35 f/2 vs 35 f/1.8 on FX?

[daveja]

I know the 35 1.8 is a DX lens but it only appears to have a slight vignette. Has anyone done any testing to see if it can seriously compete on an FX body?
Would love to see samples of 35 1.8 on fx.. Thanks

 

[Jonathan F/2]

Here's a shot I took of my daughter with the D3 & 35 1.8 DX:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It vignettes slightly, but not very bad at all. I owned both the 35 DX and 35 AFD at the same time and I kept the DX due to it's excellent wide open performance.

 

[Smiert Spionam]

I've owned both, and went the opposite way. Yes, the 1.8G is good up close at wide stops -- but at longer distances and/or stopped down a little, you'll need to crop significantly. It's not just a matter of vignetting -- the corners are never sharp.

It will never be remotely like a general purpose 35mm lens on FX. Because of that, I don't think it can "seriously compete on an FX body."

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I've owned both, and went the opposite way. Yes, the 1.8G is good up close at wide stops -- but at longer distances and/or stopped down a little, you'll need to crop significantly. It's not just a matter of vignetting -- the corners are never sharp.

It will never be remotely like a general purpose 35mm lens on FX. Because of that, I don't think it can "seriously compete on an FX body."

As a general purpose 35mm on FX I agree. It's not great. But as a 35mm shot in low light at 1.8 with subjects shot in the center of the frame, it makes an excellent low light lens to which the next closest equivalent is the 35 1.4 G costing nearly 7 times over!

If Nikon releases an FX 35 f2 AFS, I'll probably switch, but until then the 35 DX does a pretty good job for the price.

 

[UniquePortraits]

As a general purpose 35mm on FX I agree. It's not great. But as a 35mm shot in low light at 1.8 with subjects shot in the center of the frame, it makes an excellent low light lens to which the next closest equivalent is the 35 1.4 G costing nearly 7 times over!

If Nikon releases an FX 35 f2 AFS, I'll probably switch, but until then the 35 DX does a pretty good job for the price.

You might find this discussion, comparison and sample images useful. Cliff notes version, it appears that the 35mm F/1.8 is darker wide open than the other 35mm lenses shot at F/2.0 , and about the same exposure wide open as the other 35mm lenses shot at F/2.8

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26249&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

 

[daveja]

Picked up the 35 f/1.8 G today, just took a few pics on my D700. Initial impression is it is certainly very sharp in center wide open. If subject is not real close it does have a lot of distortion and it certainly does vignette, the closer you are the less it shows. I will keep it if I decide to keep the D5100 I picked up as it is a winner for that small light package. Otherwise I don't see the advantage to get rid of my 35 f/2 as my copy is almost as sharp @ f/2 and does not vignette of have the distortion on more distant subjects.. Below is a quick sample of each @ f/2
35 f/1.8 shot @ f/2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

35 f/2 shot @ f/2
View attachment 892082

 

[kixsand]

Picked up the 35 f/1.8 G today, just took a few pics on my D700. Initial impression is it is certainly very sharp in center wide open. If subject is not real close it does have a lot of distortion and it certainly does vignette, the closer you are the less it shows. I will keep it if I decide to keep the D5100 I picked up as it is a winner for that small light package. Otherwise I don't see the advantage to get rid of my 35 f/2 as my copy is almost as sharp @ f/2 and does not vignette of have the distortion on more distant subjects.. Below is a quick sample of each @ f/2
35 f/1.8 shot @ f/2
http://www.pbase.com/daveja/image/134301374/original.jpg

35 f/2 shot @ f/2
http://www.pbase.com/daveja/image/134301375/original.jpg

I was of exactly the same opinion! When I first got the D700 I was delighted and surprised to find how usable the 35 1.8 was on it. I really thought that I might be able to make do with it. It wasn't long though before I came to the conclusion that the limitations made it unreasonable. I was able to find a used 35F2 for the same price that I was able to sell the 35 1.8 for and it is a much better all around lens for the D700.

 

[SP77]

I know Phillip Ino here has shot like 90% of a wedding just with the 35/1.8 DX and a D700 and the results were spectacular. For a close in or 'social event' type wide normal lens it works great. I've used the lens on my F100 shooting some film and can vouch personally for the results. Very very sharp wide-open and minimal if any vignetting so long as you're at closer ranges.

Where it won't work well is as a landscape type wide/normal lens. As you focus further away you do get some hard vignetting in the corners. Easy enough to clean up or crop away to the equivalent of about 40mm, but it'd be easier to just have a full-frame lens if that's the intended use. Simply amazing what a lowly DX lens can do on full-frame. It's a gem either way. :smile:

 

[Joseph]

I've owned both the 35/1.8 and 35/2 and shot them both on a D700. As already stated, the G lens is fine for close ups but vignettes horribly at far distances. You can fix most shots in LR with a "reverse vignette" and a little cropping, but this can become a hassle and adds more work to your workflow.

btw, I read somewhere that it might be possible to remove the vignetting on FX if the hood MOUNT of the 35 1.8 is physically removed. (not the hood itself - the hood MOUNT - the extra piece that protrude where you clip the hood on) Perhaps by sawing it off, similar to what they do on the 10.5 fish on FX.

 

[A.O.M.E.]

I actually use the D700 + 35G for work. It's just an occasional job working for a local newspaper but the 35 is my go-to event lens and I love it. Definitely not for everyone on FX, but for my use, it's perfect. I've thought about going for a 'real' event lens like a 24-70, and I rented a 16-35 to see if I wanted to go that way, but I can't justify it.

 

[Ronald M]

I have both and would never use the 1.8 on FX. Love it on my D7000.

The 35 2.0 needs an upgrade. hopefully the the 50 1.8 is the beginning of a series, 85 1.8 AFS, 35 2.0 AFs, maybe a 24 AND 135. 99% of my stuff is 4.0 to 8.0 and the AFD lenses are have are really fine there. Even the MF ones are great.

 

[fabulas]

here is a comparison of all three nikon 35mm AF lenses on both DX and FX

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/N...G_vs_35mm_f2D_vs_DX_35mm_f1-8G_compared.shtml

WOW, I didn't realize the 35 1.8 was so good!