View Full Version : 35mm f1.8 G lens
If anybody is interested in this lens there are around 200 photos of it or taken with it in Flickr so far.
Link here. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/35mmf18g/)
Thronsen
03-14-2009, 04:29 AM
Wow some nice pictures in there.
trackin951
03-14-2009, 08:20 AM
Great photos you have there. I am not in need of a lens but am curious as to what mm that lens would equate to in DX format? It seems to have a little wide angle to it, which my 35mm f2 dx does not. Good luck with the sale!
Visual Reality
03-14-2009, 11:55 AM
53mm effective. It is exactly the same focal length as your 35mm f/2.
I like what I see.. Looks like I'll be picking one up asap
trackin951
03-14-2009, 04:03 PM
Your kidding, don't alot of his pictures look like there is a decent amount of wide angle to them. Interesting
Fiasco
03-14-2009, 04:48 PM
If anybody is interested in this lens there are around 200 photos of it or taken with it in Flickr so far.
Link here. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/35mmf18g/)
This is going to be my only prime lens, as soon as I can get it locally. :)
I see it's on Australian sites at around Aus$359.00 (US$233.00). I'm not sure whether stock is available or not but I'm sure Rooz will let is know when he gets his hands on one.
That link in the original post works good. It's a query and when I posted it there were 205 images now there are 239.
the photozone review is also up already.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g
fionndruinne
03-14-2009, 11:53 PM
Decent review. Sounds a bit high in the CA department, but that only really crops up in real-life use once in a while. I'm not looking to market big prints with this lens, just to faithfully record the interesting things I see.
Cyberwlf
03-15-2009, 07:54 PM
And with the D300 for those with it they wont have CA issues anyhow in their jpeg's and easily removed in software too.
(Now i just need an income again so i can stop just sitting in anticipation waiting to get one..)
Visual Reality
03-16-2009, 04:40 AM
And with the D300 for those with it they wont have CA issues anyhow in their jpeg's and easily removed in software too.
Well, here's what they said...
LoCAs (non-coinciding focal planes of the various colors) are a common issue with relatively fast glass. As you can notice below the halos have different colors - magenta (red + blue) in front the focus point and green beyond. Truly "apochromatic" lenses don't show LoCAs but these lenses are very rare especially below 100mm. Unlike lateral lateral CAs, LoCAs cannot easily be fixed in post processing.
yes, i read that part too but i've yet to see any CA in any images i;ve seen. i;ve also seen a ton of images shot with FX aswell and it works prety damn well.
eddie_dane
03-16-2009, 05:47 AM
I'd like to see images from an FX camera.
some FX samples in here.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/747201
eddie_dane
03-17-2009, 06:09 AM
I found some yesterday on flickr. I don't understand why this isn't sold as a FX lens, I don't see any problems with it on FF. Since it is a fixed focal length and not like the 12-24 f4 which fills the frame in some parts but vignettes in others.
I'm not sure I understand why it would vignette in certain circumstances since it's a fixed length but from what I've seen, I could easily accommodate and crop
I'm pretty impressed, especially for the price.
craigyc
03-17-2009, 06:16 AM
I think it was the Photozone review that says that on FF vignetting is not eliminated until f/8
I found some yesterday on flickr. I don't understand why this isn't sold as a FX lens, I don't see any problems with it on FF. Since it is a fixed focal length and not like the 12-24 f4 which fills the frame in some parts but vignettes in others.
I'm not sure I understand why it would vignette in certain circumstances since it's a fixed length but from what I've seen, I could easily accommodate and crop
I'm pretty impressed, especially for the price.
if you read that thread, there's also a small black plastic flamge around the rear element which is probbaly reducing the image circle by a few mm or so aswell. he was goignb to remove it but i didnt follow the discussion.
nevertheless, as is the vignetting is minimal. certianly ALOT less than one would expect.
craigyc
03-19-2009, 09:30 AM
I am picking mine up on the way home tonight! Pretty excited. I found it for a good price aswell.
BikerJohn
03-19-2009, 09:39 AM
So what's a good price?
craigyc
03-19-2009, 10:12 AM
£179. Under the rrp which is a result for England!
Cyberwlf
03-19-2009, 10:13 AM
Damn... that is a pretty nice price for it. Argh. I hate waiting for new gear :p
$345 at ECS http://cameras.net.au/
$405 at D-D...wtf ?!?!?!
craigyc
03-20-2009, 04:58 AM
wow prices in aus have really shot up!
So I have the lens now, first impressions are good and it out performs my old 50 1.8 wide open in every respect!
Let me know if you want to see/know anything about the lens.
yes, i want to see image after image after image !! lol
erichlund
03-20-2009, 08:06 AM
BTW, DP Review (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/)has their review up for this lens. Summary: a little soft and low contrast wide open, and CA issues (both lateral and longitudinal). Otherwise, very sharp and good bokeh. Very responsive. Given the low price and target market, they give it a Highly Recommended.
