Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rogersmj

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 10, 2006
2,169
36
Indianapolis, IN
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/02/08/here-it-is-nikon-af-s-nikkor-35mm-f18g-dx.aspx

They're going to sell a lot of these I think. Cheapest AF-S prime available, good focal length for a lot of DX owners (roughly equivalent to the classic 50mm), works on the D40-D60.

353_2183_af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f-18g_front.jpg
 

Nicholie

macrumors regular
Jul 6, 2008
115
0
Huntsville, Al
DX, bleh. I'm on a DX sensor but I still prefer buying FX lenses if I can as one day I'll move that direction. Still a very nice lens, might be worth it.
 

craigsharp

macrumors regular
Aug 2, 2008
140
3
Oklahoma
The "nifty-fifty" that you are referring to meant that the focal length was 50mm, not 35mm like the nikon. Also, Nikon makes a 50mm f/1.8 that's closer in price to the "nifty-fifty".
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,870
902
Location Location Location
Well he said it was like the "nifty-fifty" for DX because the effective focal length is around 50 mm, and so it offers the same field of view as a nifty-fifty did on SLRs. The 50 mm f1.8 was never a very "nifty" focal length for DSLR users on DX sensors.

Anyway, I'd rather have seen a new AF-S 50 mm f1.8 as well. A strictly digital lens isn't necessarily bad, especially for that price, but they should also fill the demand for the 50 mm f/1.8 by updating it. I guess it's OK though, since the 50 mm was never a slow focusing lens.
 

Hmac

macrumors 68020
May 30, 2007
2,134
4
Midwest USA
The "nifty-fifty" that you are referring to meant that the focal length was 50mm, not 35mm like the nikon. Also, Nikon makes a 50mm f/1.8 that's closer in price to the "nifty-fifty".

I think he meant that at 35mm, this AF-S prime on a DX sensor camera would be the rough equivalent of a 50mm on a full-frame sensor. By the same token, the 50mm f/1.8 D lens that you are referring to would be the rough equivalent of a 75mm lens on a DX sensor.
 

Cliff3

macrumors 68000
Nov 2, 2007
1,556
180
SF Bay Area
FWIW:

bythom.com said:
3--A "Normal" Lens is 50mm (32mm in DX-dom)
One recent photography book I was browsing through repeated the oft-made claim that a 50mm lens most closely matches that which our eyes see, the so-called "normal" lens. The problem with this, of course, is that the eye/brain connection includes a number of subtle features, such as peripheral vision and near-constant reorienting and focusing. In general, I find that I "see" about a 24mm-equivalent field of view, with my vision concentrated on the equivalent of anything from a 80mm to 300mm lens (and this range has narrowed as I grow older). (For those that are curious, most human eyes are about 16mm in focal length and the pupil's iris can manage effective apertures of from about f/2 to f/11.)

What most texts are referring to when they anoint "normal" lenses is that the focal length is approximately the diagonal of the image format. That's it, there's no hidden meaning in that definition, and almost no human connection. One reason why such lenses are useful, however, is that the format diagonal tends to be the focal length that allows large usable apertures coupled with minimum performance compromises. As you make shorter or longer focal length lenses for a format, distortion, coma, chromatic aberration, and field curvature become more and more difficult to control, especially if you want to retain large apertures.

http://www.bythom.com/myths.htm

My 50 is my least used lens, with that pattern of disuse stretching over nearly 30 years. But if you guys really want them, far be it for me to stand in your way.
 

drlunanerd

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2004
1,698
178
Good news. Should make a great small lightweight package on a D40/60, with more versatility than the 50mm.

Is this the first DX prime from Nikon?
Does it have a metal mount? It does say it has a rubber gasket.

Hopefully it'll be cheap. Unfortunately Nikon gear has jumped in price in the UK, I assume due to our weak currency.
 

craigsharp

macrumors regular
Aug 2, 2008
140
3
Oklahoma
I know what he meant, but the term nifty fifty is even used by DSLR canon users for the 50mm lens. otherwise it would be known as the nifty 80. lol. just jokin, i knew what he meant.
 

iBookG4user

macrumors 604
Jun 27, 2006
6,595
2
Seattle, WA
Looks interesting although I wish that Nikon would come out with a cheap (super) wide-angle lens. Then I'd get a D40 and that lens and convert it to infrared to do landscapes :)
 

rogersmj

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 10, 2006
2,169
36
Indianapolis, IN
The "nifty-fifty" that you are referring to meant that the focal length was 50mm, not 35mm like the nikon. Also, Nikon makes a 50mm f/1.8 that's closer in price to the "nifty-fifty".

Yes, thank you, I know what nifty fifty means, that's why I put it in quotes and said "for DX". :rolleyes:

And I also know about the 50mm f/1.8 -- I own one. It doesn't autofocus on the D40(x) or D60, so this 35mm lens is big news for D40, D40x, and D60 owners, as well as any DX owner who feels 50mm is too long and/or the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S is too pricey at $430 or so.

Especially if Nikon makes plenty of these and the prices come down a touch, I'm quite sure they'll sell extremely well.
 

leighonigar

macrumors 6502a
May 5, 2007
908
1
I'll be very interested to see how this compares optically to the 35mm f/2. If you're using anything other than a D40/x/60 then you've got a choice. Full-frame, fantastic optics but no AF-s or this, which is also cheaper. Good work Nikon.

Oh, according to DP Review it's £199 in the UK.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,870
902
Location Location Location
I'll be very interested to see how this compares optically to the 35mm f/2.

Or the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 Personally, I'd rather have the Sigma 30 mm. I don't know why, but I really prefer the slightly larger lens designs even if they're heavier. They may also offer certain advantages, just like the Sigma 50 mm f1.4 does over other 50 mm lenses.
 

jaseone

macrumors 65816
Nov 7, 2004
1,245
57
Houston, USA
Or the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 Personally, I'd rather have the Sigma 30 mm. I don't know why, but I really prefer the slightly larger lens designs even if they're heavier. They may also offer certain advantages, just like the Sigma 50 mm f1.4 does over other 50 mm lenses.

The Sigma 30/1.4 is also twice the rumored cost of this rumored new 35/1.8 from Nikkor....
 

jaseone

macrumors 65816
Nov 7, 2004
1,245
57
Houston, USA
Cue the complaints that it should have been a 35/1.4 FF lens and how people can't see why Nikon would leave the FF users out in the cold...
 

AlexH

macrumors 68020
Mar 7, 2006
2,035
3,151
Looks good to me, I'll probably pick one up. Hopefully the street price will be a little cheaper...
 

leighonigar

macrumors 6502a
May 5, 2007
908
1
Is a bit odd that the price is the same in USD... Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy overseas and ship it over in that case?

It's usually cheaper, but after customs, VAT and handling, plus shipping and all the kerfuffle it's hardly worth it.
 

drlunanerd

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2004
1,698
178
It's usually cheaper, but after customs, VAT and handling, plus shipping and all the kerfuffle it's hardly worth it.

Yes, and the exchange rate is really not helping at the moment either.
I've noticed that most of the Nikon camera bodies have gone up by around £50 in the past couple of months. Some lenses have crept up in price too.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,870
902
Location Location Location
That's because Nikon and Canon raised their prices. I guess the announcement was applicable worldwide.

The Sigma 30/1.4 is also twice the rumored cost of this rumored new 35/1.8 from Nikkor....

The guy wants to compare the new 35 mm f/1.8 to the optical quality of the old 35 mm f/2, which really isn't that much different in price from the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4. ;) If optical quality is all that's of interest, I assume they can be a slightly different price (in absolute monetary terms....I know the percentage difference is a lot).


Saying that, I'd probably stop the comparison there and not try to compare it to the uber-expensive Nikon 28 mm f1.4, besides not being a particularly good lens.
 

leighonigar

macrumors 6502a
May 5, 2007
908
1
Yeah, the 35mm f/2 is about £240 over here, so assuming minimal discounting for a while there's not that much of a price difference!
 

Abraxsis

macrumors 6502
Sep 23, 2003
425
11
Kentucky
Yeah, I was told that as of Feb 1st all wholesale prices for Nikon gear took a 15% jump. Which I am sure turns out to be 15% past on to consumers for low cost items and 20% for high ticket items.
 

Bluefusion

macrumors 6502
Apr 25, 2003
257
1
New York, NY
This looks fantastic-- I just bought the (really superb) 50mm f/1.8 (at $100, it's a steal), but it doesn't AF with my D40 (I knew it wouldn't, but still). The problem with that amazing low-light performance is that most of the time, you use it in the dark-- and thus have a hard time manually focusing :) This seems like a great lens, especially since it has a focus drive and is at 35mm in digital (my absolute favorite focal)... they'll be selling an awful lot of 'em.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.