Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lab test report

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.

Jun 20, 2014permalink

JT986

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

Nov 19, 2014permalink

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.

Nov 21, 2014permalink

Just another Canon shooter

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

Nov 21, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

Vignetting is caused deliberately to keep the lenses small. If they were physically bigger they would vignette less, as anyone who has used Hasselblad lenses on 35mm knows.

What bothers me is lack of choice. I do not mind a bit of vignetting I can get rid of by stopping down, but many modern, very expensive lenses (check out the Leitz 35mm f1.4) , zooms especially vignette two stops in the corners, and zooms do at 100, 200, 400mm which is really poor goingwhen you have to use them wide open to stop motion.

Apr 15, 2015permalink

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.

Jun 15, 2014*permalink

stevo23

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

Jun 15, 2014permalink

Joerg V

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

Jun 15, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 15, 2014permalink

Kodachrome200

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

Jun 15, 2014permalink

jadmaister2

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

Jun 16, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 20, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014*permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Summi Luchs

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

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Pallke

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

Jun 14, 2014permalink

nerd2

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

Jun 15, 2014permalink

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 ...

Jun 15, 2014permalink

"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...

Jun 15, 2014permalink

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. ;)

Jun 16, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

? 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...

Jun 14, 2014permalink

attomole

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

Jun 14, 2014permalink

SportsPhotoGuy

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

Jun 14, 2014permalink

attomole

Ah!

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Smaug01

I was looking for a 35/2.8, but the only option is the old AI manual focus one. I wish Nikon would make the sexy little pancake primes like Pentax did.

Or maybe Sigma can come out with a "Pancake" line! It would sell like...wait for it...HOTCAKES! (nyuk nyuk nyuk)

May 28, 2016permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 20, 2014permalink

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

Jun 21, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 21, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 21, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 22, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 22, 2014permalink

Smaug01

I considered the Sigma before buying the Nikon. This one is already too big for a 35 prime, for my taste. The 1.4s are 50% bigger and heavier again. But it is a point well-taken.

May 28, 2016permalink

Stanchung

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

Jun 14, 2014*permalink

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?

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

+ED glass

Jun 14, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

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?

Jun 16, 2014*permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014*permalink

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.

Jun 15, 2014permalink

David Kinston

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

Jun 13, 2014permalink

Smaug01

Yes, with oversights like this, it's no wonder Canon is whupping Nikon's ass.

May 28, 2016permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

Eric Calabros

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

Jun 13, 2014permalink

Wolf's Head

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

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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

Jun 13, 2014permalink

Jogger

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

Jun 13, 2014permalink

Andrew 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)?

Jun 13, 2014*permalink

steelhead3

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

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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)

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Andrew 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.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 14, 2014*permalink

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 . . .

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

JordanAT

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

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

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.

Jun 13, 2014*permalink