Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED lens announcement


Nikon also officially announced the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED lens. The price is $596.95. Few sample images can be found here. Details after the break:

Focal length 35 mm
Maximum aperture f/1.8
Minimum aperture f/16
Lens construction 11 elements in 8 groups (including one ED glass and one aspherical lens element)
Angle of view 63°
Minimum focus distance 0.25 m/0.85 ft from focal plane
Maximum reproduction ratio 0.24x
No. of diaphragm blades 7 (rounded)
Filter-attachment size 58 mm
Diameter x length
(distance from camera lens mount flange)
Approximately 72.0 x 71.5 mm/2.8 x 2.8 in.
Weight Approximately 305 g/10.8 oz
Supplied accessories 58 mm snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-58, Rear Lens Cap LF-4, Bayonet Hood HB-70, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-0915

MTF chart:

Lens construction:

Press release:

A wide-angle 35mm fixed focal length (prime) lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.8 compatible with the Nikon FX format

TOKYO - Nikon Corporation is pleased to announce the release of the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED, a wide-angle 35mm fixed focal length (prime) lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.8 compatible with Nikon FX-format digital SLR cameras.

The AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED*1 is an extremely portable lens that, when used with a Nikon digital SLR camera, offers the bright viewfinder image of a fast fixed focal length lens and the beautiful blur characteristics of a shallow depth of field.
In addition, adoption of an ED lens element and an aspherical lens element, which ensure superior image quality, and optical design that controls sagittal coma flare*2 for excellent point image formation make the lens capable of maximizing the distinctive characteristics of high pixel-count digital SLR cameras with expression of the finest details.
Releasing the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED responds to a variety of needs by enriching our fast prime lens lineup covering focal lengths from wide-angle to the mid-telephoto range.

  • *1When used with a Nikon DX-format digital SLR camera, the effective angle of view is equivalent to that of a lens with a 52.5mm focal length.
  • *2A phenomenon with which the edges of pinpoint light sources in photos of night landscapes and the like are not rendered as point images, but appear distorted to resemble the outspread wings of a bird in flight

Nikon considers point-image formation with design of all NIKKOR lenses, utilizing its long history of striving for the ideal of rendering point images as sharp points. The AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G, which offers superior point-image rendering from maximum aperture, was another fast, fixed focal length lens developed with this same design concept and released last year. Our lineup already includes the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G, which offers similar characteristics, and we have continued this design concept with the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED.

The AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED responds to the needs of users looking for a high-performance, wide-angle fixed focal length lens that can easily be taken anywhere, as well as those who want to enjoy capture of more impressive in portraits, night landscapes, photos of starry skies, and the like.

AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED Primary Features

  • Optical design that considers point image formation for very little sagittal coma flare
  • A new optical design utilizing ED and aspherical lens elements for superior optical performance that enables excellent resolution and contrast
  • Convenient portability with good balance when mounted on camera bodies
  • Smooth blur characteristics that render subjects more impressively
  • A Silent Wave Motor (SWM) for fast and quiet autofocusing
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • ShakyLens

    The stated design goals sound intriguing – very similar to the 58mm 1.4G. I’m very keen to see what kind of output this lens produces.

  • outkasted

    Yaaaaay…. Now show me the D4s and D400 dammit.

  • Austin

    I’m excited for the 35 1.8G. The f2.0 35D didn’t do it for me and the 28 1.8G is a little wide. The price tag is definitely a littler bigger than I was expecting. Already owning the 50 1.8G and 85 1.8G I was assuming it would be between $300 and $400. I’m a little hesitant to pay more for it than the 85.

    • Kynikos

      Where’s the price?

      • The price is $600. For some reason Nikon did not include it in the press release.

        • rt-photography

          $600! wow. thats crazy

          • ShakyLens

            It’s right in the middle between the 85 and 28 1.8G. How is that crazy?

            • filip

              50mm 1.8G is $200, how is then $600 not crazy?

            • rt-photography

              exactly! from $200 to $600? $400 more. what for?

            • ShakyLens

              Don’t like the price, don’t buy it. GTFO

            • rt-photography

              you going to cry to mommy because I said its too expensive?

            • ShakyLens

              Don’t give a flying hoot what you say. I’m rich and can afford to buy any lens in the Nikon lineup. I just get tired of whiners like you. Pity Discus has no block function.

            • rt-photography

              haha. shaking head.

            • jamesbjenkins

              Apparently, you discovered the well-hidden “hostile jackass” function. ‘Grats.

            • ShakyLens

              It’s more of a moronic whiner rejection function.

            • Teh_Internets

              The price is not quite justified, and I’m really rich. I’m worth 900 Billion dollars. You’ve just never heard of me.

            • Guest

              It’s funny how quickly people become hostile if they think you might have more money than them. Get into the tech industry, if you think you can cut it and join us up here.

            • Bamboojled

              It really is amazing how many dumb comments on here regarding pricing…
              It is obvious folks don’t have a clue what FX primes go for.
              They are just plain stupid…

            • Joven

              I remembered reading somewhere that 35mm lenses are optically more complicated than 50mm lenses.

          • Truth

            Do you have a cheaper alternative that’s better than what this 35mm lens offers?

            • rt-photography

              at the moment, no I dont. I have 2 zooms that cover that focal length and while they are 2.8 I will deal with that as that is the situation. its not a priority focal length for me right now. want to get a 180 2.8 and 135 dc first though. I really dont like WA so much. not aesthetically pleasing for people.

            • 35mm, 1.8 DX lens, on full frame. Shoot it wide open, and don’t focus too far in the distance. It’ll get you close to what this lens does, for a lot less. That’s the best you can do. 😀 (Profile correct it, in LR to get rid of the huge vignette and you’re golden. It’ll only cost you a little over $200 these days)

            • Aaron

              My suggestion as well. People laugh at me when they see a cheapo DX prime on a D4. And though the lens isn’t nearly as tough, you can still buy two and be out less cash! Doing video at 16:9 also gets rid of the corners 🙂

          • Rock Kenwell

            Canon 35mm f2 with IS was MSRP@ $850. Now $599. 1/3 stop and smaller diameter in exchange for IS. Let’s hope it will drop to $450 then I am in.

        • Kynikos

          Cheers, Admin.

        • I can imagine why!

        • Morris

          they r just shy 🙂

        • Morris

          they r just shy 🙂

    • Wide angle lenses are more difficult to design and build than telephotos (I am told) and the market and optical diagrams certainly seem to reflect this. The MTF chart looks comparable to, perhaps a bit inferior to, the Sigma 35mm f1.4 — for what that’s worth. The emphasis on minimizing coma is interesting. It weighs less than half as much and focuses closer.

  • Jorge

    Looks like the cheap 18-55 zoom

    • sell_him

      Indeed. Looks like the toy kit lens. no ring of quality. and looks as plastic as pamela anderson

      • rt-photography

        im hoping its not slow like some of the newer lenses released. 58/50 1.4G 85 1.8G

        for $600 and cheap looking plastic.

        • lord eels

          it’s a fast prime. they all have slow AF if comparing to a 24-70. Einstein.

          • rt-photography
            • lord eels

              I guess you don’t know how AFS lenses work in low light vs how AFD lenses work. that’s not an AF test, that’s a low light hunt test. idiot

            • rt-photography

              thats what your mom said to herself when she saw you come out.

            • peterw

              please do try to keep communication on a level in which people are curious to your message.

              I would like to ask you if you could indicate the difference. Why a low light hunt test couldnt be a AF-test. But I fear you will make me feel like a moron when I ask you…

            • nim st

              try it your self , Low light hunt timing doesn’t indicate how real focus.will do.
              This is from my experience. (AFS , AFD HSM …)

        • guest

          Yeah, Einstein! 28 1.8g, 50 1.4g, 50 1.8g, and 85 1.8g are all made of the same “cheap looking plastic”, and they are all fantastic lenses for their price. What did you expect – $300 and super fast af?
          35 2.0d is a dog, despite it’s made in japan and it’s metal. when a got a “chinese” 28 1.8g, i was literally blown away by its iq and sharpness, despite its significant distortion

          • phil

            You obviously did not notice trhat it’s a $600 lens.
            It’s nowhere “cheap” – it’s just crappy cheap looking, because it’s a cheap plastic build.

      • Spy Black

        I’ll take Pamela over this…

  • UnknownTransit

    Looks like the same plastic quality 28mm 1.8G lens

    • ShakyLens

      And 85 1.4G, 35 1.4G, 50 1.4G. It’s how Nikon primes are made nowadays. You can always switch brands if you don’t like it.

    • AR22

      whats wrong with plastic? I herd its lighter than metal

    • AWR

      28mm 1.8G? Don’t U know the gold ring lens 35mm 1.4G, together with 85mm 1.4G R also made of plastic?

  • DistrictGopher

    Poo. I know I was dreaming, but $600? Unless the tests come back with banging results it seems like the Sigma 1.4 would be the way to go for the extra cash.

    • iamlucky13

      Based on the price of the 35mm F/2D, and the price differences between G
      and D models or F/1.4 and F/1.8 versions of Nikon’s other primes, I
      suggested in the thread about the upcoming announcement 2 weeks ago it
      would be $500-700.

      Bracketing the actual price evenly really isn’t much for me to brag about though. It’s just what fit with Nikon’s past pricing.

      also not really a surprise to see that it’s 0.3″ fatter, 1.1″ longer,
      and 3.5 ounces heavier. Again, typical growth in the move to AF-S.

      being just $100 cheaper than the 28mm F/1.8G, I’d tend to lean towards
      the wider angle of the 28mm (it’s easier to crop the 28mm shot than to
      widen the 35mm shot), but the 35mm does have a slightly better looking
      MTF chart.

      But the Sigma’s chart looks even better for $300 more, and that’s at F/1.4 (but at twice the weight). If it’s in your budget and you don’t mind the weight, it seems you can’t go wrong with that Sigma.

      • DistrictGopher

        TBH, my main problem is that I don’t actually “need” it. I’m just a huge man-child who enjoys camera gear that likely compensates for some emotional vacancy in my feeble brain.

        • Aldo

          You just described half the crowd here…

          • Spy Black


        • rt-photography

          Most people hardly even go out to take pictures. Its about the gear but no photography. They sit at tge desk playing and obsessed with the gear. Opening their bag and enjoying to look at it sit inside. Reminds me. I should get a new bag. Mine is worn out from so many weddings. Doesnt lowepro have lifetime warranty on zippers?

          • umeshrw

            Nice try telling us that you also work. Get a new bag if you want to. You don’t need to justify it like this. 🙂

          • Zesty

            Hey, don’t you provide your clients with MTF charts along with the final product?

            • rt-photography

              HAHAHA touche!

  • Arthur Tazo

    Nikon missed on the price point yet again. Sigma 35mm 1.4 is the better buy.

    • ShakyLens

      On what basis, the scarce details of a just-announced product that nobody has yet reviewed? Unbelievable.

      • Arthur Tazo

        Having problem reading? Price has been announced for this lens ($600). And we know the price for the Sigma 35mm 1.4. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 could be had for $750 new a few weeks ago. Not hard to get one for $800. We also know that the Sigma 35mm 1.4 is a fantastic lens based on reviews as well as user experiences. So for about $150-$200 more you are getting a faster and a terrific lens. Even if the 35mm 1.8 could perform as well as Sigma 35mm 1.4 (if anything the Nikon one is the one that has to prove itself), Sigma 35mm is still a better buy simply because you are getting a 1.4. Now, if Nikon was priced at $400, then you really start to question if you want to pay $400 more for the Sigma. Its not calculus folks. Simple math. Sheesh.

