Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX on Full Frame - AWESOME!

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

I wanted to share this with my fellow Nikon FF users.

I had an engagement part planned but my EOS R + M50 were travelling on a conference and I only had my D600, and since I switched to Canon, I sold all my lenses, except for one that I kept for the D3400, the small dirt cheap 35mm f/1.8 DX.

So I put it on and shot with the D600 thinking it was in crop mode, but half way in, I noticed my DOF was much shallower and the images had more Pop than on DX, and it's a bit wide for portraits, and yes, it was in FX mode.

The lens performs admirably, with just a little bit of corner shading that improves portraits really, and easily correctable, I used FF lenses with more shading than this, which begs the question, why is this a DX designated lens when it works flawlessly on FX cameras, with even great corner sharpness?



















So, if you want a cheap 35mm say for street photography & portraiture, just get a DX one. AF is also flawless .

--
Egyptian 24 year old Dentist loves filmmaking/photos.

 

[briantilley]

I wanted to share this with my fellow Nikon FF users.

I had an engagement part planned but my EOS R + M50 were travelling on a conference and I only had my D600, and since I switched to Canon, I sold all my lenses, except for one that I kept for the D3400, the small dirt cheap 35mm f/1.8 DX.

So I put it on and shot with the D600 thinking it was in crop mode, but half way in, I noticed my DOF was much shallower and the images had more Pop than on DX, and it's a bit wide for portraits, and yes, it was in FX mode.

The lens performs admirably, with just a little bit of corner shading that improves portraits really, and easily correctable, I used FF lenses with more shading than this, which begs the question, why is this a DX designated lens when it works flawlessly on FX cameras, with even great corner sharpness?

Why? Mostly because of the noticeable light fall-off towards the edges and corners of the FX frame, as can been seen in your images.

So, if you want a cheap 35mm say for street photography & portraiture, just get a DX one. AF is also flawless .

 

[KR Photo]

I think it’s a nice option for someone who wants a super small and discreet lens for things like street photography. And it’s so inexpensive. And my guess is that it probably performs better than the other small 35mm option, the 35mm f/2.0 D.

 

[jfk]

I've used mine on FF and it works pretty good up to about f5.6. On the D750 you can use the 1.2 crop mode for less shading. It's a nice sharp lens at the large apertures where one would use it when blurring the background. If I remember, the bokah wasn't what I would call stellar. The F2.0 I had before wasn't sharp until about F4.0.

Your pictures came out great. If there is a bit of shading, you can always just do a little cropping

jfk.

 

[SoCalWill]

So now that you have the gear, you might look into getting into settings and lighting, always more to learn..







--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.

 

[SirPeepsalot]

I wanted to share this with my fellow Nikon FF users.

I had an engagement part planned but my EOS R + M50 were travelling on a conference and I only had my D600, and since I switched to Canon, I sold all my lenses, except for one that I kept for the D3400, the small dirt cheap 35mm f/1.8 DX.

So I put it on and shot with the D600 thinking it was in crop mode, but half way in, I noticed my DOF was much shallower and the images had more Pop than on DX, and it's a bit wide for portraits, and yes, it was in FX mode.

The lens performs admirably, with just a little bit of corner shading that improves portraits really, and easily correctable, I used FF lenses with more shading than this, which begs the question, why is this a DX designated lens when it works flawlessly on FX cameras, with even great corner sharpness?









So, if you want a cheap 35mm say for street photography & portraiture, just get a DX one. AF is also flawless .

Are these before or after corner falloff correction?

 

[bjn70]

You say that after I spent the extra money on the FX version.

It is interesting to see what DX lenses actually are usable on FX. I’ve tested most of mine and found that my old sigma 10-20 and my old tamron 17-50 both produce a nice tight image circle that is barely outside the DX sensor size. I haven’t tested my old Nikon 18-135 yet.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

.

Are these before or after corner falloff correction?

Zero corrections. People are saying it's only usable at f/5.6? these are all at f/1.8.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

So now that you have the gear, you might look into getting into settings and lighting, always more to learn..



--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.

Thanks. True I wish I had the time to light the scene even with a small flash & reflector to remove those shadows but it's not always permitted to take time fiddling with anything and they need to take the snapshot ASAP!

--
Egyptian 24 year old Dentist loves filmmaking/photos.

 

[SirPeepsalot]

.

Are these before or after corner falloff correction?

Zero corrections. People are saying it's only usable at f/5.6? these are all at f/1.8.

Actually the vignetting should gets worse as you stop-down not open up - say f/8-22

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

.

