Previous page Next page

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Lab Test Review

June 2014 | By Andy Westlake
Buy on Amazon.com From $596.95

The AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G was announced at the beginning of 2014. It joins a growing family of modernised full-frame primes from Nikon with the same maximum aperture, alongside the AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G, AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G and AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G. At around $600 / £500 at the time of writing, it looks well matched to 'budget' full frame cameras like the Nikon D610, on which it will offer a classic moderate wideangle view.

The 35mm f/1.8G can also be used on DX format cameras, on which it will give a 'normal' perspective similar to that of a 50mm lens on full frame. However for DX shooters, Nikon also offers the confusingly similarly-named, but rather cheaper ($200 / £150) AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, which we liked a lot when we reviewed it back in 2009 (note the extra 'DX' in its title). At the opposite end of the scale, Nikon also makes the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G, which is half a stop faster and substantially more expensive (£1250 / $1620). The other lens which should be on any potential buyer's radar is the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM, which deservedly won our Gold Award in our review, and at around $810 / £670 costs only slightly more.

Click here for a detailed specification comparison of these Nikon-mount AF 35mm primes

Clearly there's plenty of choice in this area, albeit across a wide price range. In this quick report we'll look at how the 35mm f/1.8G stands up against its peers in terms of lab test data. We'll mainly look at how it performs on full frame cameras, but we'll also take a quick look at how it compares to the cheaper DX lens.

Headline features

  • 35mm focal length
  • F1.8 maximum aperture
  • 'Silent wave' focus motor with full-time manual override
  • F mount FX format lens, works on both DX and FX format Nikon SLRs

Lens test data

The 35mm F1.8 returns excellent test results on the D800. It's impressively sharp, exhibits relatively low chromatic aberration and distortion, and has acceptable levels of vignetting. If anything it looks a touch sharper here than the more expensive AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G when compared like-for-like, and is very close to the benchmark Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM, which is one of the sharpest lenses we've tested.

Sharpness Central sharpness is already very high wide open, and while the corners aren't quite so great, they're still perfectly acceptable. The lens sharpens up quickly on stopping down, reaching its overall peak at F2.8. There's then little practical change at apertures through to F8, beyond which diffraction starts to soften the image. But even F16 should be sharp enough for most purposes, especially when extended depth if field is desirable.
Chromatic Aberration Lateral chromatic aberration is reasonably well controlled for a 35mm prime. It's not lowest in class, but neither is it excessive. Nikon SLRs will remove any resultant colour fringing in their JPEG processing anyway, as will the company's own Raw processing software. However if you use third-party Raw converters you may notice some red/cyan fringing towards the edges of the frame. But again, it usually takes just one mouse click to correct it.
Vignetting Vignetting is pretty much as we'd expect for this kind of lens, at a maximum of 1.7 stops falloff in the corners, when shot wide open on full frame. The gradual falloff profile means it's unlikely to be visually intrusive most of the time, in comparison to lenses which show abrupt darkening in the corners. Stop down to F2.8 or smaller aperture, and vignetting drops to visually insignificant levels.
Distortion The 35mm shows modest barrel distortion, with re-correction at the corners to help keep straight lines at the edge of the frame looking right. It will likely only need any software correction for the most highly-geometric of compositions.

The 35mm F1.8 generally compares well to other full frame 35mm primes. It perhaps can't quite match the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM for sharpness and lack of CA at the same apertures, but it's close enough that you'd probably struggle to see much difference in a print. On the other hand, compared to the more expensive AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G it actually looks a touch sharper in these tests, although again we're not completely convinced you'd easily see that in real-world use. It is however a clear improvement over the much older AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D.

Comparing the lens to its cheaper DX counterpart, it's similarly sharp both wide open and stopped down to F5.6 (apologies for the lack of in-between data for the DX model). The full frame lens does however show distinctly lower lateral chromatic aberration when stopped down to ~F5.6, and slightly lower distortion. But on balance, we'd still consider the cheaper lens to be the obvious choice for users of DX SLRs, unless they're seriously planning on moving to full frame in the near future.

Another interesting comparison is with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, which is a touch slower in terms of maximum aperture, but on the other hand has image stabilisation built-in. There's very little between the two lenses optically; the Nikon has perhaps slightly sharper corners at large apertures, but the Canon has lower CA. This means that Canon users pay no significant penalty in terms of image quality for the benefit of image stabilisation (and right now the lenses are similarly priced, too).

Summary

From the lab test data, the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G looks a like a fine lens that compares pretty well with other recent 35mm primes in terms of optical quality. Indeed these results show it to be right in the middle of the pack - perhaps not quite up with the very best, but not all that far behind either, and notably better than older lenses. It therefore looks like it should be a good choice for Nikon FX shooters who don't want to shell out for its F1.4 sibling, or DX users who have an eye on upgrading soon. However we'd also recommend looking very closely at the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM if budget permits.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format size35mm FF
Focal length35 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountNikon F (FX)
Aperture
Maximum apertureF1.8
Minimum apertureF16.0
Aperture ringNo
Number of diaphragm blades7
Aperture notesrounded
Optics
Elements11
Groups8
Special elements / coatings1 ED glass element, 1 aspheric element
Focus
Minimum focus0.25 m (9.84)
Maximum magnification0.24×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeRing-type ultrasonic
Full time manualYes
Focus methodInternal
Distance scaleYes
DoF scaleYes
Physical
Weight305 g (0.67 lb)
Diameter72 mm (2.83)
Length72 mm (2.83)
Filter thread58 mm
Hood suppliedYes
Hood product codeHB-70
Tripod collarNo


This lens review uses DxOMark data thanks to a partnership between dpreview.com and DxO Labs (read more about DxOMark and our partnership with DxO Labs). DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for independent image quality measurements and ratings. DxOMark has established this reputation with its rigorous hardware testing, industry-grade laboratory tools, and database of thousands of camera, lens and mobile test results. Full test results for this lens can be found at www.dxomark.com.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
98
I own it
50
I want it
15
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 79
munro harrap

There should come a point at which there is no vignetting. A lens designed to cover the sensor properly would have no vignetting even wide open. As they charge now so much money, perhaps we could get them to design for full-frame. I do not care if it is bigger and heavier, but I do care if it always vignettes. DX review shows it still vignettes a third of a stop at f11. I have zooms that are better than this.

If you use primes quality is now the sole criterion> I want primes that ALWAYS cover the sensor> I want zooms that do as well- remember the 70-200f2.8G VRI?

3 upvotes
Goodmeme

Fair enough. But software fixes most vignetting, and I personally care more about size, weight and other image quality characteristics like colour and contrast.

2 upvotes
Tonio Loewald

Can you name a single prime lens that has no vignetting when wide open?

1 upvote
BarnET

Sony 135mm f2.8
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/737-sony135f28ff?start=1
It is a strange optical design with a very slow t-stop though.

0 upvotes
JT986

I love vignetting, i often add more with photoshop.
Not saying you're wrong to dislike vignetting.
Like Goodmeme said, Photoshop it !

0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald

@BarnET — interesting (and interesting about the low t-stop — f2.8 -> t4.5)! Wide angle lenses tend to have far more optical problems (including vignetting) so if there were going to be a near-perfect lens in this regard, it's no surprise it's a telephoto.

0 upvotes
BarnET

they asked about a lens with no vignetting wide-open.
So i gave the only one i know about.

0 upvotes
marc petzold

A great lens i've wished for years ago...when i'd decide to go FX...but now, FX is too expensive for me, i gone via LensTurbo and Contax Zeiss 35/2.8, which does the job well for me.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
stevo23

I'll never understand DPR's timing with reviews. This lens has been reviewed and tested already by so many.

2 upvotes
Joerg V

The more reviews the better for us [potential] customers.

2 upvotes
maxnimo

What I find funny is dishing out any money for a wide angle lens with soft and/or distorted corners. If your corners are soft and/or distorted then what's the point of even using wide angle? Now if you take a portrait of a single face then soft and/or distorted corners can be acceptable, but what idiot would use wide angle for a face shot? And for a group photo such a lens would only be acceptable if you hate the subjects on either side and want them to be soft and/or distorted on purpose. And for architecture and landscapes... don't even get me started.

