Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens rest report: Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G
#11
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1305806100' post='8606']

I had one for several years and I beg to differ. It had bad AF and bad bokeh. Thus,it was not fun to shoot with and too many pictures were not fun to look at. Yes, I really liked this FL and yes, it was small, light and sharp. As I was a poor student at the time it was a good companion to the 50/1.8 and Tokina 100/2.8 macro I also had but to call it fine? Not IMHO.

[/quote]

I have one now, and its bokeh is most of the times ok or even pretty good for a 35mm lens, just with bright light/sky through trees/foliage it gets funky with the shapes that start to appear. Its AF is very good, actually, and most owners agree with me on that (accurate and fast). Maybe it was not a happy marriage with the body you were using back then?



You won't get happy with the Nikon, bokeh wise, either... for great bokeh with a 35mm, you will have to look at Zeiss.
#12
I suggest you test the 35mm f/1.8G DX on the full frame D3x.

You might be surprised...
#13
[quote name='tomeryaffe' timestamp='1305819019' post='8613']

I suggest you test the 35mm f/1.8G DX on the full frame D3x.

You might be surprised...

[/quote]

Every source, including Thom Hogan, says the lens does not fully cover full format...

That is, if you remember to turn off Auto-DX.. else it will appear to do so <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />
#14
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305820224' post='8615']

Every source, including Thom Hogan, says the lens does not fully cover full format...

That is, if you remember to turn off Auto-DX.. else it will appear to do so <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />

[/quote]



yes, it doesn't cover fully while focus at infinity, but it does cover fully at close distances that relevant to people photographing, and therefore its an excellent alternative to the very expansive 35mm f/1.4G.

It will be interesting to see a serious test to this lens on the D3x



p.s. even at infinity the vignetting is minor and correctable
#15
[quote name='tomeryaffe' timestamp='1305824920' post='8619']

It will be interesting to see a serious test to this lens on the D3x

[/quote]



We had this discussion here recently. Such a test won't happen, at least not here.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#16
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305818306' post='8612']

I have one now, and its bokeh is most of the times ok or even pretty good for a 35mm lens, just with bright light/sky through trees/foliage it gets funky with the shapes that start to appear. Its AF is very good, actually, and most owners agree with me on that (accurate and fast). Maybe it was not a happy marriage with the body you were using back then?



You won't get happy with the Nikon, bokeh wise, either... for great bokeh with a 35mm, you will have to look at Zeiss.

[/quote]



Truth be told, I didn't like the bokeh of my 35/1.4 L and my 17-55/2.8 IS (my most used lens for several years). It's the only optical fault I ever found in them. Nevertheless, the bokeh from the 35/2 was worse. Well, I guess you can't have it all. Small, light, sharp, reasonably priced. Something's had to give.



Not all Zeiss lenses have nice bokeh. Look at the review of the 24-70/2.8 SSM. ZE lenses are of much less interest for me as they lack AF, a trait which is very important to me, far more than nice bokeh.



AF: I tried it on several bodies, both mine and my friend's. It hunted a lot on each. Possibly a problem in the specific copy as I know most owners consider it fine.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)