Screenclutter
03-21-2009, 07:40 PM
It seems to be selling like mad, I heard the sales rep at the camera store today tell a slightly disappointed customer that their last batch of these that arrived were gone pretty well almost immediately.
BikerJohn
03-22-2009, 09:25 AM
My local camera shop got 4 in, sold 3 on Saturday (two presale) and had one left at 3:00, they closed at 3:30.
They were selling them for $220 (US).
Cyberwlf
03-22-2009, 09:50 AM
Hopefully this will encourage Nikon to finally release more prime lenses!
Screenclutter
03-22-2009, 10:38 AM
Hopefully this will encourage Nikon to finally release more prime lenses!
We can probably guess that it's low cost for D40/D40x/D60 owners is driving sales. Maybe more DX primes are coming up?
fionndruinne
03-23-2009, 02:19 PM
Told you, Nikon.
It's a $200 lens that is being sold as a result of hype and expectation. Many of the units sold will be used several times then left in camera bags when the users revert to their more useful zooms.
From Nikons point of view they are on a winner because they have a lens that they are producing very cheaply in China that they are no doubt selling fairly large quantities of at a good profit with little or no marketing or advertising expenses.
The price point is just low enough that people will rush out and pay virtually RRP without worrying to much but I predict that sales volumes and prices will plummet within 6 months. You will be able to buy this lens for under US$150.00 by Christmas IMO.
fionndruinne
03-23-2009, 05:40 PM
Gosh, you're a downer.
I've already said that Nikon's entry-level cameras have created a lot more aspiring users on the budget end of the market. A lot of these are students, who, if they've been exposed to any creative photography classes (and many of them have), have learned something about prime lenses (and may have unrealistic "silver-bullet" ideas about them), but have thus far been unable to use them on their D40s & D60s. So yeah, there's a certain amount of buyer ignorance going on, but the truth of the matter is that most of those younger users, even if they never end up with professional-grade results, are going to make use of their new primes.
Cyberwlf
03-23-2009, 06:01 PM
Having a D300, the 17-70/18-200/11-16mm is far from subtle for street photography and the 50mm is too long for it too in general, so the 35mm will finally be better adapted for such purposes (granted, a 20/24/28mm would be better!)
XaiLo
03-23-2009, 08:06 PM
Limitations and expectations, sometimes there's no better teacher than experiece. First hand knowledge goes to the assurance. The more pictures I take the more I realize it's about much more than just equipment. Pictures are like the ingredients of an award winning receipe... you might have the best ingriedients, the perfect receipe, but you still have to put it all together.
It's a $200 lens that is being sold as a result of hype and expectation.
yeah, i think there is a large element of that, but only really on forums dont you think ? i think its also cos its a small, fast, general purpose lens that will AF on a cheap body and gives people an opportunity to expand into photography in a difference sense to a kit lens at a very cheap price.
Many of the units sold will be used several times then left in camera bags when the users revert to their more useful zooms.
hmmm...i partially agree with this. imo, the 35/1.8 is so substantially different in photographic terms that its unlikley to be a relic as often as you think. shooting at say f2 is so vastly different in visible effect to the user from f5.6 that its instant gratification. this isnt a lens whose optical quality needs to be scrutinisd and most layman cant se a difference. this makes a difference on the LCD and its the exact sort of look, (dof), alot of people want to get with dslr and are dissapointed when they dont get it with a standard zoom so much.
one could also arge that many dslr's altogether will be used only a couple of times and then left in the camera bag for something smaller with a longer zoom.
From Nikons point of view they are on a winner because they have a lens that they are producing very cheaply in China that they are no doubt selling fairly large quantities of at a good profit with little or no marketing or advertising expenses. The price point is just low enough that people will rush out and pay virtually RRP without worrying to much but I predict that sales volumes and prices will plummet within 6 months. You will be able to buy this lens for under US$150.00 by Christmas IMO.
yepp, the first part is all true. i dont think this lens will drop by 25% though. nikon dont mind setting a premium for glass and this is cheap. so i dont see a reason why they'd drop it that significantly.
I don't think Nikon will drop the price but as it sits it's no doubt priced at a low US$ exchange rate value. As the US$ appreciates Nikon will be able to drop MSRP without losing money AND resellers will have satisfied the initial early adopter market and will resort to what resellers always do to stimulate sales - cut margins.
I really can see this lens settling around the US$150 mark in the medium term but time will tell I guess.
ah, yes. that makes sense.
craigyc
03-24-2009, 04:23 AM
I don't think that the price will drop by that much if at all as in the current climate all we are seeing is lens prices increasing.
Sorry I havn't had any sample images for anyone who is thinking of buying this lens ut I havn't had a lot of time or anything interesting to shoot! I will be testing it out exstensively when I go to Paris in a few weeks.
ramblingman
03-24-2009, 06:24 AM
Well not being as knowledgeable as some of you gentlemen ....my wife ...yes that's what I said ....has me on a waiting list ...I found out for this lens (and man is she pissed I found out) after I showed her some sample pictures her on the internet ...I explained to her how it could be used without a flash indoors if you wanted too....and it would be great for the grandkids ....well point being I hope it doesn't sit on the shelf ....I don't believe it will ....wife uses the camera too and I'm hoping to send her for some classes!
Cyberwlf
03-24-2009, 04:41 PM
I don't think anyone with a larger body Nikon will be as likely to discard it so quickly, as the size differences a prime offers mixed with the greater immediate accessibility a 52mm is going to make capturing something live much more of a joy than carrying a bulky zoom with said body.
Screenclutter
03-24-2009, 10:16 PM
I don't think that the price will drop by that much if at all as in the current climate all we are seeing is lens prices increasing.
The way they are selling, I'm not sure if Nikon would have a good reason to lower the price.
I intend to bring this along with me when I go to France in August, so hopefully the supply issues will ease up by then.
I was in my favourite camera store today.
They ordered 20 35mm lenses, they had 10 pre sold, Nikon Australia supplied 6.
They ordered 20 35mm lenses, they had 10 pre sold, Nikon Australia supplied 6.
lol...that was great. made me laugh.
coincidentally i was at ECS today picking up my 50mm from repair and they had a coupe of boxes full of 35's. at the moment they are selling out of the box cos they dont see any point putting them on a shelf.
fionndruinne
03-25-2009, 03:37 PM
OK, I am itchin' to see some images from fellow forumeers!
Cyberwlf
03-25-2009, 04:12 PM
Yeah, bring sum images! :D
Theres a good amount on flickr until then :)
Theres a good amount on flickr until then :)
There were 200 when I first posted the link and there are over 740 now. People have been snapping.
michaelb
03-25-2009, 06:09 PM
Looks like a decent lens. Man, I wish Canon would upgrade the 35 f/2 or the 28 1.8.
There were 200 when I first posted the link and there are over 740 now. People have been snapping.
From the shots I've seen on Flickr I wouldnt think twice about buying this lens. Especially over the Sigma 30mm 1.4
i dunno, it looks pretty damn awesome to me reggie.
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=215133
this is one of those lens where the large aperture seperates the men from the boys so to speak. its easy as hell to screw shots up with it. but put it in the hands of people that know what they're doing, http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showpost.php?p=2419700&postcount=46, and it looks special imo.
do yourself a favour and do NOT look at the 200f2 shots thread.
Dont get me wrong if I had $400+ to drop on the Sigma I would but I wouldnt exactly feel like I was settling much with the 35mm for the price.
The dealer had a go at selling me a 300 f2.8 for $7000.00 yesterday. :D
$400 for a 30mm is $13 per mm
$7000 for a 300mm is $23 per mm
on a dollar per mm basis you are way ahead. :D :D
fionndruinne
03-25-2009, 08:14 PM
I'm much more set on the 35mm than I ever was on the 30mm. For one, there's a minimal amount less distortion on faces when you want to use the lens for group pictures or impromptu full-body portraits. Also, I have a hard time justifying the need for the extra stop on a standard lens - more low-light performance, aye, but that's a fraction of its uses, and shallow DoF's not going to be as important with this one as it is with, say, the new fifty. Far as I can tell, this'un's about right.
Soooo...
I ordered one this morning. :X
fionndruinne
03-26-2009, 01:45 PM
:D Good for you. Post stuff when you get it!
2nd Day shipping so I should have it by next tuesday. I'll whore myself to you guys and shoot whatever you ask to see the performance.
craigyc
03-26-2009, 02:05 PM
CG on the purchase man. You're going to love it.
Cyberwlf
03-26-2009, 04:18 PM
Its funny what a bunch of Nikkor 35mm fanbois we must all come across as from all the comments on the lens :p
scupking
03-26-2009, 08:38 PM
I'm buying one as soon as I get back from vacation I can't wait!!
Monday... This is gonna be a looooooooong weekend for me :(
Cyberwlf
03-27-2009, 06:27 PM
My first pay cheque from my new job will feel like forever so i can finally have the cash to spare to buy this...!
XaiLo
03-27-2009, 09:26 PM
You NASaholics ;D
you nasaholics ;d
<_<
>_>
....
britkev
03-29-2009, 07:55 AM
Ordered one from Adorama two weeks ago, but missed their first batch - just got an email apologizing that it is still backordered :(
There are still a few on Ebay but they are overprices between $270-300 USD
w00t tomorrows the big day!
britkev
03-29-2009, 01:00 PM
There are still a few on Ebay but they are overprices between $270-300 USD
...
Thanks. I'm looking forward to getting it but not excited enough to pay a 50% premium.
I know what you mean I feel lucky having gotten the last regular priced one. Wonder when a new batch is coming out everyone I called before ordering from Ebay said they had no idea when more would be in.
fionndruinne
03-30-2009, 03:08 PM
I wanna see I wanna see I wanna see!
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4272/dsc46801.jpg
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6564/20090330dsc4688.jpg
So.. Tell me what test shots you want me to shoot and Ill do my best.
So.. Tell me what test shots you want me to shoot and Ill do my best.
Some shots that show the brokeh.
All shot on JPEG Fine, resized in LR
f/1.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-1.jpg
f/2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-2.jpg
f/2.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-3.jpg
f/3.5
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-4.jpg
f/5.6
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-5.jpg
f/8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-6.jpg
f/11
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-7.jpg
f/14
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/35mm_DOF-8.jpg
Ill try and find something thatll give better examples. Sorry I skipped f/4
Prospero
03-30-2009, 04:54 PM
Nice.
The bokeh definitly seems better than with the 50 f/1.8 IMO. The out of focus highlights are rendered round, even when the lens is stopped down.
I am thinking of getting the 35 too. If I can sell the sigma 70-300 for a decent price (which is gonna be difficult because the front element is damaged a bit), I will probably get one at the end of this week.
fionndruinne
03-31-2009, 12:12 AM
Looks good! The macro test shots show nice contrast and color. Some 100% crops would be nice.
Cyberwlf
03-31-2009, 02:36 AM
Just to go OT for hopefully just a moment, what % of its resale value would generally be the depreciation value of a lens if it has slight scratches on its front element?
Prospero
03-31-2009, 04:49 AM
I guess it depends on the lens. I believe for expansive lenses you can get front elements replaced for 100 euros or so, but that's obviously not economical for a sigma 70-300.
In case of the Sigma, it generally sells for 100-120 euro in mint condition here, while it is 200 new. I guess it will be hard to sell my lens for more than 60, given that there are a lot of 70-300s for sale that are not damaged. Also, my lens does not autofocus on any of the new entry level models, which makes selling it even harder.
erichlund
03-31-2009, 08:18 AM
Round is OK, but they are still a little harsh. Not creamy smooth like you get from say the 85 f1.4.
britkev
03-31-2009, 08:26 AM
Round is OK, but they are still a little harsh. Not creamy smooth like you get from say the 85 f1.4.
What??!! A $200 lens is not as good as a $1,250 lens? Say it ain't so! ;)
Prospero
03-31-2009, 09:04 AM
The 85 is a lot longer than 35, which is one of the reasons why it's bokeh is so much better. Given the short focal length (and price), I think the bokeh looks good.
fionndruinne
03-31-2009, 03:51 PM
Yeah, it isn't perfect bokeh by any means, but very passable, probably better than the 50mm f/1.8. I think that example is a bit of an extreme one, all the brightly lit foliage really puts the oof-area to the test. Which is good. I could definitely live with that bokeh for $200.
The clarity and contrast on those shots really reminds me of the 50mm too, which I like! Some of the earliest test shots with the 35mm were a little lacking in contrast, but I think that's because they were shot outside in cloudy conditions.
More test shots. All shot at JPEG Fine Large, resized with Lightroom 2.2. Again if there is something you want me to shoot with the lens lemmi know.
fionndruinne - Im working on those 100% crops.
As expected the CA is pretty bad wide open. Its much less but is still pretty noticeable at f/2.8. And slightly there but usually only noticeable if viewing a 100% crop at f/4+. My first thought is I wouldnt have taken these shots at f/1.8 in regular use anyway but it makes me wonder how this lens would do wide open in lets say a concert where the spot lights create pretty high contrast between the subject and surroundings in some cases. Because of the CA problem being so noticeable in some cases I dont see myself walking around with this lens mounted on sunny days very much.
Color looks good. No front or back focusing issues. Focuses faster than my Sigma. Havent witnessed it hunting for focus in dim light. Focus motor is the exact same and noise level of the 18-55mm kitlens.
F/1.8 - This is as close as the lens will focus. Noticeable CA all around the cap. Not as noticeable as it is at 100%
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4773-2.jpg
F/8 - Color is accurate, image is pretty sharp
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4785-5.jpg
F/8 - CA still noticeable in the twinkles of the water
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4786-6.jpg
F/1.8 - Focus is sharp and accurate granted this is a self portrait.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4789-7.jpg
F/1.8 - CA on the left corner
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4829-21.jpg
This little guy let me get pretty close to him..
F/1.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4800-9.jpg
F/2.2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4799-8.jpg
F/2.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4801-10.jpg
F/4
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4805-11.jpg
More....... All F/1.8
The green on the contacts of the plug are actually there its not a lens error.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4820-16.jpg
HOLY..
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4821-17.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4823-18.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4824-19.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4830-22.jpg
F/1.8 - Noticeable CA around the edges
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4854-25.jpg
F/4 - Little to no CA
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4856-26.jpg
--
f/1.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4864-28.jpg
f/2.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4867-30.jpg
f/4
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4867-30-1.jpg
f/8 - blurry from being handheld but notice how much the CA went down.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4868-31.jpg
More.......
f/1.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4875-32.jpg
f/1.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4876-33.jpg
f/2.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4878-34.jpg
f/4.5
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4881-35.jpg
f/1.8
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4882-36.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4824-19.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/35mm%20DX/DSC_4830-22.jpg
these are the only 2 that i see objectionable CA. i wonder though with other glass how prevalant any CA would be shooting the same thing ? the rest is pretty mild. in fact some of them i cant notice anything on my screen.
are you running these thru NX2 ? i thought NX removed alot of CA ?
I didnt do any PP to these, just resized. I'm going back there soon and when I do Ill take the same shots with my kitlens and Sigma and see how they hold up. I've never got CA like that out of my kitlens in similar situations with the exception of the water.
NX2 is supposed to address CA automatically is why i ask. at least i think so.
Cyberwlf
04-01-2009, 03:52 AM
NX1 i think even offers Automatic CA correction actually and images put through NX will also benefit from D-Lighting and Picture Control support too (Lightroom can only do the PC stuff via Camera Profiles AFAIK but thats all it supports I believe?) and I can only guess r3g's images have not been processed with such Camera Profiles (that ViewNX also automatically supports when viewing images).
craigyc
04-01-2009, 04:36 AM
Despite the CA are you happy with it Reg?
Prospero
04-01-2009, 07:06 AM
Thanks a lot for posting the samples, gives a nice impression of what the lens can do.
The CA seems quite bad to me, but then perhaps these are not the scenes you would generally shoot at f/1.8.
Despite the CA are you happy with it Reg?
Well I wont know until I get to put it to some real use.
The CA seems quite bad to me, but then perhaps these are not the scenes you would generally shoot at f/1.8.
Thats how I feel. I wouldnt be shooting wide open in sunlight at f/1.8. However Im worried that the CA is going to be an issue when using stobes because those lights can create some pretty high contrast sometimes.
fionndruinne
04-02-2009, 01:23 PM
Doesn't LR have a CA correction tool also?
In you folks' opinion, is normal purple CA that I'm seeing enough of an issue to present a real problem?
ramblingman
04-03-2009, 06:13 AM
No laugh'n :(okay ...heck I didn't even know what you guys were talking when it came to CA ...went read the glossary ....I'm looking and looking and the scary part is I see what you talking about ....but you know to the untrained eyes most of these pictures are awesome ....well to me anyways...I ordered one of these lens for use with the grandchildren mostly ..for indoor...but I like to go out and take shots for myself ...I want to start to experiment ...but for the novice wouldn't you say that is a great lens?
Doesn't LR have a CA correction tool also?
Yes it's in the detail panel of the Develop Module.
herc182
04-03-2009, 06:31 AM
No laugh'n :(okay ...heck I didn't even know what you guys were talking when it came to CA ...went read the glossary ....I'm looking and looking and the scary part is I see what you talking about ....but you know to the untrained eyes most of these pictures are awesome ....well to me anyways...I ordered one of these lens for use with the grandchildren mostly ..for indoor...but I like to go out and take shots for myself ...I want to start to experiment ...but for the novice wouldn't you say that is a great lens?
Dont worry about it, its a great lens and one whose limitations (which are very few) you wont even notice.
happy shooting! post some pictures back here for us soon
eddie_dane
04-03-2009, 11:00 AM
I wonder how many f2 lenses this will sell. The 35 f2 has been on my shortlist of lenses to get right behind the 105 micro but seeing all these images from the 1.8, it makes me want to get the 35 f2 (since I have full frame) even sooner.
Prospero
04-03-2009, 12:16 PM
I have bought one too !! :D
So far I think it's a great lens, the focal length suits me much better than the 50, the autofocus is fast, and the colours seem to be very nice. I have only seen results on the LCD, though. I'm at my parent's house at the moment and I don't have the cable to connenct the camera to the computer.
Anyway, I will post some pictures sunday evening.
I'm at my parent's house at the moment and I don't have the cable to connenct the camera to the computer.
Wait, you mean you dont keep a usb card reader in your bag!?! Tisk tisk good sir..
fionndruinne
04-03-2009, 01:32 PM
Yeah, the colors seem to be great from what Reg has posted. I think I'm gonna say damn the CA, and get one, hopefully soon.
Then again, I pulled up some images I took with an 85mm f/1.8 which had horrible CA in Lightroom, and couldn't make a dent with LR's CA correction tool. So I may have issues if I rely on that program... but truth be told I haven't seen any CAs from the 35mm anywhere near as bad as the ones I got from the 85mm.