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200

this lens is very sharp in the corners. all widelens are going to have some distorition

3 upvotes
jadmaister2

which 35mm doesn't? Do you have a lens to suggest that's razor sharp corner to corner at this price?

1 upvote
PatMann

Then get a view camera with a symmetrical lens. I'm not aware of a single modern wide prime for reflex cameras that doesn't have significant distortion. Sorry. There are some zooms that have a sweet spot for distortion in the middle of their focal range, but most have softer corners than the primes.

0 upvotes
km25

What they should test is the Canon 35mm IS F2.0, it is a little nicer. The telling line in the report is that in a print, actual use. You cannot tell the difference from the most any other well made 35mm lens. Bottom line is that Nikon now has a good F2.0 35mm. The next step would to improve the old 35mm F1.4. For $600.00 it is a fine lens. As for architecture, you would shoot wider, with control lens.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
nerd2

Funny fact: you can just use DX version of 35mm 1.8G lens that costs less than 1/3. Yes you'll get bad corners (with non-removable vignetting) though.

0 upvotes
Summi Luchs

Funny, yes. But it makes no sense to shell out the money for a FF camera an then accept bad corners.

3 upvotes
Pallke

Only nerds will mount a DX lens on a FX DSLR.
Really funny, isn't it ?

0 upvotes
nerd2

It works with very little vignetting, and has excellent center sharpness. Then why not?

0 upvotes
Madaboutpix

For specific aplications or subjects where the main interest is in the centre and vignetting welcome, such DX-on-FX experiments may be viable. However, for general shooting, it just doesn't make an awful lot of sense. There're reasons behind different lens designs for APS-C and FF, and they're to do with physics (not exclusively with making money, as the conspiracy therorists will be quick to argue).

It's actually quite simple. If you really think you need FF for your photography, and you may have your reasons, you should be willing to pay the price: more size, more weight, higher investment (usually).

I'm not saying that you mustn't and shouldn't experiment. My point is just that some experiments make more sense than others - at least, where IQ matters ...

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter

"It's actually quite simple. If you really think you need FF for your photography, and you may have your reasons, you should be willing to pay the price: more size, more weight, higher investment (usually)."

Funny, the 50/1.8 which on FF does a better job than 35/1.8 on crop weighs and costs less...

0 upvotes
Madaboutpix

@Just another Canon shooter: Granted, you found an exception to the rule. That's why I added the cautionary "usually".

I suppose that, in order to achieve the equivalent angle, the 35/1.8 for APS-C needs a more complicated (retrofocal) design than its 50/1.8 FF cousin.

Witty riposte, though. ;)

1 upvote
CaseyComo

OK, I'll only say this once...does sharpness in the corners, especially wide open, matter much at all? If I'm shooting wide open, it's either because the light is low, in which case I'm going for atmospheric or capturing the moment, or I want to blur the background, so my corners are deliberately as soft as possible.

Are some of you shooting forensics or architecture with a fast, medium-to-wide prime? Is the interest in your photos all in the corners? You may be doing it wrong.

0 upvotes
gsum

These DXO tests are hopeless as their results do not correlate with 'real world' results. Please DPR provide some image samples and dump DXO.

2 upvotes
HFLM

? You have the chance to look into the detailed measurements, too. That's what I find very useful. I find it very helpful to get a first hint of whether it is worth looking at certain lenses in more detail. So far it correlated with my experience. Real world measurements are nice, but depending strongly on photographer, situation, light...

0 upvotes
attomole

The elephant not in the room is the classic Nikon 35mm f2, available for about half the price

0 upvotes
SportsPhotoGuy

"It is however a clear improvement over the much older AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D."

0 upvotes
attomole
0 upvotes
ekaton

Either performance should be better or the price lower. The package as it is offered by Nikon currently is not compelling. Still waiting for the "right" 35mm for my fun camera, the Df. The Sigma is too heavy.

1 upvote
beavertown

How super embarrassing for Nikon!

Sigma 35mm scored an astonishing 43, while this Nikon 35mm scored sadly 36.

No wonder Nikon has been switching off some Sigma lenses since the D5200 released, as they know the Art lenses perform better than their overpriced lenses optically and properly better in many ways.

The once laughing stock has become the king of lenses.