Are these before or after corner falloff correction?

Zero corrections. People are saying it's only usable at f/5.6? these are all at f/1.8.

Actually the vignetting should gets worse as you stop-down not open up - say f/8-22

Ha, that's why my f/5.6 shots needed cropping while the f/1.8 ones had this as maximum offense:









--
Egyptian 24 year old Dentist loves filmmaking/photos.

 

[Er Chitara]

why is this a DX designated lens when it works flawlessly on FX cameras, with even great corner sharpness?

Because it will only work at f1.8

Stop down, and the *dark corners* will become *black corners*.

You had to crop that last photo taken at f5, didn't you?

*That* is why it is a DX lens.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Thanks just got it from the last comment. But no I didn't have to crop anything, even at f/5.6 it isn't horrible or a defined black circle or anything like that, just a strong vigenette. But yeah that wouldn't be acceptable performance for an FX lens for professional photographers. But I still believe 100% this is a completely awesome full usable 200$ 35mm prime to own for any FX user.

Throw this on a D600 and you truly have a cheap awesome 35mm setup for lower than most APS-C setups. The amount of background blur you get from FF at 35mm f/1.8 is simply astonishing.

I own an EOS R + 35mm f/1.8 RF, honestly, I don't care about the difference between both setups, both have great IQ for a 35mm setup, but this setups is QUARTER the cost.

 

[Er Chitara]

Thanks just got it from the last comment. But no I didn't have to crop anything, even at f/5.6 it isn't horrible or a defined black circle or anything like that, just a strong vigenette. But yeah that wouldn't be acceptable performance for an FX lens for professional photographers. But I still believe 100% this is a completely awesome full usable 200$ 35mm prime to own for any FX user.

Throw this on a D600 and you truly have a cheap awesome 35mm setup for lower than most APS-C setups. The amount of background blur you get from FF at 35mm f/1.8 is simply astonishing.

I own an EOS R + 35mm f/1.8 RF, honestly, I don't care about the difference between both setups, both have great IQ for a 35mm setup, but this setups is QUARTER the cost.

I didn't want to sound harsh, or to imply that it can't be done.

A few years ago I used that DX 35mm on my film F90x quite a lot. It does the trick. But I wouldn't buy an FX lens with that much vignetting.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Btw: The f/5 photo with no shading is uncropped but it's so good because this lens exhibits focus breathing, meaning the image "zooms in" as you focus closer, so with a subject so close there is zero vigentte, but it shows much more heavily inin imag focuses to inifinity.

 

[wwwuser]

Actually the vignetting should gets worse as you stop-down not open up - say f/8-22

In fact, the opposite is true , of course.

 

[jgreg]

Nasim at photography life has a very good review of using the 35mm dx on full frame

Using Nikon DX Lenses on FX Cameras

photographylife.com

and he concludes it is quite usable

 

[threw the lens]

The Sigma Art 30mm f1.4 also covers FX. The reason I don't wholeheartedly recommend it is that chromatic aberration increases a lot outside the DX area. I am guessing the same is true for the f1.8 DX?

People who want a 35mm f1.8 for less than the Nikkor FX might want to consider the Tamron 35mm. It's not perfect but it is good from wide open and has stabilisation, even though not an especially effective one.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Nope no corner CA issues, that 30mm ART is notorious for CA at f/1.4.

I cant upload full res but you can kinda see how the corners feel at f/1.8 FF (D610, Large Jpeg at 24mp, no lens correction enabled, no PP aside from happy-moody-super-saturated exposure/colour stuff)

Wide Angle selfie (yeah I know, sorry) 35mm f/1.8 on FF is awesome for unique selfie unatainable by cellphone cameras in "aesthetic"



Remember, this is supposed to cover the central 11mp portion of this frame, all that circle outside is a freebie!















And the package is as light as my EOS R + RF35!





Conclusion: The 35mm DX is a super good FF 35mm prime, that's incredibly sharp for the cost and has unique rendering. I equate it to the Canon 50mm STM in Canon land, as i everbody must have one in the bag, even as a backup.

--
Egyptian 24 year old Dentist loves filmmaking/photos.

 

[Brian Kimball]

So now that you have the gear, you might look into getting into settings and lighting, always more to learn..

Thanks. True I wish I had the time to light the scene even with a small flash & reflector to remove those shadows but it's not always permitted to take time fiddling with anything and they need to take the snapshot ASAP!

SoCalWill was primarily pointing out the unnatural colors, and what can be fixed in post processing to make the lighting much more natural looking.

See your original vs. his edit side by side:


Original on left, edit on right