Nikon to release 35mm f/1.8G Lens!

[EmOz]

I'll be surprised if its soft - people have been waiting on Nikon to produce a new prime for quite a while now, and concidering the 50mm f/1.4 seems to be a good lens, I'd expect the 1.8 to be similar.

Still, its due in just over a month, so hopefully we'll start to see some good hands on reviews coming out in the next few weeks.

[irene67]

I wonder how it will compare to the 35 f/2.0 which I recently purchased for about a $100 more. Will the quality be better on the 2.0? Or will the price of the 2.0 come down drastically? I am a bit bummed I didn't know/wait for this lens...I may have saved myself a chunk of change.

[EmOz]

Is your 35 f2.0 an AF-S Lens?

[inkista]

Can you still return it?

You basically want to hold off purchasing anything camera-related close to March or September, since that's when most of the camera product announcements happen and often when rebate programs begin. Usually March, because of PMA (although it was February last year). September because of Photokina (in even numbered years; or just ramping up for the holiday season).

As for performance, the f/1.8's looking nicer. Here's the MTF for the 35/2:



And here's the one for the upcoming 35/1.8


If you don't know how to read an MTF chart, Nikon's (unlike Canon's) tend to only be done at wide-open performance, so all the data is of the first lens set to f/2, and the second set to f/1.8. This is likely where the performance is weakest, btw.

The horizontal scale is distance from the center of the frame. The center of the frame is at 0 (the left edge), and the distance from that is given in millimeters. You'll note that the FX-designed lens goes out farther, so you may want to ignore anything to the right of 15 on the chart for the 35/2. The vertical scale is the contrast modulation--how much of the light is getting through the lens. Air would be a horizontal line at 1.

The red lines are at lower-contrast (10 line/mm), the blue ones at higher-contrast (30 lines/mm). The higher up the chart the red lines are, the better the contrast of the lens is. The higher up the blue lines are, the better the subjective sharpness (resolution) is. The solid lines are Sagittal, the dashed Meridional (basically, diagonal lines in different directions). The closer the solid and dashed lines are, the smoother the bokeh will be. The flatter the line, the better the performance is across the frame.

Now, remember, this isn't the whole story. Chromatic aberration, flare resistance, distortion, etc. are not measured by an MTF. But it's certainly looking like the new 35/1.8 is a nice little lens.

[Jubs]

I just received my 50mm f1.8 yesterday in the mail then about 2 hours ago I found out about this on flickr! Oh well, I just pre-ordered the 35mm on Amazon for $199.95. Hopefully it will will be in stock soon and arrive soon!

[jocelynaz]

Sooo....setting aside the autofocus issue on the D40 with the nifty fifty, is a 35mm prime better to have for portrait photography than a 50mm??

I love my 50mm, but of course, the autofocus on the 35mm would be soooo much nicer to deal with, especially photographing children. But I can't afford to buy another lens to soon. I just wanted to know if which is better to have for portrait photography.

Thanks!

[EmOz]

I would have thought that the 50mm was better for portraits, whereas the 35mm is more an everyday lens (not saying the 50mm isn't of course) The 35mm is closer to what the eye sees, so its probably more suited for things like Street. I guess it all depends on what your'e into, I'm going through this struggle myself at the moment - I just can't decide whether to go the 35mm or 50mm. I want the f1.4, and I want the beautiful bokeh, but not having owned anything this wide clouds my ability to decide.

Need to find someone here in Melbourne that's willing to lend me a 50mm 1.4 for the weekend

[Digidave]

I just read DPS Daily Update, which has a review of this new lens.

Daily Update

It all looked good until I got to this part.

A rounded diaphragm opening combined with the nine-blade aperture contributes to a substantially more circular bokeh for a more natural appearance of out-of-focus background elements.

This is incorrect. On Nikon's site they tell us it is a 7 blade aperture.

Nikon website

Small detail, but I thought everyone should know.

[OsmosisStudios]

I'll wait for DPReview to work their magic on it.

I honestly dont see the point in my arsenal. I plan on going full-frame at some point, so DX lenses are off my list of potential "wants" right now.

What, praytell, is the difference between this and the 30mm f/2? As far as I can tell, it'st just the AF-S and 1/3 of a stop.

[irene67]

Originally Posted by inkista

Can you still return it?

You basically want to hold off purchasing anything camera-related close to March or September, since that's when most of the camera product announcements happen and often when rebate programs begin. Usually March, because of PMA (although it was February last year). September because of Photokina (in even numbered years; or just ramping up for the holiday season).

As for performance, the f/1.8's looking nicer. Here's the MTF for the 35/2:



And here's the one for the upcoming 35/1.8


If you don't know how to read an MTF chart, Nikon's (unlike Canon's) tend to only be done at wide-open performance, so all the data is of the first lens set to f/2, and the second set to f/1.8. This is likely where the performance is weakest, btw.

The horizontal scale is distance from the center of the frame. The center of the frame is at 0 (the left edge), and the distance from that is given in millimeters. You'll note that the FX-designed lens goes out farther, so you may want to ignore anything to the right of 15 on the chart for the 35/2. The vertical scale is the contrast modulation--how much of the light is getting through the lens. Air would be a horizontal line at 1.

The red lines are at lower-contrast (10 line/mm), the blue ones at higher-contrast (30 lines/mm). The higher up the chart the red lines are, the better the contrast of the lens is. The higher up the blue lines are, the better the subjective sharpness (resolution) is. The solid lines are Sagittal, the dashed Meridional (basically, diagonal lines in different directions). The closer the solid and dashed lines are, the smoother the bokeh will be. The flatter the line, the better the performance is across the frame.

Now, remember, this isn't the whole story. Chromatic aberration, flare resistance, distortion, etc. are not measured by an MTF. But it's certainly looking like the new 35/1.8 is a nice little lens.

Nope - can't return it. I got it through an Amazon Marketplace seller. Oh well, nothing I can do about it now!

And no, it isn't an AF-S. I am still unfamiliar with some lens terminology. What exactly does AF-S mean?

It just seems strange that the 1.8, which offers a built in motor AND is obviously faster than the 2.0, can be OVER $100 cheaper than the 35 f/2.0. It just makes me think there is something I'm missing...there just HAS to be something better about 2.0. I mean, if there isn't, why didn't Nikon introduce the lens at a premium to the 2.0? The new 50 1.4G was introduced at a premium to the 50 f/1.4, right?

What am I missing???? Seems like strange marketing.