Watch out Canon, they may surpass you someday as they have already surpassed Nikon.

2 upvotes
BarnET

The sigma 24-105 destroys the 24-105L
The sigma 50mm art makes fun of the 50 1.2L
The sigma 35mm art kills the 35 1.4L

It's already happening.

5 upvotes
HFLM

Sigma's lenses are very recent ones. How old is the 50/1.2?
I don't see it as embarrassment. Instead I find it to be a very interesting lens, sharpness is only slightly worse, it's cheaper and at 300g a perfect travel companion.

0 upvotes
LarryK

What? thanks for tipping me off! I haven't checked lenses in a while, and I've always wanted a 24-105 for my Nikons.

I'll gladly send my Money to Sigma since they appear to be paying attention.

And yeah, the Canon could be better, but it's all there was at one time.

0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald

@LarryK — yes Nikon merely offers you the higher-performing 24-120mm f4 (yes, it's pricier). The Sigma appears to be significantly sharper than the Nikon or Canon lenses.

0 upvotes
LarryK

The Nikkor 24-120 is a piece of junk, my friend was foolish enough to buy one.

0 upvotes
HFLM

LarryK: Harsh comment, the test results show decent results, similar to the Sigma in the center, edges on FF are a little worse. So no junk at all. It would be interesting to see somebody like you do tests for us all as you seem to be a lot more knowledgeable.

0 upvotes
BarnET

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1
look at the resolution chart.
It's not junk at all focal lengths but it's at some.
The Sigma is simply the better option.

0 upvotes
LarryK

No, it's junk, I've never seen a good one in person. I think reviewers are getting bought off. I've owned Nikon for forty years, and I don't apologize for their shortcomings, they've made plenty of turkeys over the years.

If you'd like to buy my friend's, I'm sure he'd be glad to get rid of it.

0 upvotes
BarnET

Yeah photo zone is played off and your telling the truth.
The review isn't really positive showing wildly varying results at different focal lengths.

The thing is that the canon 24-105mm is better but not by much. That is also a mediocre lens. The sigma easily beats both.

0 upvotes
Stanchung

If it's cheaper than the sigma, I'll get this.
Wait, it is cheaper but not by much. :(

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
RichRMA

Dear Nikon; please explain why the FF lens is almost 3 TIMES the price of the DX 35mm? Why are FF owners always treated by Nikon like pigs to slaughter?

1 upvote
The Name is Bond

Because a good wide-angle is harder to make. 35mm on DX is an easy-to-make normal not wide-angle. In addition the FX lens has been designed for quality super high resolution that a D800 user might need whereas the DX 35mm is more a consumer lens with good but not great performance.

You can see how different they are just looking down the barrel. The 35mm FX has that classic wide-angle lens look while the DX looks like a typical normal.

2 upvotes
HFLM

+ED glass

0 upvotes
munro harrap

No, they are the same. All you do is scale up or down. The DX 35mm f1.8 is not a wide-angle lens, but the same roughly as the 50mm f1.8 nikkor on full-frame. On DX though, you cannot call it a 50mm. The 50mm f1.8G costs the same as the 35mm f1.8 G DX lens.

AS that is all they do though, the 16-85mm DX lens could just be scaled up for full-frame at the same price!!

Of course they should be the same price.
And remember what prices were a few years ago. Then only Leitz were overcharging, now everyone is copying Leitz, Sigma especially.

You now pay at least 50% more than you used to for the same 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8 lenses, and the primes are being treated to Leitz prices.

And no, it is not inflation. A bit is exchange rates. The rest, greed.
And making wide-angles is no more difficult than primes. Once designed they are the same. You might pay more for what- a few trace elements? Rubbish!! Do you pay more for Fluorine in your toothpaste or water?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
forpetessake

If 2000 lph is usually considered an excellent performance the lens only becomes excellent at f/2.8 and not the whole frame either.

0 upvotes
The Name is Bond

Er, bokeh?

Actually, forget it. Dpreview bokeh tests are clueless and useless; such as flowers and vegetation. Take the lens to a bicycle shop and then we'll see about bokeh.

2 upvotes
The Davinator

I find most pros shooting portraiture, and who are concerned about bokeh, have flowers or vegetation in the background....not bikes. Clueless indeed....just not them.

