Hey guys, I'm new here. I have been reading here about 3 weeks or so and decided to join up. I'm a photo major and for now I have a D60. To go with it I have the kit lens and the 50mm 1.8 lens. I am looking into getting the 35mm 1.8 lens for Christmas or buying it myself shortly after. I have read lots of reviews on it and everyone seems to love it. What I wanted to know is if it takes as good of pictures as the 50mm? I don't want to put to much money into a lens if it isn't worth having. I love my 50mm, but want something that will be closer to a normal view. Another big plus is it will AF with my D60. Just wanted to get some import from people that own it and see what they think. Thanks.
35mm 1.8?
(36 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Hi Niz, welcome to the forum
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. At least not new anyway. I think I would learn to take a few steps back when I need a wider shot and save the $$$.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 35mm FOV is much more versatile than the 50 which on DX becomes a more specialised portrait lens. If you do go FX in a few years you still have the 50. The 35 can be sold if you dont like /need it, its not going to lose much value. Why not go for a zoom like the 28-75 F2.8 tamron? its FF and would give you a good range. welcome Niz
Posted 3 years ago # -
and I would buy it, as 35mm on DX is much more versatile that 50 (which I personally don't like - too short for portrait, too long for normal), so I would go for it, if Your budget is limited and You don't want to carry larger zooms - the suggested by heartyfisher tamron is very nice (at least according to user reviews)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, I would go for it. I have a D40, it's been amazing that I've been able to shoot in lower light conditions than I ever would.
Plus it's sharp wide open.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks for the welcome and the input guys. As it stands now I have one more year left of school and then when I get out the plan is to get a D300s or the D400 if the upgrade is out then. I like the full frame cameras, but I wont have the money for that when I get out of school. My thinking was I would have this 35mm for a while and it wouldn't be a waste to get it. My plan was to start getting a nice set of prime lens and this would be the only DX one I would get(I don't thing there is another one now is there?). While I think zooms are very handy, I am a firm believer that prime lens make you work on composition harder and make you a better shooter.
Does anyone have this lens and the 50mm. Do they have the same quality of image if not close to the same?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes image quality is very similar. Less CA on the 35mm but more barrel distortion than the 50. The only reason to get the 35 over the 50 is because of the wider angle, but since you believe in moving around to get better composition, then the 50 is fine. The real benefit would be AF-S only in my opinion.
Nikon is rumored to be bringing an "affordable"($1500-$2000) full frame camera soon. Even if you can't afford to buy that camera it's arrival will signal a shift back towards full frame cameras. The biggest reason more people aren't buying FF is price.
It sounds to me like your are going to get the 35 regardless of the advice here and are really looking for someone to say the 50 has way better IQ and only that would change your mind.
There is also a rumor that a new/update FX 35mm f1.4/f2 is coming very soon.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Just get it. Don't have the money? Move some furniture, flip burger, sell cutco knives, heck just beg for a couple od days. Trust me, if you can't pick up $200 of side work, your going to have a rough go of it in the photography world.
The 35mm is great. It's almost all you will ever find on my d40. I love the size, love the speed, and love the sharpness. I like it even more than my 50mm 1.4 (the old one).
The 35mm is, in my opinion, sharper than my 50mm. That could be due to the extremely shallow DOF at 1.4/ 1.8 and my lousy manual focus skills (won't auto focus on my d 40). The only issue I have at all with it is that it's a little prone to the purple fringing on my d40. On newer cameras like the d90, the camera takes care of this for you.
If I could only have one lens, this would be it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Not needing to flip a switch for manual focus override is really nice, and the fact no external parts move mean it's very very dirt proof. Might not be an issue for you, but I often wish I had more IF primes and less bellows.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think the 35/1.8 is a terrific lens, focuses quickly and closely, has shallow DOF when you want it and is so small, I almost always have a place for it in my camera bag. You'll love the lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
adamz said:
and I would buy it, as 35mm on DX is much more versatile that 50 (which I personally don't like - too short for portrait, too long for normal), so I would go for it, if Your budget is limited and You don't want to carry larger zooms - the suggested by heartyfisher tamron is very nice (at least according to user reviews)I completely agree - the 50mm is a weird focal length on a DX camera and I hardly use it. When I bought it, I was thinking that it will be close enough to the famous 85mm for portraits, but it is not, I guess those 10mm make a difference. The lens is now collecting dust until I get a FF Nikon. I use the 35mm DX all the time and for $200 you cannot go wrong.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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).
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.Posted 3 years ago # -
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 200Posted 3 years ago # -
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 200Thanks, 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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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 200Nice pics JA!!
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.Posted 3 years ago # -
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!Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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 =)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Which body, shivaswrath? Or does this get automagicly fixed on D90 and more recent bodies?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I guess shivas 's talking about longitudinal CA (not lateral) so it's difficult to correct even with DXO.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's great!
Attached to your D60, the lens just sort of disappears, right? I love it on the D40.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
