Nikon 35mm f2.0 bad experience

mygoodness · Jul 6, 2016

Hi guys,

I went to NY a few weeks ago and I also made a few sessions with the nikon 35mm f2.0 on my d750 which I purchased for 130€ used 1 week before the holiday. Mainly the sessions were at night with high iso or during sundown in the streets so I used mainly f2. I saw already on the display that the results were very horrible and very unsharp back home on the computer it was even worse. I cannot use any of the images. I increased to f5.6 and finally there were a few ok images ( see attachments). So I was wondering how are your experience with that lense? I read very mixed experiences but for me sounded like at least the results are ok at f2 and not that horrible ( will post a few examples tonight). Can it be possible I purchased a “Monday decive”.

Actually I wanted to use only that lense for my next holiday (Barcelona) but now I am very unsure if it makes sense.

What you think?

--
https://500px.com/defex

brightcolours · Jul 6, 2016

To be honest, the lens seems to work quite ok, but you don't show the images that have you ask this question....

I do wonder why the images are of such bad quality though. Very grainy and very wrong colours. How come??

Also, why do you use ISO 800, when it clearly is not needed? The noisy grain can't be really explained by ISO 800 though, a camera like the D750 should deliver pretty good ISO 800 files.

The lens seems to be the least of your worries?

mygoodness said:
Hi guys,

I went to NY a few weeks ago and I also made a few sessions with my nikon 35mm f2.0 which I purchased for 130€ used 1 week before the holiday. Mainly the sessions were at night with high iso or during sundown in the streets so I used mainly f2. I saw already on the display that the results were very horrible and very unsharp back home on the computer it was even worse. I cannot use any of the images. I increased to f5.6 and finally there were a few ok images ( see attachments). So I was wondering how are your experience with that lense? I read very mixed experiences but for me sounded like at least the results are ok at f2 and not that horrible ( will post a few examples tonight). Can it be possible I purchased a “Monday decive”.

Actually I wanted to use only that lense for my next holiday (Barcelona) but now I am very unsure if it makes sense.

What you think?

--
https://500px.com/defex

mygoodness · Jul 6, 2016

the two pics are already edited. Just wanted to show that I can live with the quality at 5.6. ISO 800 is a normal street setting for me during the day because I can be sure the shutter speed is ok even for moving cars. I will upload unedited pics with f2.0 tonight.

Michael Benveniste · Jul 6, 2016

mygoodness said:
What you think?

While I'm not a fan of the 35mm f/2D, I can't figure where the focus point is supposed to be on either shot. On the first shot, the Madison Square Park Conservancy sign seems to be more or less in focus, but that doesn't seem to be a likely choice for your main subject. The graininess of the first shot is also unusual -- how much did you sharpen in post?

I'll ask the obvious question, though. Were you using a UV or other protective filter, and if so, what type?

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 6, 2016

The 35 D is a soft lens wide open, no two ways about it. It will sharpen up nicely when stopped down to f4 or so.

mygoodness · Jul 6, 2016

Michael Benveniste said:
mygoodness said:

What you think?

Click to expand...

While I'm not a fan of the 35mm f/2D, I can't figure where the focus point is supposed to be on either shot. On the first shot, the Madison Square Park Conservancy sign seems to be more or less in focus, but that doesn't seem to be a likely choice for your main subject. The graininess of the first shot is also unusual -- how much did you sharpen in post?

I'll ask the obvious question, though. Were you using a UV or other protective filter, and if so, what type?

mpe · Jul 6, 2016

I don't think the lens is to blame here.

The 35mm 2D doesn't break records in resolution, but I doubt any other lens would fare better if used in the same light and settings.

I personally find the 35 2.0D as acceptable. Especially for landscapes when stopped down.

brightcolours · Jul 6, 2016

mygoodness said:
Michael Benveniste said:

mygoodness said:

What you think?

Click to expand...

While I'm not a fan of the 35mm f/2D, I can't figure where the focus point is supposed to be on either shot. On the first shot, the Madison Square Park Conservancy sign seems to be more or less in focus, but that doesn't seem to be a likely choice for your main subject. The graininess of the first shot is also unusual -- how much did you sharpen in post?

I'll ask the obvious question, though. Were you using a UV or other protective filter, and if so, what type?

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

Click to expand...

Focuspoint first pic the two men to make at least the 2 men sharp but with 5.6 the whole picture is sharp anyway, focuspoint second post somewhere 3-4 meters on the street to make the whole picture sharp.

In my experience, focus on a distant subject or the main subject and you will avoid these nothing is sharp/what is focussed on? issues.

Example:

This was shot with a 35mm f2 on APS-C, aperture set at f5.6, many shots stitched. Focussed on the main white building.

Everything appears to be sharp. Disregard the stitching errors.

mygoodness said:
--
https://500px.com/defex

momotus · Jul 6, 2016

mygoodness-

You have already come to a decision, since you say you cannot use any of the images. I think the lens was doing OK, particularly considering the 130 E purchase price. Yes, the corners turned to mush in the first image, but I don't think that destroys the photo.

The 35mm f/1.8G (FF) will easily beat this lens, but at 3 or 4x the price.

YGWYPF

chary zp · Jul 6, 2016

I used to use this lens on "low" megapixel DX DSLRs (D70-D90). Had to stop it down to F8 for corner sharpness for landscapes, but then it was stellar. Wider than F5,6 and the edges were rubbish. On DX, mind you. Centre is great from F4 up though and the lens seems to overexpose extreme highlights compared to Sigma 18-35/1,8 for example.

But on high megapixel DX chips like D500 or D7100 the edges are soft even at F8.

