Nikon to release 35mm f/1.8G Lens!

[Taallyn]

The 35mm f/2.0 is a full frame sized lens; i.e. there's more glass inside it. So, it was intended for full frame cameras; well actually it was designed for 35mm film cameras.

It probably also has a higher build quality than the new lens as it was intended as a "pro" lens at the time it was introduced. I.E. metal body, distance scale, hyperfocal markings, etc.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by 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 think it depends on your preferred working distance and whether you have a crop body or not. Typically, longer lenses have better image quality than shorter ones, but if you're working in a smaller space or tend to do group portraits, or you're on a crop body, the 35 might feel more comfortable.

Myself, I prefer an 85 and a 135, and I shoot a crop body, so I do think that personal preference probably has the biggest say on what's a better fit.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

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.

Well, it's a newer design, obviously. The 35/2 is probably a warhorse from the film days that's held up well. The 1.8 has not only tweaks, but is also designed for DX, which is less demanding than FX. And, judging by those MTFs, I'd say the newer lens is sharper, has more contrast, and better bokeh than the older f/2.

dpreview also has an interview up with the folks who decided this was what Nikon needed to offer, and they said they're specifically going after the D40/D60 market, where there really is no good, cheap, fast prime and certainly not one that autofocuses. They made it 35mm to create a normal for crop body.

Originally Posted by irene67

What exactly does AF-S mean?

That the lens motor is silent wave; it's fast and makes no noise. (Sigma calls it HSM; Canon USM).

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.....

Don't forget the 1.8 will also be smaller and lighter. What the 35/2 has going for it is compatibility: backwards or forwards, depends on your point of view.

As has been remarked, the 35/2 is an older lens. It's far more useful for manual focusing (if you look at the 1.8, it has no distance scale, no DoF scale). The 1.8 also, as has been mentioned, is a DX and G-mount. It has limited use on an F-mount film body (setting the aperture without an aperture ring can be tricky to impossible); and on any full-frame body it will vignette, because its image circle is only designed to cover an APS-C sensor. If you upgrade to a D700 or D3 or decide to get/keep an F-mount Nikon film body, you can still use the 35/2, while the 35/1.8 would be relatively useless.

The other thing is, you also have to be aware that lenses age. Designs get superseded by newer ones. You're comparing the 35/2 where the design is basically 20 years old (and has a heritage that goes back 50 years) with some refinements and tweaks along the way, to a brand new lens that's just been designed from scratch.

The thing is, the 35/1.8 isn't a pro-quality level lens. It's mean to be a really nice consumer lens for crop-body digital shooters without a lot of cash to throw around, who want to do available light. There are actually quite a few folks who are unhappy about the 35/1.8 NOT being the lens they wanted.

[vandergus]

There are actually quite a few folks who are unhappy about the 35/1.8 NOT being the lens they wanted.

I think this lens is getting a lot of complaints on forums basically because of the types of people that hang out on forums. The Nikon rep said that 80% of their sales are from the D40/D60/D90 group. A pretty big target market for this lens. But not many of those mom and pop shooters hang out at DPreview. So all of the D300/D700 shooters that tend to be more gearheadish (not that there's anything wrong with that) are upset that Nikon is waisting their time on dinky consumer lenses and have no problem voicing their opinion on the forums. I'm just saying that the opinion of this lens as read on interenet forums may be a little skewed.

Personally, I'll be following the reviews closely. I have the 35mm f2 and love the field of view. It's pretty much my prefered lens now. I'm perfectly happy with the image quality but may find myself trading in just for the convenience of AF. I may even come out ahead if the used market for the 35mm f2 doesn't collapse.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by vandergus

I think this lens is getting a lot of complaints on forums basically because of the types of people that hang out on forums.

Yeah, but isn't that always the way for all the new camera product announcements?

You'll also note that the blog I linked to had a follow-up posting basically saying the same thing you did--it's a good attempt to fill a hole in Nikon's lineup. Just because they were hoping after the AF-S 50 f/1.4 announcement that Nikon would be creating an AF-S f/1.4 lineup of the traditional primes doesn't mean that's what Nikon should be doing.

It's only that precision math nerds who are going to divide 50/1.5 and complain they really want a 33mm lens, not a 35mm one to be normal on a crop body.

[vandergus]

Originally Posted by inkista

Yeah, but isn't that always the way for all the new camera product announcements?

So true...

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

That the lens motor is silent wave; it's fast and makes no noise. (Sigma calls it HSM; Canon USM).

Actually, HSM and USM are SWM in Nikon speak. AF-S means that the lens has it's own focusing motor and doesnt rely on the one in the camera body. D40 and D60 bodies will only autofocus with AF-S lenses as they lack an in-body motor of their own. Most bodies also see an increase in AF speed with AF-S lenses.

I guess the bean counters at Nikon can justify this, but it wont be on my list. Its useless if one ever upgrades to full-frame.

[MarioG]

I've had my D90 with a 18-200 for about 2 months now. I love the range. I have a lot of experimentation yet to do on this lens before I go for another. However, the idea of a smaller lens to carry around is appealing. I know that $200 is not a lot of money as far as lenses go, but is it likely that prices will go down for this lens and the older 32/f2?

This said, I find myself taking a lot of my pictures at around 35 mm. Pardon my ignorance, but would there be an important difference in the quality of the picture taken with this prime 35/1.5 at f/3.5 vs the 18-200 lens, at 35 mm at the same f/3.5?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Actually, HSM and USM are SWM in Nikon speak.

Yeah, but you ever seen a lens that's actually got "SWM" in its name? It's Nikon-speak, but it's not lens nomenclature. I was going off this page. And this one. And this one.

When a lens (well, as long as you don't count tcs as lenses) is listed on the Nikon website as AF-S, the spec page always says "AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes". To me, what the parenthetical indicates is that AF-S and SWM are the same thing.

Originally Posted by MarioG

... Pardon my ignorance, but would there be an important difference in the quality of the picture taken with this prime 35/1.5 at f/3.5 vs the 18-200 lens, at 35 mm at the same f/3.5?

My guess would be yes there would be a difference. Whether it's an important one probably is a matter of personal taste. The 18-200 has 16 elements in 12 groups. The 35/1.8 is 8 elements in 6 groups.

That's half as much glass for the light to have to pass through before it hits the sensor, which means it's easier to design the prime to have better contrast/sharpness. And obviously, the prime is optimized for performance @35mm, while a superzoom like the 18-200 has to cover a very wide zoom range and may have to compromise at some lengths to do so. Even at the same aperture, I'd almost always expect a prime to be sharper and have more contrast than a zoom equivalent, unless that zoom has a pricetag in four figures.

I could be wrong, though. Zoom design has advanced a lot. When dpreview gets their hands on it, then you'll get a definitive answer, 'cause dpreview has a very cool way of comparing lenses head to head. Comparing the MTF charts trick won't work here, since the 35/1.8's is f/1.8@35mm, and the 18-200's is at f/3.5@18mm. What the dpreview lens review tool does is like having the MTF lines or sharpness across all apertures and focal lengths. For example, you could compare the 18-200 against the 50 f/1.8 at 50mm and f/5 and then spin the dials to see what they both look like at f/16. I've lost hours of my life to that tool.

[wckeep]

Originally Posted by 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.

this is honestly the way i am thinking. i eventually want a d3 or whatever the next high end nikon is going to be and want to be able to use at least my nifty fifty.

[Taallyn]

The difference is that it is smaller, lighter, less expensive, designed for digital (anti-flare coatings), and a true "normal" FoV on the cropped sensors where the 50mm f/1.8 is more of a short telephoto FoV. Plus, it will autofocus on D40/D40x/D60 bodies.

It is not intended as a lens for everyone. Nikon knows this and has specifically said such. It is intended for their largest DSLR market which is the D40-D90 owners who would want a small, light, inexpensive, AFS, normal FoV lens. Don't think of it as being anything like the 35mm f/2. It isn't. It is more the DX equivalent of the recently released 50mm f/1.4. Same field of view, similiar features, similar uses.