6 upvotes
The Name is Bond

Why...thanks for that. But we're not all pros.

It kinda seems obvious that to test the bokeh one......puts it to the test. How about that for an original thought. Flowers and vegetation don't do that.

And even pros take pics in other circumstances.

0 upvotes
The Davinator

As that wouldn't be a normal background, it would hardly be representative of the norm. Torture testing a lens proves nothing. Kind of like saying we should test it underwater in the dark to see how it does....who cares. Pros seem to understand this, as does DPReview. Possibly think of that before you throw around "clueless" jabs.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
The Name is Bond

It's a test, of course it should be hard in order to be revealing. Testing against something guaranteed to make even a poor-bokeh lens look good makes no sense.

There's no such thing as a 'normal' background. Even a pro may find themselves with less than ideal conditions that they can do little about. Think event photography.

As a test, it should be hard and fully reveal the qualities of the lens, and whose value is in the comparison with how other lenses do, not in isolation. A bikeshop is good for that, and will clearly demonstrate how bright highlights and lines will look in real photos.

0 upvotes
David Kinston

Waiting for fast standard/wide lenses with VR.
Come on, Nikon!

0 upvotes
DStudio

This is good, but will there be some photos coming so we can actually evaluate the lens?

I'd rather have photos than measurements, if I had to choose. DPR frequently takes photos designed to show off (or show up) the characteristics of a lens.

3 upvotes
Eric Calabros

Sharpness is good enough for %99 of the buyers, Nikon should do something about CA

3 upvotes
Alan Jervis

What a strange new world we're in when the lens to beat is a Sigma and the Nikkor struggles!

4 upvotes
DStudio

As is a world where we can judge which lens is better merely on paper.

3 upvotes
Jogger

They should just use the Sony A7r as the standard platform for all FF lens tests.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

This sounds great, until you start having to think about actually *doing* it. First of all, using any adapter will affect the results, as Roger Cicala has so elegantly shown. Secondly, how would you propose to set the aperture of a Nikon lens *properly* accurately and reproducibly on an A7R (so you can so the test with a high degree of confidence in a reasonable time)?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
steelhead3

Maybe Nikon will make an adapter for the A7 like Sony did for A mount lenses with their mechanical Aperture?

0 upvotes
jerome_munich

"how would you propose to set the aperture of a Nikon lens properly accurately and reproducibly on an A7R"

by using the meter? (just a thought)

0 upvotes
The Name is Bond

Lensrentals shows that differences in the thickness of glass in front of the sensor has a major effect on test results, especially on wide-angles.

0 upvotes
forpetessake

Forget the technical hurdles, assume they do the testing on A7r. And how is that supposed to correlate with the result on Nikon bodies? Or you think that it's Sony users who are buying Nikon G lenses.

0 upvotes
fortwodriver

"By using the meter..." Really? Do you have any idea how a G lens works? It's got no mechanical control for aperture. You would need an adaptor with a mechanical aperture ring which converts the dialled in aperture to the electronic signal that G lens requires to set it precisely.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

If you illuminate your test chart with a constant light source, then it's true that in principle you can set the aperture of a G lens by watching the canera's metered shutter speed. But it's not terribly accurate, and incompatible with the rest of DxOMark's testing method (which relies on flash exposure of the chart in a darkened room, and of course aperture information in the EXIF for the automated data analysis).

None of this is theoretically insurmountable, but it's just hugely impractical.

0 upvotes
jerome_munich

To fortwodriver
I certainly have an idea how a G lens works. They use a mechanical actuating lever, like all F-mount lenses. You are confusing with Canon lenses.

Adapters for Nikon lenses usually have a mechanical ring to push that lever. Andy Westlake was pointing that on these adapter rings, there are no markings for aperture stops. I was pointing out that the reading of the meter can be used to estimate the aperture very precisely.

To Andy Westlake
I had not realised that you used flash. Indeed the meter is impractical in that case.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jhinkey

Disappointing off-center for us landscape-types. What's the impediment to designing a lens that is sharp across the frame when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8? Wide open I can deal with sharpness fall-off, but at f/8 really?

Lots of lens bloat . . .