This lens was born to a different era...

Windancer · Jul 6, 2016

Michael Benveniste said:
I'll ask the obvious question, though. Were you using a UV or other protective filter, and if so, what type?

I'll agree with Michael, did you or did you not have a UV or any sort of protective filter on it? I used to own a 35/2 but I did sell it a number of years ago, never used it on my D700 or my D750 so I really can't comment on whether it's suited to newer cameras. Seemed to work great on older bodies. I will admit these are older images.

Terry

--

Galleries by Terry J. Graham

www.pbase.com

Michael Benveniste · Jul 6, 2016

mygoodness said:
Focuspoint first pic the two men to make at least the 2 men sharp but with 5.6 the whole picture is sharp anyway.

Expectations or sharpness vary from person to person, so if you're satisfied with these shots that's all that matters. But to illustrate my concern, here's a crop of the two men:

and here's a crop of the sign behind them:

I find the sign to be sharper despite being on the edge of the frame. So you may wish to use ViewNX2 or a similar tool to see which focus point(s) the camera decided to use.

mygoodness said:
focuspoint second post somewhere 3-4 meters on the street to make the whole picture sharp.

I think you may be a bit optimistic in that "whole picture sharp" thing, even by traditional standards for film. At a 4 meter focus point, a typical depth of field calculator will give depth of field "limits" somewhere around 2.58 to 8.87 meters, which covers only part of the image.

On the other hand, if you judge sharpness by viewing crops on a monitor, the depth of field limits shrink considerably.

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

thejohnnerparty · Jul 6, 2016

The photos reminds me of an impressionist painting of the French Revolution I saw back in the 1970's. It looked great when you standing back and looking at it from a distance, but when you got up close - you wonder how the guy ever painted it.

primeshooter · Jul 6, 2016

mygoodness said:
Hi guys,

I went to NY a few weeks ago and I also made a few sessions with the nikon 35mm f2.0 on my d750 which I purchased for 130€ used 1 week before the holiday. Mainly the sessions were at night with high iso or during sundown in the streets so I used mainly f2. I saw already on the display that the results were very horrible and very unsharp back home on the computer it was even worse. I cannot use any of the images. I increased to f5.6 and finally there were a few ok images ( see attachments). So I was wondering how are your experience with that lense? I read very mixed experiences but for me sounded like at least the results are ok at f2 and not that horrible ( will post a few examples tonight). Can it be possible I purchased a “Monday decive”.

Actually I wanted to use only that lense for my next holiday (Barcelona) but now I am very unsure if it makes sense.

What you think?

--
https://500px.com/defex

Look at your light and focus, and Post Processing before blaming the lens. It's not the lens here...

--
google + https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
facebook https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer

Raymond Wave · Jul 6, 2016

I'm looking at iphone screen, but looks to me like the photos went through a VSCO filter or so. That's how i would use a 35/2 AF-D if i still had one, to make the photos look like film. Thats how i often use my AF-D lenses, but I sold my 35/2 because I didnt like the look that much even then. These days I realize the lens might've needed some AF fine tuning in camera, as most of my other lenses needed that, but I only learnt that after selling a few lenses. Have you checked if the lens AF needs fine tuning?

mygoodness · Jul 8, 2016

sorry for my late answer it was not possible for me to check these days. yes the pics above are all edited this was just an example to show the quality of that lense is ok for me. here two examples of pics where from my perspective the quality is awfull and I was wondering what you think. I know its tough light situation and iso 3200 nevertheless with my other lenses 16-35 etc. I never had problems:

on the top pic the focus was even behind the taxi you see the backlights far away on the right side (not the one close on the right where is just the half) and on the last pic the focus was somewhere at the red traffic light.

--
https://500px.com/defex

mpe · Jul 8, 2016

mygoodness said:
sorry for my late answer it was not possible for me to check these days. yes the pics above are all edited this was just an example to show the quality of that lense is ok for me. here two examples of pics where from my perspective the quality is awfull and I was wondering what you think. I know its tough light situation and iso 3200 nevertheless with my other lenses 16-35 etc. I never had problems:

Yes. These show quite strong coma at f/2.0. But it should improve noticeably once you stop down slightly (at least to f/2.8).

YRUNVS · Jul 8, 2016

I think the general consensus is that the 35mm f2D is a reasonable performer stopped down, but struggles a bit wide open on >=24MP bodies. If you'd like a lens for reportage style photos then the wide open performance may suffice, but you seem to want more. I looked at the lens prior to the 35 1.8G coming out and determined it wouldn't suit my purposes, low light wide open. I wound up with the 28 1.8G after renting it for a weekend and found its optical performance up to my needs (And also found that I like 28mm more than 35). For landscapes and cityscapes stopped down, the 35/2 may serve but for wide open performance you are likely better served elsewhere.

For future reference to avoid confusion, when posting of disappointing results from a lens, you may wish to lead with photos that demonstrate the lack of performance you are talking about. I gather you find 5.6 acceptable, but since the thread was about lack of performance, people assumed those images were unacceptable to you.

mpe · Jul 9, 2016

This one is from 35/2.0D on D600 at f/5.6:

Center corner crop (1:1)

Extreme corner crop (1:1)

BasilG · Jul 9, 2016

mygoodness said:
the two pics are already edited. Just wanted to show that I can live with the quality at 5.6. ISO 800 is a normal street setting for me during the day because I can be sure the shutter speed is ok even for moving cars. I will upload unedited pics with f2.0 tonight.

Nikon 35mm f2.0 bad experience

Member

Forum Pro

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts