New Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S prime for $200 -- the "nifty fifty" for DX

[Ryan1524]

I find myself using my previous gen 35mm f2 the most these days. It's amazingly sharp, and practically no distortion. Oh, and yea, it fits FX too, since that's what it was originally designed for. Unless there's some amazing sharpness improvement or AF speed on this, I'm not upgrading.


As for the body debate, I'm still on a D70s. LOL. I do wish for a D700 though, but I find that not upgrading is making me learn.

 

[wheelhot]

Haha, its funny how a thread about lens end up being a thread about camera bodies.

 

[Ryan1524]

Anybody actually bought one of these new 35mm f1.8? I'd love to hear what you think, especially if you're comparing it to the older model.

 

[drlunanerd]

Personally, I am looking for a used D40 now that I can strap a cheap standard AF-S on the front of it that's below 50mm and is small as hell. I know this thing will get used more often that not.

Exactly what I intend to do with my D40 - turn it into a lightweight night-vision shooter

 

[Cliff3]

Anybody actually bought one of these new 35mm f1.8? I'd love to hear what you think, especially if you're comparing it to the older model.

It's not available until next month.

http://press.nikonusa.com/2009/02/nikon_introduces_the_fastest_d.php

 

[drlunanerd]

There's an interesting interview with Nikon Europe about the new 35mm DX lens on DPReview now.

The new lens is a step above the 35mm F2 in terms of image quality. It's specifically designed for DX and the aspherical element helps it give better results.

If we'd tried to make an FX 35mm F1.4 it might cost €1400, rather than €200, and we wanted to make sure it was an affordable lens.

The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them.

DX is not over, we plan to increase the offering. The prime lenses were definitely something that was missing. This is not the last lens announcement we'll be making this year.

 

[godmachine12]

Personally, I am looking for a used D40 now that I can strap a cheap standard AF-S on the front of it that's below 50mm and is small as hell. I know this thing will get used more often that not.

Oh man, tell me about it. I can't wait for that lens to be on my D40. I'll take it everywhere with me!

 

[rogersmj]

There's an interesting interview with Nikon Europe about the new 35mm DX lens on DPReview now.

VERY cool. I figured the DXX line was a big part of their sales, but I didn't know it was that big. Nice to see they're concentrating on affordability for us hobbyists. I like my 50mm f/1.8 just fine, but I'd consider DX primes too -- an FX camera would be nice, but I really just don't see myself spending that much money on nothing more than a casual hobby, so I'm not going to let it restrict my glass choices.

 

[Ryan1524]

Oh man, tell me about it. I can't wait for that lens to be on my D40. I'll take it everywhere with me!

Yea, the 35mm is the resident lens on my camera. It's only when I need to shoot something specific that I changed it.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

VERY cool. I figured the DXX line was a big part of their sales, but I didn't know it was that big. Nice to see they're concentrating on affordability for us hobbyists. I like my 50mm f/1.8 just fine, but I'd consider DX primes too -- an FX camera would be nice, but I really just don't see myself spending that much money on nothing more than a casual hobby, so I'm not going to let it restrict my glass choices.

Same here. Photography is just for fun; I don't see my self ever moving to FX, so it's great to see Nikon committing to more DX lenses

 

[Digital Skunk]

Same here. Photography is just for fun; I don't see my self ever moving to FX, so it's great to see Nikon committing to more DX lenses

Even if a shooter is going to move to FX in the next year or so, spending $200 on a valuable focal length lens with fast aperture and AF-S is still very worth it for the amount of work that will be done in between going FX and using DX.

Unless you have all FX bodies, or are switching up to all FX soon (read 4 months) then that lens is a no brainer to have.

 

[Ryan1524]

I wonder if getting the older 35mm f2 is a better investment in this case. With this new lens, the price for the old one must have dropped even more. And you can use that one with an FX body eventually.

Then again, you won't get the benefit of the newer tech Nikon has put into the new lens.

 

[leighonigar]

I wonder if getting the older 35mm f2 is a better investment in this case. With this new lens, the price for the old one must have dropped even more. And you can use that one with an FX body eventually.

Then again, you won't get the benefit of the newer tech Nikon has put into the new lens.

Or autofocus on a D40(x)/60, which is the point.

 

[compuwar]

You are supposed to be a SHOOTER, stop using the technology as a crutch.

But they spent more money! *It* has to take better pictures!

With this new lens, the price for the old one must have dropped even more.

Keep dreaming. This lens won't affect the price of the prior lens one bit.

 

[wwooden]

I was planning to get the 50mm pretty soon in the future for my D50, maybe I'll have to look into this as well. While I plan to keep my D50 for a long time, probably until it dies, I may still end up getting the 50mm over this just for the fact that it is FX.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I was planning to get the 50mm pretty soon in the future for my D50, maybe I'll have to look into this as well. While I plan to keep my D50 for a long time, probably until it dies, I may still end up getting the 50mm over this just for the fact that it is FX.

I think some people are missing the point. If you want to get the 50 mm because you'd rather spend $100 and get a lens that will be 50 mm on your CURRENT FX bodies and you want a lens that is a ~75mm on a DX body then go for it.

Just picking up a $100 50 mm NOW to use on your DX body because you hope to go FX in the future (read I don't know, when I have the money) is not so bright.

The announced 35mm isn't the end all be all of DX optics, but skip it for reasons other than "I plan on going FX in two years and DX is dead" because so far, FX starts at $2700 body only, and other than the 24-120, you'll have to drop $1500+ for a standard zoom.

 

[Cliff3]

The announced 35mm isn't the end all be all of DX optics, but skip it for reasons other than "I plan on going FX in two years and DX is dead" because so far, FX starts at $2700 body only, and other than the 24-120, you'll have to drop $1500+ for a standard zoom.

FWIW, at $350 a copy I suspect the Tamron 28-75 will be the budget solution to mid-range zooms on FX cameras. I would also imagine Nikon will freshen the 24-120 at some point. That lens has never been well received and based on what I read on the forums, a lot of Nikon's D700 customers don't seem to be too well set for lenses.

 

[Digital Skunk]

FWIW, at $350 a copy I suspect the Tamron 28-75 will be the budget solution to mid-range zooms on FX cameras. I would also imagine Nikon will freshen the 24-120 at some point. That lens has never been well received and based on what I read on the forums, a lot of Nikon's D700 customers don't seem to be too well set for lenses.

Right, that is the case. Nikon will have to make the budget side of their FX lenses more extensive, OR just leave the budget/amateur shooter to choose between the DX system and FX system and swallow the costs. I see Nikon doing the later for years to come.

The D700 to me is really a body for freelancers and other professional outlets that can afford not only the body but the glass as well. Either Nikon or 3rd party. As of now, shooters have to realize that the extra two stops of exposure you get with the FX sensor may not be worth the $1300 price tag if they aren't using their gear to make them money.

To make it easier for some.... my opinion is this:

Go FX if you have the cash and the financial need. Otherwise, nothing is wrong with the DX lineup. Don't drool over FX simply because it's FX and you want a sweet body to throw a 50 mm 1.8 on and a soft as hell 24-120 in the bag.

 

[Cliff3]

Don't drool over FX simply because it's FX and you want a sweet body to throw a 50 mm 1.8 on and a soft as hell 24-120 in the bag.

True that. But, I would imagine as FX sensor costs come down consumer-priced lenses will be made available to mate up with newly released bodies.

FX is going to be even less tolerant of cheap glass than the better DX cameras. I recall Rorslett's review when the D2X came out and one of his biggest caveats in the review was that the camera will expose all the flaws in your otherwise good glass. Of course, a DX format sensor is just using the center of the glass. FX sensors are going to expose all the flaws at the edges of the image circle now too.

 

[Digital Skunk]

True that. But, I would imagine as FX sensor costs come down consumer-priced lenses will be made available to mate up with newly released bodies.

FX is going to be even less tolerant of cheap glass than the better DX cameras. I recall Rorslett's review when the D2X came out and one of his biggest caveats in the review was that the camera will expose all the flaws in your otherwise good glass. Of course, a DX format sensor is just using the center of the glass. FX sensors are going to expose all the flaws at the edges of the image circle now too.

Right, and by the time FX comes down in price enough to be found in the D40xs the $200 spent on a 35mm will be a moot point. Like one poster said, planning on it in two years when a possible 24MP D900 makes the D300-->Dx00 series obsolete and discontinued is realistic.

And that last point is evident in the vignetting of the 70-200 on the D3. We had sensors that resolved images far better than film since the D200 and D2x. The quality of the D3 and current FX sensors is really going to show the limitations of certain pieces of glass.

Reminds me of purchasing an F5, Velvia 200 and a Quantaray lens.

 

[seedster2]

Yes, I can't believe some of the retards here actually trying to justify that a D40 is limited in TAKING PICTURES.... but whatever, that's why you go from the D40 to the D700 and continue taking crap images.

Seriously, this 35mm has already been ordered by yours truly, been looking for an AF-S DX version of the 50 for a good while, and it's finally here. I plan on using my D2xs and D2 series bodies for a while yet, until the D4 and D800, and even after that the partner in crime will still be making magic with her D90 and D90 replacement.

Personally, I am looking for a used D40 now that I can strap a cheap standard AF-S on the front of it that's below 50mm and is small as hell. I know this thing will get used more often that not.

I am picking one up from B&H soon too.

BTW, I'm selling my 3 month old d40 if you're interested

 

[rogersmj]

Hey don't leave me out! My D40 is for sale in Marketplace too

 

[Analog Kid]

It's about time Nikon filled this gap in their lineup... Of course they did it a month after I finally took a chance on the Sigma 30mm 1.4. So far I'm happy with the Sigma, but wouldn't have minded saving a few bucks. The impossibly narrow DOF at full aperture can be kind of nice though, and I did buy it for low light shooting so I guess the extra stop was worth something.

 

[drlunanerd]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy - Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G preview image samples

Edit: hmm, pretty dull photos, many seem underexposed so can't really get a good impression of the lens. Will wait for a full review.

 

[woolyback]

Has anyone got one of these yet ?

I'm over in the States next week with work and was hoping to pick one up if (a) available, and (b) worth it ?