corrected in LR3 or ViewNX2 and I not even know it :)

I will have to look at some pics and see what it looks like.

Thanks for your responses guys. I was very shocked at the amount of CA on the pictures though, especially - as I said above - when there was ZERO apparent on my old 18-105mm kit lens which was wide open too, albeit at f5. I will experiment with my 50mm f1.4 G and see what happens.

I am shocked that y'all aren't! :-}

The 35mm 1.8 is also uncoated, you shouldn't expect top performance from a $200 lens.

As Gabbb said, push any equipment hard enough and you'll find issues.

spraynpray said:
Yesterday I had a small amount of money come my way unexpectedly so I decided to finally add a 35mm f1.8 G to my bag. I had held off as I had bought the 50mm f1.4 a while back. I reserved it on line and went to collect it from the store.

Although I was a little worried about appearing pretentious, I decided to take my D90 along to check the lens out (thinking I am sure it wasn't necessary). I was apprehensive when I discovered the lens on display was the last they had but I decided to at least try it on my camera. I cranked it open to 1.8 and set ISO to 800 as it has no VR of course then took a shot at near closest focus of a DSLR on display.

When I zoomed in to the max on my cameras' screen, I saw the worst red/magenta colour fringing around the white 'ANON' names letters against its black background that I have ever seen - it was huge! I took exactly the same shot with the lens that happened to be on the camera when I picked it up to take - the 18-105 kit lens - and there was NO CA apparent! I just read on the DP review test that it is minimal wide open and gets worse after f4. I said I would not be buying it and asked them to get me a fresh unopened example for me to check.

A question for you guys that have this lens: Am I being unrealistic in expecting at least the same performance as the kit lens in this case? Both lenses were wide open, the kit lens was at f5/35mm.

I have obviously been lucky with my eBay purchases in the past, but suffice it to say I will not worry about appearing pretentious when buying equipment in the future.

Compare them both at F5. You are being unrealistic yes, wide open is very different in this case. Also what you are seeing is not lateral chromatic aberration, but loca (longitudinal ca)and dpreview is right lateral ca is only an issue when the lens is stopped down to f5 or more, but it's an easy to correct chromatic aberration, so in reality it's a non issue. As for loca it's hard to correct and annoying, but fast prime lenses always have it, even if they cost 2000$+. Also bear in mind that the canon logo is a white text on black which is always making loca really pronounced. Slight underexposure can improve the situation, if you are shooting raw. I love this lens and I learned to live with loca, I'm quite good at correcting it now even, but it's certainly not for the point and shoot(jpg) ppl. On a side note if you enjoy black and white photography no loca or purple fringing will be noticeable :)

The 35mm is rather prone to CA, so what you saw is no unexpected. In fact fast primes tend to be rather poor in terms of CA, especially wide open. I found that CA was reduced, not worse, when stopped down.

Yesterday I had a small amount of money come my way unexpectedly so I decided to finally add a 35mm f1.8 G to my bag. I had held off as I had bought the 50mm f1.4 a while back. I reserved it on line and went to collect it from the store.

Although I was a little worried about appearing pretentious, I decided to take my D90 along to check the lens out (thinking I am sure it wasn't necessary). I was apprehensive when I discovered the lens on display was the last they had but I decided to at least try it on my camera. I cranked it open to 1.8 and set ISO to 800 as it has no VR of course then took a shot at near closest focus of a DSLR on display.

When I zoomed in to the max on my cameras' screen, I saw the worst red/magenta colour fringing around the white 'ANON' names letters against its black background that I have ever seen - it was huge! I took exactly the same shot with the lens that happened to be on the camera when I picked it up to take - the 18-105 kit lens - and there was NO CA apparent! I just read on the DP review test that it is minimal wide open and gets worse after f4. I said I would not be buying it and asked them to get me a fresh unopened example for me to check.

A question for you guys that have this lens: Am I being unrealistic in expecting at least the same performance as the kit lens in this case? Both lenses were wide open, the kit lens was at f5/35mm.

I have obviously been lucky with my eBay purchases in the past, but suffice it to say I will not worry about appearing pretentious when buying equipment in the future.