        • ShakyLens

          I’d prefer the lighter lens that is despite what you say significantly cheaper (which matters to a lot of people, believe it or not). I also prefer the Nikon lens that will be guaranteed to work with all my bodies. You have proven nothing except that you make snap judgments based on your prejudices and are a stranger to logic.

          • Arthur Tazo

            Please don’t bring in logic. You clearly dont know how to use it based on your asinine comments.. And also do yourself a favor and take an economics course. Unbelievable how simple math and price comparison escapes Brand loyalists.

            • peterw

              there is more than IQ and price.
              Weight is of importance, less so when you carry only one lens. However, if your bag holds some other lenses it will count.
              Also, wide angle means putting your lens into people’s faces (yes, beware of distortion). A smaller lens is less ‘terrifying’
              (can’t find the more appropriate word. You know what I mean if you ever put a 17-35 in someones face 😉 ).
              The 35 F2 AF-D is great on these two points. But IQ at full aperture is, … rather sub. There the Sigma shines in my opinion. I think we can expect really good IQ from this 35 F1,8 based on the recent F1,8 Nikkors.

              The Sigma was more expensive when it came out. The Nikkor will be less expensive in a year or so. It could be a great alternative to both the Sigma and the AF-D.

              BTW. Anyone seen the rather large frontlens? That could be good news for vignette? If it would be only one stop, it would equal all F1,4 lenses in the corners, not?
              Well, let’s see.

            • ShakyLens

              You agree that it’s opinion and then complain I don’t understand math? You’ve just contradicted your own argument. Fail!

            • Arthur Tazo

              Math is not an opinion. You are just embarrassing yourself now. As I said, educate yourself.

        • ShakyLens

          I mean how much more is too much? Who decides what is the value of a given feature to justify extra expense for it? It’s all opinion, and yours is no more valid than anyone else’s.

          • phil

            The MARKET decides.
            And judging by the Nikon’s disappointing revenues, Nikon is doing it wrong.

        • WolfDengler

          I totally agree – 400 USD / € as first offer would be ok (for me) – street price will decreas a little… but 600 – pfff

        • WolfDengler

          I totally agree – 400 USD / € as first offer would be ok (for me) – street price will decreas a little… but 600 – pfff

        • Pat Mann

          I don’t understand the aversion to plastic. I paid a lot extra for a plastic tripod to save half the weight, and it’s served me well so far. I haven’t had any problems Nikon’s plastic lenses except the throwaway kit lenses, which haven’t taken well to hitting car door frames, house door frames, etc., but that’s more a fault of the klutzy user and vulnerable design than the material.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          If the sharpness is on the same page with the Sigma then we can look at the unmeasurable things like the color rendition and the quality of the bokeh. I feel confident that the Nikon will present a good value to some photographers. Also, all you are seeing is the plastic on the outside of the body. At most of a pound there will be some metal inside.

          • Joven

            While I’ll be waiting for the reviews, the sample photos that Nikon has put out don’t give me much hope that this is a better alternative to the Sigma.

            It’s not a metal vs plastic thing. My 50 1.8 has taken a bounce off of a hard floor and has shown no issues. I don’t associate plastic with shoddy quality. That would be like believing cars in the 60s were safer than cars today just b/c they’re made out of metal.

  • Looking on the bright side

    Could someone with good chart reading skills please interpret the MTF chart? What I’d this chart telling to expect from this lens.

    • Joey

      Compare the 58mm f1.4 MTF chart to this 35mm MTF chart.

        • TR_T-Rex

          Even though if first looks like this lens is overpriced and would not be sold in a great deal, I think a lot DX users hoping to become an FX user in the future will buy this lens. They marketed the 58mm lens to DX users as well as it will be like a portrait lens for them. Even though they ask an exorbitant price for these lenses, they give the impression to DX users that they will be buying a dual purpose lens. Nonetheless, 58mm lens is way overpriced. This lens could worth the price if it had VR and/or nano coating.

          • phil

            The 85mm 1.8G would be an even better portrait lens on DX, and it’s $100 cheaper.

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              The 50 or 58 are your 85 short portrait lens on a DX and the 85 is your 135 long portrait on a DX. But magnifying the good part of the center will not give the level of sharpness that you can achieve with a full frame and you will also not be able to blur the background as much. Unless you spend the $$$$ for the 85 f1.4.

          • phil

            The 85mm 1.8G would be an even better portrait lens on DX, and it’s $100 cheaper.

        • peterw

          here you can find the sigma 35 F1,4 MTF (tab “tech specs”).

          And this mister found the MTF of the 35 F2 AF-D somewhere:

          Alas, I can’t read these MTF. I mean, I don’t know how to translate MTF of a lens to real world photography. But I guess anyone can see that in the less than 1000 dollar league the Sigma will win, with the new Nikon following at close range.

          I don’t like the look in the 10mm area (‘rule of thirds’). Someone knows how this works? It’s the resolution, isn’t it?

          • Higher is sharper/more contrast.

            Left side of the chart is center, right side, is the corner.

            Red is a measured with fat lines, blue is a finer lines.

            The test chart is a series of diagonal lines.
            S is lines that go like this: //////
            M is lines that go like this:\\\

            If you want to know more, I really like this description:


            • peterw

              thank you, appreciated. fat is contrast and fine is accutenes. that’s frequency, or rather spatial, domain analyses.
              (Vignette could be first-order spatial component. Transmission zeroth order.)

        • FredBear

          You should add the Zeiss 35 F2 MTF chart for comparison.

  • PanMarian

    I’m glad I got sigma for $699, when Amazon had its flash sale 🙂

    • Arthur Tazo

      That was a terrific buy for sure. Makes the Nikon 35mm 1.8 look overpriced. Hopefully the Nikon one performs close o the Sigma otherwise its going to look even worse on a price/performance basis.

      • MB

        700$ Sigma 35 f/1.4 is performing close to 1600$ Nikon 35 f/1.4, unfortunately I somehow don’t think this 600$ Nikon lens will be anywhere near …

        • Arthur Tazo

          Sigma 35mm 1.4 isnt performing close to Nikon 35mm 1.4. Sigma pretty handily beat it for half the amount. Which is why a number of folks unloaded their Nikon 35mm and it can be bought for around $1000 in the used market.

          • MB

            Unfortunately I know that from my own experience with Sigma 35 f/1.4 … but as Nikon fan and this being Nikonrumors I thought I should not say it that straight …

  • bilby

    What about the long awaited 300mm f4 replacement? Is there still no sign on the horizon? Wasn’t there a rumor back in september 2013 it might be announced within the following two months?

  • nikkor

    I miss the look of the 90’s AF D lenses. I recently got the 18 f2.8 for my Nikon df’s and I am loving it.

  • WolfDengler

    Huh, 600$ – this means 600 € – for that money and a little more I get the Sigma 35mm f1,4. So expensive. Nikon, don´t get greedy!!!

    • phil

      too late

  • Matteo Barducci

    No Special Edition version to match the Df?

  • Spy Black

    Too bad about the price…

  • Cesar

    Wow that MTF chart sucks!

    • Pat Mann

      I find the MTF chart quite impressive. It’s far superior to the previous generation, particularly out from the center, and marginally better than the 28mm f/1.8, which has proven to be a well-respected lens.
      If you’re comparing to the MTF of the pro zooms, make sure you set them for f/1.8 to do the MTF comparison.

      • Cesar

        You’re right, I was reading it wrong. Espessialy wide open the lens seems to be awesome. Too bad it’s $600, that’s about $200 more than I was hoping for. Ah well we’ll see when it hits the shops. I’m truly interested in this one!

  • frod

    Kind of disappointed by the filter size; I was hoping for 67mm as then I’d only need one set of filters for 28mm, 35mm, 85mm, and could leave the 50mm at home.

    • jp

      Just buy cheap 67>58mm adaptor ring.

      • frod

        No thanks, I value the extra contrast that using the hood gives me.

    • Pat Mann

      5 polarizers is a PITA for sure. 77-72-67-58-52 would be required to cover all my Nikkors now; the 50 1.4G already added the 58mm size, so this won’t be something new, but there was a time when 72 and 52 covered everything I had.

  • Cesar

    It could just as well have a gold ring (see the 28mm f/1.8). Nice to see it has some weather sealing though!

    • frod

      How much would a nano crystal coated lens add to the price? It would be interesting to know how much difference the extra transmission would make.

      • Cesar

        I’m actually quite happy with the fact that it doesn’t have Nano coating. I’m always under the impression that nano coating turns the bokeh into blobs of plastic.

        • frod

          Bokeh? Nano coating merely improves transmission, but this allows them to make other changes to the lens that might otherwise impact transmission. Bokeh isn’t really affected by the big N besides what other changes that layer allows them to do make to improve overall sharpness. Bokeh is in the blades, and I’d guess won’t be better on this than the 28mm anyway, due to them both having what sounds like similar aperture blade designs.

          • peterw

            bokeh isn’t just aperture blades. it’s rendering of unsharpness. could be affected by a lot of things. Like dirt or scratches on your lens.

          • Colin Stuart

            If you’re shooting wide open then bokeh has NOTHING to do with the aperture blades (# of them, shape, etc). Lens design can very much effect if the bokeh will be creamy and smooth or busy and ugly.

  • Alberto

    The MTF chart suggests that it’s not as good as the Sigma 35/1.4 and from the pictures it looks made of plastic like the 28/1.8 – So, for the extra 200$ the Sigma looks like the better alternative: faster, sharper, better built.

  • GBP

    The real issue is cost in USA $599 in UK £599 ($984 cost to UK) or (should be £364) for equivelent UK £ to Dollar exchange rate. Why is the UK and other parts of the world been ripped off? This is not unique to Nikon it has to be said suppliers set USA Dollar price and shit on everywhere else.

  • Lubos

    not sure why people keep missing the main point of this and the 58mm lens – they’re designed to eliminate flare and choma from all the light sources that tend to creep into low-light situations.

  • Stanley77

    My wife bought me the 35mm f1.4 for a resent trip to Chicago. (non snow days) I shot that and a new 16mm fisheye 90% of the time. The 35mm is a nice walk around lens for me. I love those 35mm and the 16mm lens.

  • Pipo

    I kinda expected the 35mm f/1.8 to be priced a little higher than 35/50mm f/1.8G…..not at $600.

  • mrcontinental

    I’m digging this one. Thought long and hard about the 35 f1.4 to go with my 24 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 but at $1700 I couldn’t pull the trigger. Saving a grand works for me.

  • jerangkong

    Nah.. Nikon is a joke.. Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG is way 1000 times better..

    • pj

      How do you know that the sigma is ‘way 1000 times better’ (whatever that means) than a lens that is not out yet? And better for whom? Some photographers care more about the overall look of a photograph than absolute sharpness. And some care about things like flare control, coma and color rendition. Some also care about consistency with the rest of their lenses. Some care about little details like which direction the focus ring operates and having that direction be consistent with other lenses. Some care about size and weight, especially if they travel or if this isn’t their main focal length. And some might want a cheaper backup lens if this is their main focal length.

      I think the new Nikkor is priced about $100 too high, but the price will likely fall over time and in any event, I’m going to be first in line to try one out and probably buy it at full price.

  • Derek

    Nikon will release 20+ products this year and for each one the same people will be here whining about it. Do any of you have anything better to do? I would be more than happy to go up against any of you with my D600 and 18-35mm G lens, products that you all claimed, sucked!

  • MeloJM3

    This lens is not weather sealed?? For that price, it should be!!

  • Back to top