35mm shootout

[Rooz]

Some questions here about the quality of the 35mm f2 Nikkor. so while i still have the 18-50mm sigma, i thought i'd do a quick test between the 2. i didnt need this to show me which was a better lens, it could see this immediately thru photos i've been taking with the 35mm recently, even without the crop. so while this is one of those boring 100% crop tests, these differences are highly visible for everyday use.

but this is to show how much difference there is.
using 100% crop.
not altered at all, no in cam or PP done.
filters removed, so its just glass.
set up on tripod and fired with remote to avoid any chance of camera shake.

things of note:
the sigma wide open is miserable in comparison not only in sharpness but also in the colour and the contrast. it's only when the siggie is stopped down to f5.6+ that it gets its contrast back and even then, the textures and sharpness of the nikkor is miles in front.

now, before anyone pipes up about the tammie, i did a similar test of this with the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 when i had it and the siggie and tamron were just about idientical with the tammie maybe a bit sharper at f2.8 but not having the sigmas contrast or colour at any part of the focal range.

as i have mentioned before, this is the sharpest lens i own wide open and it has the best contrast of any of them. the 300mm f4 comes in a very close second wide open and then blows it away stopped down.

given photozone's reviews...make of that what you will...

(full size image on my flickr page here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10435080@N00/2409523551/sizes/o/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2409523551_cc6ae416dd_b.jpg

[Visual Reality]

The Sigma looks decently sharp after 2.8 but underexposed on every shot.

Impressive results, and exactly what I needed to make a decision. I'm glad I found someone who had all 3 of the lenses I had in question:

Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D
Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

I think I'll have to join the 35mm club. I'll use it for night time street photography, indoors, and for portraits or any other time I have a single subject. It looks like you don't even need more than f/2.8 unless you needed more DOF. Otherwise its almost at peak sharpness and you get great isolation. f/2 in low-light looks perfect.

The only place I can find the lens in stock is J&R through Amazon for $299. Is it still being produced? This is normally typical for an item that has ceased production because its going to be replaced.

Thanks for the review :cool:

[erichlund]

Nikon uses the same line to make lenses in batches, so there is a tendency for stock to wax and wane. Based on Nikon's history with primes, I don't see them updating this lens in the near future. The $299 price is the going price I've seen for the lens, down from $350 when I bought it.

Personally, I would not use it for single subject portraiture. It's just a touch wide for that. On full 35mm format, the 50mm is not used for portraits either, which is what the 35mm is on your APS-C. Short telephotos tend to flatten the image depth slightly, and are more flattering for portraits, hence why the 85mm is considered the ideal for portraits. The Nikkor 60mm macro is the closest thing to the 85 that Nikon has in a prime for APS-C. Zeiss has a new prime out specifically for APS-C portraiture. IIRC, it's 58mm. Manual focus only.

[Visual Reality]

Maybe i'll pick up both the 35 f/2 and the 50 1.8 ;). I can't afford the 85.

I just tested out my Raynox 250 on my 18-55 VR and noticed that 35mm isn't close enough, 50 is much better for macro work so I'll use that for my macro lens.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

VR the 50 doesn't focus very close at all. I tried copying Rooz and using my 50 for a flower macro today at the botanic gardens (the drought killed my garden) and the roses were disappointingly small on screen.

The 50's a bargain for what it is but it might not do your macro for you.

[Visual Reality]

Yeah I found that also. I'll stick with the 35 and crop if I need more.