2 upvotes
Dré de Man

The lens IS sharp across the frame, just like the Zeiss lenses on the Sony 7R in similar tests on DPR. What the graph shows is not resolution or sharpness. It is just some highly disputable value, calculated based on the amount of line pairs per mm that can be rendered at 50% of the contrast value. If just change PP or sharpening only very slightly, you get completely different results. Personally I use (amongst other test methods) old fashioned resolution tests and get differences of 10% or less at the best f/stops. These so called MTF 50 tests are a curse.

3 upvotes
JordanAT

That's one big lens (and big pricetag) for something as (optically) pedestrian as a 35/1.8. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were making the lenses intentionally larger and heavier than they needed to be to justify the price and make the photogs feel like they had a "big"lens.

0 upvotes
LarryK

I bought the last one they brought out, and was surprised when my old f2 was so much better.

Nikon should quit bringing out "me too" lenses at premium prices.

2 upvotes
JordanAT

I suspect it's an easy way to pad the bottom line.

1 upvote
DStudio

It's an FX lens with a built-in AF motor, after all.

Nikon offers something Canon is almost completely devoid of: a mid-range line with appropriately high image quality.

This is the reason for the old saying "Nikon has better lenses than Canon." It's certainly not based on the high-end, where either one could be preferred.

0 upvotes
viking79

Price looks good to me, 35mm f/1.8 (full frame) for $600 which performs at least as good or better than the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 G and close to the still much more expensive Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

Sure, I probably wouldn't use it on APS-C as there are other choices, but this looks pretty good.

1 upvote
Alastair Norcross

DStudio, I presume your post is ironic. The Canon 35 F2 IS is cheaper, just as good optically, if not better, has IS, and is only 1/3 stop slower.
And as for the old saying "Nikon has better lenses than Canon", I've never heard it before your post. Is it an old saying, because you've been saying it for a long time? I've often heard the opposite claim, but I suspect that the differences aren't significant either way.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DStudio

Alastair, the saying was fairly common in the film days. I heard it quite a few times before I was even involved in photography (beyond using a 35mm compact) so I'm surprised you hadn't!

I wasn't being ironic at all; I was talking about the mid-range lineup as a group. But I'm not convinced about the 35/2 IS either. While I haven't been able to study photos from this new 35/1.8 yet, I'd say the Nikon 35/1.8 DX lens, and possibly even the similar Sony 35/1.8, already produce nicer looking images. Canon mid-range lenses look like they use cheaper glass, and they probably do. They produce what looks very much like flat, plain photographs - they don't capture something "extra:" neither beauty, nor dimensionality, nor interesting or compelling lighting.

But there always seem to be those who are anxious to justify Canon's under-performance in this area.

0 upvotes
Zerixos

I'm not a fan from nowaday Nikon lenses, I think they feel to much like plas...oh wait, it is plastic. Anyway, as the old saying might be, the old lenses, like the D types preformed superior over those dated canon lenses. This gap might have been getting smaller, but overall I think Nikon lenses still get you better results as Canon’s, although Canon has some great lenses as well, but there 35 2.0 isn’t one of them, and yes, this Nikon 35 is a bit disappointing to me.

0 upvotes
snooked123

Yes Canon has 35f2 IS, but what about an updated 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and don't get me started on 28mm 1.8. And just so you know, I have shot both Canon and Nikon and believe me Canon's lenses lag far behind when it comes to Nikon 85mm 1.8, 28mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8.

0 upvotes
Robert Soderlund

D800.. which one is measured here, the camera or the lens itself? Pretty hard to compare lenses when the tests are done on different formats and cameras altogether.

Must have some sort of a standard, as in same camera for every lens.

0 upvotes
PorscheDoc

"...Must have some sort of a standard, as in same camera for every lens."

How do you test a Canon (or m43, etc) lens on a Nikon D800?

0 upvotes
InTheMist

Compare it against the Sigma 35/1.4. It was also tested on a D800.

4 upvotes
noirdesir

They compare it against the Sigma 35/1.4 tested on the D800. And then by comparing the the Sigma tested on Canon vs the Canon tested on Canon, make some inferences of the Nikon vs the Canon. What more could they do?

2 upvotes
Total comments: 79