Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g

Started Feb 10, 2012 | Discussions
meon64
Junior MemberPosts: 37
Like?
Re: 35 1.8g with out a doubt
In reply to Steve87, Feb 13, 2012

I use the 35 f2 on my D700 and love it. It's not at it's best wide open like most lenses but stopped down performs brilliantly. The minimum focussing distance is a real plus.. Enjoy..

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Angelo78
Contributing MemberPosts: 580
Like?
Great choice! I have both and the 35 1.8 is being sold.
In reply to Steve87, Feb 18, 2012

I've had the 35 f/2 since my D100 days and still love it. Last year I bought a D7000 and thought I would try the 35 1.8G since it has many positive reviews for DX cameras. Well, just shy of a year later and I'm selling the 1.8 because I just don't care for it as much.

Enjoy!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Pitts
Senior MemberPosts: 2,089
Like?
Re: I have both:
In reply to Fred Mueller, Feb 18, 2012

....35 1.8 on my D300s, and 35 f/2 on my D700...works for me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pixelless
Contributing MemberPosts: 598
Like?
Re: I have both:
In reply to Doug Pitts, Feb 20, 2012

from what I read they are 2 very different lenses that work for different purposes.
One is DX and, the other FX;
One is sharper at larger apertures, the other at smaller apertures;

FX and/or "landscape type shooting" = 35/2
DX and/or "low light/small DoF type shooting = 35/1.8

I never shot with the 35/2, but the 1.8 is SO sharp at large apertures that is hard to believe how cheap it is...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PSCL1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,471Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Fullframer, Feb 23, 2012

Definitely the 35 f2 if you think you'll upgrade. I went that route, don't regret it, and echo all the positives which previous posters mentioned. Don't undervalue the near-macro close focusing capability. I've also used the 35 f1.8 DX on my D80 and I like the look of the old 35 f2 much better.

 PSCL1's gear list:PSCL1's gear list
Leica X1 Nikon D80 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Sony Alpha NEX-3N +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cabo
Contributing MemberPosts: 575
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Steve87, Feb 23, 2012

The 35/2 is a very old design and not really great. I used it on a D700 for a short time and then sold it. The newer 35/1.4 AF-S is in a different league, but of course a lot more expensive.

On an APS-C body the 35/1.8 DX is actually pretty good. Much better at wider apertures than the 35/2 was (I tried them on a D90).
--
Carsten Bockermann

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,429Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to cabo, Feb 24, 2012

You might should have kept that old 35 f/2. Starting at f/5.6 it begins to become a Rock Star. At f/8 and f/11 it is so close to the 35 f/1.4 in image quality you can't tell the difference. It's just that good. Distortion, CAs, Bokeh Fringing and about anything else is virtually zero at those focal lengths. The only place where the 35 f/2 is really poor is at f/2 and lightly smaller. At f/2.8 she starts getting better. At f/4 she's as good as any other consumer lens. After that there are few peers. She even outperforms the 24-70 f/2.8 at f/8 and by a pretty decent margin.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
1984Landcruiser
Regular MemberPosts: 310
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Steve87, Feb 24, 2012

I own both, and I have found the 35 f1.8 to be a much better lens (at least on DX). It is much sharper wide open than the 35 f2.

David - a Colorado Nikonian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
echelon2004
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,105
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Steve87, Feb 24, 2012

On dx the 1.8 is an excellent lens. On fx the 2.0 won't be very good either way so you'll need the 1.4 or a zoom such as 24-70.
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Shepherd
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,927Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Steve87, Feb 24, 2012

Do you want top quality wide open on FX?

If yes the 35mm f2 is, by modern standards, one of Nikon's poorest performing lenses wide open - http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/wide/af_35mmf_2d/index.htm

As the lens design seems to be 1988 it is not surprising lenses like the 35mm f1.4 G easily score optically better at f1.4.

My advice is get the DX lens because it is optically better wide open on DX than the cropped central area of the FX lens.

If you eventually get an FX body you can choose from what might be available in the future - and easily sell the DX lens because as it is an outstanding performer.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Photography could be easier - if cameras and lenses came with an increase in skill button.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Windancer
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,648Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to cabo, Feb 24, 2012

cabo wrote:

The 35/2 is a very old design and not really great.

Agreed an old but IMO a good design, this is an old image using a 35/2 on a D100 and IMO is very sharp. Personally I have been quite happy with mine but as always others may differ.

Date/Time 23-Jun-2003 16:21:40
Make Nikon
Model D100
Flash Used No
Focal Length 35 mm
Exposure Time 1/350 sec
Aperture f/8
ISO Equivalent 200
Metering Mode matrix (5)

Terry

-- hide signature --

Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham

Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.

 Windancer's gear list:Windancer's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon 1 V2 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mbecke
Regular MemberPosts: 361
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Leonard Shepherd, Feb 25, 2012

Leonard, You need to be careful categorizing lenses as you do. In point of fact, I doubt very much you could tell the difference between the expensive 35 f 1.4G lens and the older, much less expensive 35 f2 lens at apertures greater than about f5.6 or so. Yes, the 1.4G is better wide open. But. arguably, the f2 is better at f8; i.e., better contrast, color rendition, and presents the old Nikon style/rendition better than the 1.4G version. Frankly, at f4+, i prefer the f2. Wide open, the 1.4G. So your broad brush opinion is not necessarily accurate here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,429Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Windancer, Feb 25, 2012

Wow, Terry, darn nice image again. I love it. Very clean colors and beautiful composition.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Windancer
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,648Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Guidenet, Feb 25, 2012

Guidenet wrote:

Wow, Terry, darn nice image again. I love it. Very clean colors and beautiful composition.

Thank you very much Craig, I like it too. Argueably one of the most photographed churches in Canada, it still has services every Sunday. It is in the middle of nowhere, of course in this area of Canada, what isn't?

The point I was trying to make and it may not have come across very well is that the 35/2 may be an old design but IMO anyways it seems to be a good one. Being more of a landscape photographer with this paricular lens it is seldom that I would shoot wide open with this lens so I won't comment on it's performance wide open, but when it is stopped down IMO it is a fine lens.

I do not have any personal experience with the 35/1.8 so I can't comment on it, but I do have lots of 35/2 experience and IMO it is very good obviously others will differ and that' fine.

Terry

-- hide signature --

Graham Fine Art Photraigography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham

Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.

 Windancer's gear list:Windancer's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon 1 V2 +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,429Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Windancer, Feb 25, 2012

Windancer wrote:

with this lens so I won't comment on it's performance wide open, but when it is stopped down IMO it is a fine lens.

I do not have any personal experience with the 35/1.8 so I can't comment on it, but I do have lots of 35/2 experience and IMO it is very good obviously others will differ and that' fine.

I completely agree with you. Stopped down, I think the 35 f/2 is an amazing little lens, especially for landscape work. I've used one for a fairly long while. I also bought the 35 f/1.8 for both Jan and my daughter. It's a better lens wide open, but that's its primary advantage. If I were a DX shooter only, I'd probably go there. It doesn't lag too far behind the 35 f/2 stopped down. One problem with it though is it doesn't have markings on it for much like there's not distance scale or depth of field scale. There's not even an IR focus point.

I think that a lot of people read a review or so and automatically say the 35 f/1.8 should be purchased over the 35 f/2 without knowing or understanding the older lens's advantages.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Andy G
Senior MemberPosts: 1,048Gear list
Like?
Re: Torn between the 35 f/2 and 35 1.8g
In reply to Fullframer, Feb 25, 2012

If you're planning on upgrading to FF, don't buy DX lenses. It's a false economy. That being said, if you're on your last DX body, having a DX lens to sell with the camera may be an acceptable trade off.

-- hide signature --

Never mention bokeh to me.

 The Andy G's gear list:The Andy G's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads