Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon launches AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.8G for FX format SLRs

By dpreview staff on Jan 7, 2014 at 02:01 GMT
Buy on GearShop$596.95

Nikon has rounded-out its line of relatively affordable F1.8 primes for FX cameras, with the launch of the AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.8G. It uses a Silent Wave Motor for fast, quiet autofocus, and includes one ED and one aspheric element in its optical construction. It's not to be confused with the existing AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G, which is for DX format cameras only. It'll be on sale February 20th with a MSRP of $599.95.

Jump to:


Press Release:

The 35mm F1.8: A Versatile FX-Format Prime Ready for Anything

With the latest addition to Nikon’s popular F1.8 prime series of FX-format lenses, Nikon has announced the new AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G, a versatile fixed lens ready to thrive in any shooting situation. The new 35mm F1.8G lens rounds out a collection of acclaimed F1.8 lenses including the AF-S NIKKOR 28mm F1.8G, AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.8G and AF-S NIKKOR 85mm F1.8G lenses. Sporting the popular 35mm focal length and covering a 63 degree angle of view with a constant F1.8 aperture, Nikon’s newest FX-format lens delivers outstanding viewfinder clarity and high contrast while providing outstanding low-light performance and depth of field control.

Great for available light environment portraits, landscapes and travel photography as well as for producing beautiful images with soft, natural bokeh, the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G is a versatile and valuable addition to any FX-format photographer’s lens arsenal and sports the latest in core NIKKOR technologies that ensure elite performance. The lens’ construction includes one ED and one aspheric element in addition to a Silent Wave Motor to provide quiet AF operation.

"As the latest addition to the extensive NIKKOR lens line-up, the new AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G lens reinforces Nikon's commitment to providing versatile prime lens options to photographers of all levels," said Masahiro Horie, Director of Marketing and Planning, Nikon Inc.

Price and Availability

The AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G lens will be available on February 20, 2014 for a suggested retail price of $599.95*.

*SRP (Suggested Retail Price) listed only as a suggestion. Actual prices are set by dealers and are subject to change at any time.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.8G 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
41
I own it
36
I want it
8
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G

Comments

Total comments: 114
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (3 months ago)

I've been ... expecting you !

0 upvotes
the Mtn Man
By the Mtn Man (3 months ago)

"... a constant F1.8 aperture..."

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that they bothered to clarify that this fixed focal length lens has a constant aperture?

0 upvotes
Duckie
By Duckie (3 months ago)

F1.8 lenses have to be reasonably good. They can't just sell by vanity marketing. In the mean time still hanging on to the manual 1.4.

0 upvotes
pkcpga
By pkcpga (3 months ago)

As a Nikon d800e owner and a Nikon 35 1.4 owner I hope this lens is much more updated version of the 35 1.4. As the 35 1.4 is a big disappointment on my d800e, loved it on the d700 but its optics are not good enough for todays high megapixel cameras. Was hoping there would be some reviews on it soon, otherwise I guess I'll just have to pick up the sigma. Hopefully Nikon wakes up and produces lens good enough for their new cameras. Even my 24-70 2.8 is not great on the d800e, only lens I like so far are my 85 1.4 and the 70-200 2.8. Still hoping for a good wide angle lens, if anyone knows of one please let me know, prefer to stick with auto focus.

0 upvotes
NickBPhotography
By NickBPhotography (3 months ago)

A lens I always hoped they'd make. Ideal travel prime. Will look to buy once price settles.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (3 months ago)

They wouldn't dare make this better than the f/1.4 ...

0 upvotes
NickBPhotography
By NickBPhotography (3 months ago)

I donno, their F/1.8 lens are pretty good. Look at the 35mm F/1.8 DX (thought simple optically). And I was lucky to win a 50mm F/1.8 and compared it to my existing F/1.4. My copy of the F/1.8 was sharper at F/1.8 and at F/2 then the F/1.4 so the F/1.4 was sold.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

Nikon's 35/1.4G is about same as good as Canon 35/1.4L only more than a decade late (exactly 11.92 years).

both of them need to be replaced by a new version at or better than a standard set by Sigma.

0 upvotes
ChapelThrill23
By ChapelThrill23 (3 months ago)

I'll be interested to try this. I've been extremely impressed with Nikon's mid-level G series primes.

1 upvote
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (3 months ago)

I hope the quality - surely at full open aperture, that's why we buy these primes- gets finalmy beyond the level of quite a few high-end mirrorless lenses nowadays. An important diifferentiator. It is so disappointing how most Nikon primes are still coping with artifacts, chromatic abberation, coma, distortion... Don't misunderstand me, I like my Nikon D800 a lot, but f.i. my Fujifilm X has far better lenses, sharper & almost no artifacts or distortion. Many Nikon lenses offer an optical quality that didn't evolve too much since the 80's.

2 upvotes
filipe brandao
By filipe brandao (3 months ago)

It's well know that Fuji does software correction of its lens. With the notable exception of the 23 and 14, which are better optically corrected.

0 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (3 months ago)

So what? The end result is an amazing IQ that surpasses nearly every Nikkor. I'm not saying that Nikon makes bad cameras, even contrary, all Nikon FF's are excellent bodies. But when it comes to the glass, it's unacceptable that purple fringing and an elaborate distortion is still present in any 2014 range of lenses. If competition can do it, Nikon can do it as well to get to Zeiss, Leica or even Fujinon IQ. Or do we like it to put 'better than Nikon' Sigma's like the 35mm F1.4 on a D800, to make use of the full resolution?

0 upvotes
filipe brandao
By filipe brandao (3 months ago)

So what?? You were the one complaining about the quality of the nikon lenses. I never said that there is a problem with software correction, I just said that there is software correction that you don't see on Fuji X cameras because it is performed either in-camera on JPGs or embedded in RAW files.
I agree that there are many "weak" lenses in Nikon line-up, but Nikon lineup caters for so many different audiences that is unfair to make that comparison. And I don't see any problem in having to resort to third party lenses, I actually see it as an advantage.
So in the end I disagree with you, I know of many lenses in for Nikon FF that are far better than Fuji equivalents for X-mount. Yes, they are more expensive.

2 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (3 months ago)

I don't think you ever compared them. I own both and though the overall shallow depth is evidently better on a FF, the artifacts in many Nikkors are very disturbing (I'm speaking about the primes, which is even more unforgivable). Most of all the color fringing, it almost looks like Nikon took a patent on this. 'Caters up to so much audiences'... where is the consistency? Who on this world is still buying the long overdue AF/D's with no motor, very average corner performance? The only thing that is right is the price, indeed. To me, this feels like you would the cheapest tires in the shop to a full-option Mercedes, even the cheapest Nikon DSLR doesn't deserve this type of old-fashioned glass anymore. I dare to say with the hand on my heart that if many Nikkor primes out there would have the Fujinon lens-design, the world would look different.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (3 months ago)

UnChatNoir, I've compared them, being an owner of both. Some of the Fujis are optically excellent but are priced to match. Unfortunately many of the lenses with great reputations (35 and 60 spring to mind) suffer badly from CA if you look at the uncorrected RAW files. So your comparison simply isn't accurate unless you are comparing results after a trip through lightrooms CA removal tool

0 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (3 months ago)

And the Nikkors don't suffer from CA? Nikon has a patent on it. Certainly on their fast primes, some F1.4's have CA like hell. I'm not the only one to see it, hundreds of internet tests will confirm you I'm right.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (3 months ago)

and we all know CA is more or less irrelevant if we shoot RAW given the availability of tools to correct it in post. It takes all of one mouse click in lightroom...

0 upvotes
Ruud Wilschut
By Ruud Wilschut (3 months ago)

One thing for sure: I like Nikkor lenses a LOT more than Canon's offerings. I'm very impressed with the current f1.8G primes. Therefore I am very curious about this new AF-S 35mm f1.8G addition from Nikon.

0 upvotes
Ruud Wilschut
By Ruud Wilschut (3 months ago)

In addition of my former reply:

If you compare the AF-S 28mm f1.8G with the Sigma AF 35mm f1.4DG HSM they perform rather the same. In this regard, I'm convinced that the new AF-S 35mm f1.8G will perform similar.

Nikkor AF-S 28mm f1.8G:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/751-nikkorafs2818ff?start=1

Sigma AF 35mm f1.4DG HSM:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/792-sigma3514dgfx?start=1

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jylppy
By Jylppy (3 months ago)

Ah, Fanboys in the air! Since it is Nikon it _must_ be better than the independently reviewed award-winning Sigma 35mm/1.4, right? 1/1.4 aperture - who cares! Robust metal construction - plastic is lighter! ;-)

0 upvotes
ChapelThrill23
By ChapelThrill23 (3 months ago)

The Sigma costs $300 more. You should expect it to be a better lens than the cheaper and lower spec Nikon. The question a Nikon user has to ask is whether or not it is worth the extra $300. For many the Sigma will be a better fit but I suspect that the Nikon 35, based on how good the 50 1.8G and 85 1.8G are and how well they have done with reviewers, will be very good. $300 is not an insignificant amount of money.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (3 months ago)

Side by side comparison?

0 upvotes
Jylppy
By Jylppy (3 months ago)

This new Nikon might well be a great lens, but we can know it only after thorough independent testing. Before that it is pretty pointless to make strong statements what this lens might or might not be. We'll see.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (3 months ago)

The Sigma is a very good, but also very large and heavy lens. If the nikkor has equivalent or even proximate performance it will be a big seller by virtue of being smaller and lighter.

1 upvote
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (3 months ago)

At least in Europe, the difference between this overly plastic and 2/3 stop slower lens vs. the Sigma will be a about 40 Euro. Ever seen the Sigma? Its optical results? Knowing even the AF-S 35mm F1.4 doesn't come close regarding sharpness & overall lens qualities, I'm afraid this lens will become the perfect pick for the 'Only Nikon is the best' type of guys running out of the budget to buy the F1.4. But if I was Nikon there was nowhere a third party lens available that could offer a better lens IQ @ a lower price level. Get awake in Tokyo: the history is full of competent camera companies that disappeared by missing just a tad of vision in their strategies.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (3 months ago)

I own the Sigma and I'm contemplating getting the Nikon too. Why? Primarily just how good all of the Nikon 28/50/85 F1.8 models are. The 28 particularly. It wouldn't be a replacement but a complement.

The Sigma is too heavy for some purposes and certainly its about the heaviest lens I would contemplate using on my Df.

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (2 months ago)

40 Euros? I see the cheapest Sigmas in Germany to be around 720 Euros, you can preorder the new Nikon for 550 Euros.
The first reviews I saw were great.

0 upvotes
imax2k2
By imax2k2 (3 months ago)

This might help drive down the sigma a little once in a while, at around the same price, the Sigma 1.4 should be a no brainer.

1 upvote
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (3 months ago)

Nice lens, and attractive price. It is probably great optical quality. Does this suggest that current photographers are re-appreciating the benefits of top-quality prime lenses and finally moving away from the low-end do-it-all kit lenses?

1 upvote
KakoW
By KakoW (3 months ago)

Sigma 35 f/1.4 was $699 in december. I hope that Nikon is good, because for $100 more you get one of the sharpest FF lens out there.

0 upvotes
ballwin12
By ballwin12 (3 months ago)

How do you know "for $100 more you get one of the sharpest FF lens out there" if you haven't tried the new Nikon 35mm 1.8 yet????
How's about this: for $100 less, you get lighter weight, smaller size and less headache because of bad quality control ???

0 upvotes
ChapelThrill23
By ChapelThrill23 (3 months ago)

But it isn't $699 any more. BH has it for $899 now. So does Adorama. The rebates is over.

0 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (3 months ago)

@ballwin12: KakoW said "one of the sharpest FF lens [sic] out there". KakoW didn't say it was the sharpest lens.

I think he's wrong about the price, but that's it.

0 upvotes
grafli
By grafli (3 months ago)

Well this lens is obsolet with the existence of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8

0 upvotes
Wahl
By Wahl (3 months ago)

No, sorry, it's not: it's Nikon, not Sigma. It's smaller and lighter. And it's a prime. If I need a wide angle zoom, I will take the 16-35 with f/4 and VR. If I need something wide open, I'll take my primes. Just my personal opinion, nothing to worry about.

4 upvotes
Nectar D Or
By Nectar D Or (3 months ago)

No. The Nikon is FF and the Sigma can only be mounted on APSC cameras.

10 upvotes
my username was already taken

It can be mounted on FF cameras too, as the mount is the same.

2 upvotes
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (3 months ago)

But the Sigma won't give full coverage on an FX sensor, IIRC.

3 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (3 months ago)

The Sigma will give full coverage on FX and f2.8ish if used with a 1.4 tele. Far better to use Nikon primes though.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

18-35/1.8 should cover 35mm full-frame at 35mm.

0 upvotes
ChapelThrill23
By ChapelThrill23 (3 months ago)

Not really. The two are very different lenses. The Sigma is an APS-C lens. It is very good but it is not a full frame lens so it would not work for the target audience of this lens. If a Nikon user has an APS-C camera and wants a fast 35, they should consider the cheaper Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX which is around $200. The Sigma is without doubt better but the 35 1.8DX gets good reviews and is good value for money. Most APS-C users who are considering a 35mm lens in that mount would probably be cross shopping those (as well as things like the Sigma 30 1.4).

1 upvote
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (3 months ago)

groucher, can you back that up with a link? I was under the impression it wasn't a mount issue but rather that the lens only projects an image circle capable of covering a DX sensor.

yabokkie, same to you. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be 35mm, I'm saying the image circle won't be big enough.

0 upvotes
kayone
By kayone (3 months ago)

So what are FF camera owners supposed to do since the Sigma 18-35mm is made for APS-C sized sensor cameras only. I'd like to hear your response.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (3 months ago)

The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is apparently designed for APS-C sensors. We are talking about FX lenses ... aren't we?

0 upvotes
Joerg V
By Joerg V (3 months ago)

Probably good for the money, probably not as good as the Sigma.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

of course.
it says it's not as good as Sigma 35/1.4 in the spec.

1 upvote
Henderson May
By Henderson May (3 months ago)

2 people don't know what "probably" means :-)

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

it means "don't know" in the OP's context.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

No VR again. For tripod-only photographers.

1 upvote
Tap0
By Tap0 (3 months ago)

not for shaky hands from drinking too much like you...

11 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

from the specs only, I'd prefer this one than EF35/2IS.

1 upvote
dgrPhotos
By dgrPhotos (3 months ago)

You can't hand hold 35mm? Hope you don't have any serious health issues.

7 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (3 months ago)

Huh?? I've used my GX1 / Olympus 45mm f1.8 combo handheld plenty of times, and that's going to be *a lot* worse for camera shake than this lens on FF (no VR, crop sensor so have to keep the iso down, longer FL, no viewfinder, much lighter so more shaky)

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

On a 36mpix sensor, you would need 1/175s to handhold it if you follow the old role made for 1000 lines of sharpness on film. 1/210s on 24mpix APS-C.
Not quite what you can get in the dark, especially if you need some DoF. So here comes high ISO, which could be lower had this lens had VR.
And for handheld video, no stabilization means a lot of nausea. :)

0 upvotes
imax2k2
By imax2k2 (3 months ago)

I don't know, 90% of my pictures are taken without the tripod, I'm sure at least 90% of they come out just fine @100% magnification, I have 24-70/70-200 2.8 combos and 50 1.4, this is getting way exaggerated.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (3 months ago)

HEY! As a hard-drinking, shaky-handed photographer I resent the remarks made by Tap0 and demand a.... a.... nevermind.

0 upvotes
Klarth
By Klarth (3 months ago)

You have parkinson or really bad pulse

0 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (3 months ago)

What is wrong with your hands?

I'm all zen-like when I'm shooting my 50 mm . A 35 mm would be even less of an issue.

0 upvotes
Summi Luchs
By Summi Luchs (3 months ago)

Long awaited ! 20, 35 and 85mm is my favorite combo for cityscapes (including some street and portraits) since many years (way back in the film era). The 1.8 85mm is very good, the 20mm just ok. The AF-D 35mm doesn't deliver optically, while the 1.4 Nikon and Sigma lenses are too big and heavy for me. So I appreciate the new 1.8 Version and surely will buy one, at least when a resaonable street price will have settled.

So, an updated 20mm still remains on my wish list...

2 upvotes
photoschopp
By photoschopp (3 months ago)

Fully agree!

1 upvote
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

OK Nikon, now you just have to make a 24/1.8 and then you can get on to more important matters:
16/2.8 AFS fisheye
20/2.8 AFS
45/2.8 AFS (compact please)
135/1.8AFS
400/5.6AFS VR
and then you'll get some of my cash.

3 upvotes
Rbrt
By Rbrt (3 months ago)

My vote would be for the 135 - looooong overdue.

3 upvotes
goshigoo
By goshigoo (3 months ago)

I don't think you will see 135/1.8; it should be 135/2....

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

no f/2.8 primes are needed except for super wide/super tele.
just take 24-70/2.8 or wait for version 2.

2 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

Well, I would like some f/2.8 primes IF they are far more compact than the current f/1.8 primes. With the high ISO capability of today's FX cameras f/2.8 will do in many situations.
For what I do I don't like having a 16-35/4 or a 17-35/2.8 hanging on the camera while out and about (hiking, climbing, skiing, etc.) and I nearly always used them stopped down anyways.
Oh, and the Nikon patent for the 135mm is for f/1.8 so I assume that is what they will eventually release.

1 upvote
HobbiesAreFun
By HobbiesAreFun (3 months ago)

Why not a 135mm f/1.8, goshigoo? Zeiss made an AF one for the sony A mount, so it's not like it can't be done, and done well.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

> Zeiss made an AF one for the sony A mount

Zeiss is only a promotional website
for third-class Japanese makers.

1 upvote
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

So, you are saying that the Zeiss 135/2 ZE or ZF.2 is a third class lens?

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (3 months ago)

"Zeiss is only a promotional website for third-class Japanese makers."

This site desperately needs a way to ignore idiots in the article comments as well.

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (3 months ago)

If you need a 135 1.8 why don't you pick up the 135DC? I bet it is cheaper than the eventual price of the f/1.8 version.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (3 months ago)

The 135/2D DC is not that great of a lens. Poor AF accuracy, CA, and no sharper than my 135/2 AIS - I've owned them both and still have the AIS. Looking for something better at f/2 and 135mm - Zeiss is the ticket, but oh its a very dear ticket without AF or VR.
I wonder why Nikon has delayed the 135/1.8?

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (3 months ago)

The lens that really needs updating, rather than the infrequently used 135, is the 20mm F2.8. No question about that.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (3 months ago)

Wish I had a lens like that for Sony A-mount. The current 35mm F1.8 SAM is a good lens but sadly it's only APS-C. And looking for an outdated Minolta AF 35mm f/2 right now it's a little bit crazy considering how high people sell that lens on ebay. And the current Sony 35mm F1.4 G SSM it's a little bit pricey for an outdated Minolta lens (yes, it's reported to be almost the same thing).

Sony needs to up their game offering some mid-tier lenses like 85mm F1.8 and 35mm F2.0. You either have a very good 85mm F2.8 SAM for Fullframe cameras or a pricey 85mm F1.4 ZA without SSM. And you have an APS-C only 35mm F1.8 SAM or a pricey outdated Fullframe 35mm F1.4 G SSM but nothing in-between. Too bad for Sony.

2 upvotes
Biggiep
By Biggiep (3 months ago)

So this is Nikon's equivalent pricewise of Canon's 35mm f/2 IS but f/1.8 and no VR. I'd rather have stabilization than 1.8, otherwise why not just get a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 when it's on sale instead? We all know Nikon never has sales unlike Canon.

4 upvotes
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (3 months ago)

No VR on a fast 35, he complains to much laughter.

19 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (3 months ago)

"No VR on a fast 35, he complains to much laughter."

Why? Canon has it on its F2 which is hardly slow and as someone who has a camera with IBIS that meant my 28 F2 was stabilised I can vouch for the additional capability that a fast lens AND stabilization brings to the table.

I "laugh" at those who can't see this ;)

5 upvotes
itsanewdawn
By itsanewdawn (3 months ago)

The wider and faster the lens the less benefit you get from VR. You are basically restricted to static subjects in low light, in circumstances where you cannot use any camera support. Moving subjects need shutter speed not IS, in reasonable light VR is of no help.

I can happily shoot my 35mm lenses at 1/20th , with the excellent high ISO performance of modern FF cameras{ especially the Sony sensors in Nikon cameras} 1600ISO gives superb results 3200 is also very good, F1.8/1/20th /3200 is some seriously low light. So while VR/IS has its uses the value is rather exaggerated typically by Olympus or Sony A mount users as their systems have it built in.

6 upvotes
Lord of the Badgers
By Lord of the Badgers (3 months ago)

I'd rather spend money on a lens, not pointless gadgets. VR adds compromise to keep it at a pricepoint. Like anyone who actually shoots with knowledge, I can assure you I do not get camera shake with any such prime be it the 85 1.4 AFD or a 50 prime in the Nikon lineup. Dear oh dear.

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (3 months ago)

VR on a fast 35 is a pointless marketing gimmick. End of story. I cannot even believe canon sunk so low as to do it.

0 upvotes
jennyrae
By jennyrae (3 months ago)

maybe good lens. but I have Sigma 35mm.

8 upvotes
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (3 months ago)

Thank you for sharing.

28 upvotes
ballwin12
By ballwin12 (3 months ago)

I expect it will be as good as 28mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G.
Lovely trinity 1.8G ( 35, 50, 85) for less cost of a 35mm 1.4G!!

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (3 months ago)

and the quality of 35/1.4G isn't very good.

3 upvotes
semorg
By semorg (3 months ago)

No Nano coating? I guess Nikon doesn't want to cannibalize their 35/1.4 lens.

3 upvotes
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (3 months ago)

It's wise to make assumptions.

4 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (3 months ago)

@Mark

Not when you assume your customers are brainless zombies ready to pay $600 for an unimpressive, cheaply built lens that should cost around $300.

1 upvote
Babka08
By Babka08 (3 months ago)

I'm glad Canon chose to go 35mm f/2 with IS for the same money.

6 upvotes
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (3 months ago)

Your opinion is valued.

2 upvotes
HetFotoAtelier
By HetFotoAtelier (3 months ago)

IS for a 35mm lens?????? is that because of the shaking hands from canonnist's ? are they afraid of nikonnist's and therefore shake to much? :-)

10 upvotes
goshigoo
By goshigoo (3 months ago)

It's for video.......

2 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (3 months ago)

"Meanwhile the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM features an all-new optical design, and includes image stabilization and an ultrasonic focus motor. It will be in on sale early December for $849.99 / £799.99 / €849. Both lenses will work on full frame and APS-C cameras."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/06/canon-announces-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-usm-and-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-lenses

849.99$ =! 599$. Launch price vs street price.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (3 months ago)

@HetFotoAtelier 'IS' is the main reason I chose 35/2.0 IS over Sigma 35/1.4. I can easily (basically 100% success rate) shoot at 1/6 sec (can push down further) with 35/2.0 IS on 5D3 thru LV (aka, first electronic curtain) hand-held, so useful in low-light and indoor hand-held. And it's cheaper that I paid $527 from BuyDig.

1 upvote
itsanewdawn
By itsanewdawn (3 months ago)

I am happy to use my 35mm at 1/20th at this speed and slower you are restricted to static subjects in very low light, where you cannot use any camera support { tripod,monopod, gorilla pod , bean bag , lean against a solid object etc}.

So while there is some utility with IS it is of very limited value.

1 upvote
tallguy600
By tallguy600 (3 months ago)

Got the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for just $200 more before Christmas.
This Nikon lens looks uninspiring by comparison so the image quality better be good I'm thinking.

3 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (3 months ago)

I have the Sigma 35mm f1.4 for APS sensors and I was always disappointed with its perfomance at 1.4.
I'd rather have a lens that starts good at f1.8

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (3 months ago)

There is no 35/1.4 for APS-C.

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

but there is a 30mm F1.4 right

1 upvote
DonSantos
By DonSantos (3 months ago)

yawn.

0 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (3 months ago)

I would probably still pick the older Nikon 35mm f/2D AF over this, much cheaper. Not sure why all the new updates are 50-75% more the then one they replaced theses days (from any makers).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
stuntmonkey
By stuntmonkey (3 months ago)

Aspheric and ED elements, plus AF-S motors. There's your increased component cost right there.

7 upvotes
echelon2004
By echelon2004 (3 months ago)

the old stuff is priced low enough to be able to sell.

1 upvote
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (3 months ago)

You do that. I have been using a 35 f2 for some 3 years now on my D700 and it's terrible. Misfocuses sometimes, not that often, but the image quality is what really ruins the mood. The corners even at f/2.8 are soft and don't compare to the center. It might be very good at f4, even in the corners, but that's not the point in a f/2 lens. It's not a particularly good lens, it's just decent price/performance and there's really no other choice at that price. So I'd gladly change it for this new one.

2 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (3 months ago)

Odd fact about the 35mm f2 AFD, it is slightly sharper in the corners at f2 than at f2.8.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/444-nikkor_afd_35_20_ff?start=1

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (3 months ago)

The 35/2D isn't even a good lens by today's standards...

0 upvotes
FoolyCooly
By FoolyCooly (3 months ago)

Is it just me or does this cost 2x more than it should? The 35mm f1.8 DX is just $200...this doesn't look 3x more expensive.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (3 months ago)

Well, it covers almost 3x bigger sensor...

2 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (3 months ago)

2.25x bigger sensor

I wonder why the 32mm f1.2 lens for N1 doesn't cost approximately $215, since it covers just 1/7th of the FX format.

</sarcasm>

2 upvotes
GarageBoy
By GarageBoy (3 months ago)

Wide angles cost more than normal lenses?

0 upvotes
Ron A 19
By Ron A 19 (3 months ago)

An affordable 35! Woo!

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (3 months ago)

There is some lens testing to be done @DPReview towers after this years CES

0 upvotes
tinzi1
By tinzi1 (3 months ago)

I LOVE to see how this lens competes with sigma's 35 1.4, If IQ equals, i might get this one.

4 upvotes
James First 007
By James First 007 (3 months ago)

We already know that the Sigma 35 1.4 is excellent…but not weather seal… see the reviews.

0 upvotes
andrewedin
By andrewedin (3 months ago)

All Sigma focus rotates other way round to Nikon, and do not nudge manual focus like the nikon G type. Neither are they future proofed to work with all coming developments. I also prefer to fine tune AF to camera rather than the sigma USB. If the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G is good IQ and better corner sharpness than AF 35mm f/2D..Good and it's standard 58mm thread size. Shame it is not weather sealed.

0 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (3 months ago)

This could be a very good development. I have good experience with the venerable 35mm f2 which is nice but O can imagine that it may not be up to scratch for the D800.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 114