I've tried killing the CA in LR and CS4 both made absolutely no difference. I think once I get out and use it in more real world applications my confidence in it will grow. Right now I'm kinda iffy about how often I'll be using it TBH.
In other news I've got a small scale shoot later today so we'll see how well it does. I really hope my fear of strobes bringing out the CA is for nothing.
fionndruinne
04-03-2009, 02:09 PM
Good luck. I'll be interested to see some results.
Thx I'll prolly have some ready to post later tonight..
OH YA... Forgot to mention... My D90 arrives on monday...
Prospero
04-03-2009, 03:16 PM
Wait, you mean you dont keep a usb card reader in your bag!?! Tisk tisk good sir..
LOL :)
After some searching I did find a cable that fits on my D50, so here's my first sample with the 35 f/1.8.
It's a straight out of the camera JPEG (apart from resizing and removing one anoying dust spot), shot at f/1.8.
45330
Prospero
04-03-2009, 04:03 PM
Some more test shots I took with this lens, all are pretty much straight out of the camera:
45332
Here's one for all the Aussie members :) :
45333
45335
45336
this is the 35/1.8 on an f100. wow
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showpost.php?p=2486651&postcount=52
this is the 35/1.8 on an f100. wow
And we wouldn't be concerned about this lens on a D700 by any chance would we?
Some more test shots I took with this lens, all are pretty much straight out of the camera:
What is the card in the last shot for?
ssil2000
04-03-2009, 06:26 PM
looks like a video card
Definately an ATI video card
Ok so its official.. I'm totally in love with this lens. Cant wait to slap it on my new camera come monday. Heres some shots, no sharpening, color, or clarity adjustment in PP. I feel like I didnt use my D40 when looking at these. The optical quality is so much better even compared to my Sigma IMO.
http://r3g-media.smugmug.com/photos/505022333_td7Fb-X3.jpg
http://r3g-media.smugmug.com/photos/505022146_mRWSw-X3.jpg
http://r3g-media.smugmug.com/photos/505021842_w8RAp-X3.jpg
http://r3g-media.smugmug.com/photos/505021783_2sFfF-X3.jpg
http://r3g-media.smugmug.com/photos/505022017_9scMr-X3.jpg
Prospero
04-04-2009, 08:08 AM
Yes, it's indeed an ATI video card, a Radeon 9600 265MB DDR to be exact.
Reg, your links don't seem to work here...
Prospero
04-04-2009, 02:00 PM
Woops... Fixed
Thanks
Fantastice shots, very sharp, nice colour and good lighting.
Though I guess you can hardly go wrong with such a model :)
Thanks. Ya she was quite a pleasure to work with. My fears of the CA is slowing dropping after this shoot. Color comes out so crisp and vivid. Kinda bothers me that Im getting better IQ out of this lens than with my $600+ Sigma. Heres the whole gallery for anyone interested http://r3g-media.smugmug.com/gallery/7800922_xQNgc#505022386_MEhtc
fionndruinne
04-04-2009, 03:45 PM
Bravo! That shoot really brings out the great aspects of this lens. The colors in this gallery are superb. Wow.
XaiLo
04-04-2009, 05:19 PM
Congrats on the camera lil bro, who did you order it from?
Ebay. Guy kinda lagged on shipping it so he was nice enough to ship it over night air to make up for it. If only he had done it on Wed night I wouldve gotten it yesterday
XaiLo
04-04-2009, 05:29 PM
cool :) enjoy! Another D40er movin on. ;)
Lol it was good while it lasted.. Now its gets to do the job all over again when I give it to my GF as her first DSLR. But unlike me she's been behind a Canon A1 for about 2 months now so it shouldnt be too hard for her to adjust.
XaiLo
04-04-2009, 07:25 PM
That's good to know the legend lives on. You'll like the D90 the biggest thing I noticed is it balances a lot different than the D40.
rawpaw18
04-05-2009, 05:14 AM
Hey reg, just a great series.
She looked like she was having fun, testament to your people skills.
The under the hood shot #11 is fantatstic.
The series when you the blanket really added some nice colors in the mix.
ramblingman
04-09-2009, 09:21 PM
I found one !!!!!!!!!! Today I was looking at the camera stores in the area and thought ...hmmm I should call this little place and see if they have the 35mm.....guess what ...I have one now ...played with it a bit ....I think this is going to be fun!!!...
XaiLo
04-09-2009, 09:24 PM
I found one !!!!!!!!!! Today I was looking at the camera stores in the area and thought ...hmmm I should call this little place and see if they have the 35mm.....guess what ...I have one now ...played with it a bit ....I think this is going to be fun!!!...
Congrats, now post some pics. ;)
D70FAN
04-10-2009, 08:31 AM
A definate improvement over the 35mm f/2 (except the barrel distortion(!) ) which I have, but rarely use. I have a tendancy to put the 24-70 f/2.8 when I need these focal lengths vs. the 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8.:D
ramblingman
04-11-2009, 09:59 AM
Okay I'm playing here with the new lens ....I'll learn how to use it someday ...
Looks good. I dunno if its the D90s ability to correct CA in camera but I haven't seen any in days from this lens.
fionndruinne
04-11-2009, 03:36 PM
Reg, I'm thinking that might be it, at least the reason why Nikon didn't put more effort into correcting it pre-release. All the new Nikons have CA-correction I think.
lindseybp
04-13-2009, 08:58 AM
Just got a D90 and can't wait to pick up this lens. Now if someone would just get it in stock!:(
Congrats, you'll love it. The D90 and 35mm make a good pair.
craigyc
04-13-2009, 03:39 PM
Here are some samples of the lens at f/1.8
SOOC jpegs
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v363/craigyc/DSC_2557.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v363/craigyc/DSC_2562.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v363/craigyc/DSC_2566.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v363/craigyc/DSC_2567.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v363/craigyc/DSC_2568.jpg
fionndruinne
04-13-2009, 03:56 PM
Thanks for the samples! I'll say it again: I love the way this lens handles colors.
I dunno if its the D90s ability to correct CA in camera but I haven't seen any in days from this lens.
thats why i was asking you about NX2, almost all CA is automatically corrected. pretty darn clever. fix the CA with software rather than invest the money in eliminating it from the lens and probably making it 50% more expensive.
ramblingman
04-13-2009, 05:30 PM
This is mostly the real reason for my new lens ....but it's proven to come in handy for so much more!!!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3439771716_45f022b352.jpg
and her big bother too with Grandma
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3439711744_06d92e8894.jpg
BikerJohn
04-14-2009, 05:39 AM
Ramblingman, what was the ISO, F stop, and speed on these shots? Doesn't look like you used your flash or did you?
ramblingman
04-14-2009, 07:09 AM
the iso was 800 and no flash f 1.8 and was on A..it picked 160 for speed....one reason for the lens ..I wanted to be able to pick it up and take some shots fast with these kids ...so what did I do wrong? I know don't look perfect but I love a whole lot better then what I use to get...thanks for the C + C
fionndruinne
04-14-2009, 12:52 PM
I can't name anything you did wrong, the first especially was great! You nailed the eyes.
ramblingman
04-15-2009, 01:45 PM
they have a big front window there and part of the reason for this lens was I didn't want to hurry to find a flash or use the camera flash (I don't like it ..the sb400 with defuser works great for my needs)...but I do have a couple of pictures where I had to much light or something went wrong
Aperature Mode...Shutter 1/13...Iso 2.8 ..please C + C for me and remember I'd love to not use a flash if possible ..or and the WB was changed to Incandescent...U know the little light bulb :) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3445678662_451d2fb49f.jpg
ramblingman
04-15-2009, 01:48 PM
Oh I did add some shadow cause they were way to bright Picasa ...I know I know I have to download either NX2 or Lightroom ..............or both...
e_dawg
04-16-2009, 05:38 PM
Nice pics, Reg! Nice model, too ;)
35/1.8 vs the 50/1.4G... anyone have both or have any opinions on one vs the other?
BikerJohn
04-23-2009, 08:22 PM
When I brought my broken 18-105 lens in to my LCS (local camera shop) on Monday I ordered the 35mm F. 1.8G lens. I got a call today that it's already there and ready for pick up! Either they are a lot better shop than I thought or there are more coming out.
1. Pick up lens
2. Mount to D90
3. ?????
4 Profit!!! ;)
scottman_00
04-23-2009, 09:45 PM
ahhh shows i love
1. Lost
2. South park
3. ???
4. Profit!!
Cyberwlf
04-24-2009, 02:48 AM
35mm f1.8 AF-S (DX) vs 35mm f2 D... Thoughts anyone on how the two compare? I've seen the f2 on-line for a bit more than the f1.8 sells for. I know the latter is FF compatible but other than that anyone know how they compare on sharpness/bokeh/etc??
Cyberwlf
04-26-2009, 07:46 AM
Anyone know?? ^^ :)
looks on the surface of things to me that the 1.8 is fractionally better in all aspects.
I notice that they appear to be readily available in most dealers now. Nikon must have been building up stocks before they were released.
BikerJohn
05-04-2009, 03:17 PM
Ok, so here is one of the pictures from the 35mm, I have lots, but this is the one I have a question about.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33718659@N04/3498897259/
At F1.8 the depth of field is very narrow! On my old film camera I had either a F2, or just above that I don't remember, but it certainly wasn't this narrow of a depth of field. (or I didn't notice it because I never took good notes of what I was shooting) I'm still getting used to the depth of field. My question is: Is the plane of what is in focus a plane parallel to the front of the lens or is it a sphere with the center being the lens?
The reason I ask is if you notice the flower itself is in focus, but so are the grass blades practically at the front of the frame. They are not on the same vertical plane as the flower.
Then check out this picture of two redbud tree buds:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33718659@N04/3498942875/
I was attempting to get them both in focus with a narrow depth of field because I wanted to see how the out of focus portion of the picture looked. I had a heck of a time getting them to both be in focus (it didn't help that it was getting dark and the wind was blowing causing them to move). What I ended up doing was centering the camera between the two trying to keep the front of the glass parallel to the branch and using the focus point to the right in the camera to get the right bud in focus. Then hoped the left one would come out. This took several tries and let's just say I'm glad I'm not spending money on film developing. I'm easily paying for the camera!
So am I right in the thinking that the in-focus plane is a sphere from the camera, not a flat plane?
XaiLo
05-04-2009, 03:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Like the first shot!
mugsisme
05-09-2009, 09:34 PM
r3g, congrats on the new camera! I am sure you love it.
Man, I SOOOOO want this lens, but no one has it. See what happens when you sleep for a few months and don't pay any attention to anything? all hell breaks loose.
Anyway, enjoyed seeing the pictures. And I do think the one with the model under the hood car is awesome. Very creative.
Thanks! I I'm loving the hell out of my D90 and the lens is amazing for the price. All the talk of its heavy CA problems are for the most part false in real world use. Sharpest lens I've ever used (which isnt saying much lol)
I thought I read somewhere on Flickr that Nikon just released a new batch.
Cyberwlf
05-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Any other thoughts from users besides r3g on this one :p
Especially if you've now had the chance to give it more usage. Have your opinions changed with time? (ie has it grown on you or have you grown tired of it?)
craigyc
05-10-2009, 02:47 PM
I was photographing an event last night and the light was dim.. coupled with the D90s excellent iso performance it proved invaluable and got some excellent shots I would have missed otherwise!
Any other thoughts from users besides r3g on this one :p
Especially if you've now had the chance to give it more usage. Have your opinions changed with time? (ie has it grown on you or have you grown tired of it?)
Can I pretend I'm not r3g and answer that question? :D
Having had it for weeks I'm still impressed with its speed overall image quality but I with barrel distortion wasnt as bad as it is. Thats my only complaint.
Cyberwlf
05-10-2009, 08:06 PM
You can be a r3g impersonator then ;)
I asked because i'm still divided by what prime to get next for my D300, already owning a 50mm f1.8D, but oh so very tempted by the IQ of the 1.4G but also taking into account the fact already having a prime of the same focal length that it may benefit me more getting the 35mm as my next purchase.
If I already had a 50mm 1.8 I'd be after the 85mm 1.4
Cyberwlf
05-11-2009, 10:31 AM
85mm is zoomed in the wrong direction...opposite focal length to what im after. 50mm gives me about 85 due to crop factor, but id like a 50mm equiv for a DX as thats 'human eye' equiv range
VTEC_EATER
05-11-2009, 10:41 AM
85mm is zoomed in the wrong direction...opposite focal length to what im after. 50mm gives me about 85 due to crop factor, but id like a 50mm equiv for a DX as thats 'human eye' equiv range
Then you should stick to a 50mm lens. A 35mm lens will change the perspective to be exaggerated and elongated from a normal "human eye's" perspective. The 35mm lens will "frame" on a crop camera like a 50mm lens on film or FX, but the "human eye" thing is all focal length, not crop factor.
Cyberwlf
05-11-2009, 10:53 AM
I wasnt aware 50mm equiv using a 35mm would do this given it doesnt rate as a WA lens. I have 24mm equiv (16mm FF) WA lens (via my Tokina) and that obviously elongates/etc depending on how one shoots an image. But human eye normal focal length I thought was between around 40-60mm.
Anyhow most lenses provide some degree of length or width distortion, based on whether they are telephoto or wide angle.
VTEC_EATER
05-11-2009, 11:46 AM
A 35mm lens wont elongate things too much, but it does elongate things relative to a 50mm, just as an 85mm lens flattens subjects relative to a 50mm lens. Its not much but it does make a difference.
I think a lot of people get confused thinking that if they buy a 35mm lens that it will act just like a standard 50mm lens on film or FX. This is untrue. It frames, as in the area (amount of stuff) you can fit in the frame, is similar to a 50mm lens on film, however the perspective is different. It slightly elongates things. It is not severe but depending on what you are shooting, lets take portraits for example, it will stretch the features of a persons face. Their noses will look a little longer and larger than it would in real life. The 50mm will shoot exactly like a 50mm should weather it is on film, or FX sensors, or DX sensors. Its perspective (elongate or flatten) will always remain the same. Just as a 35mm will do. Just as a telephoto will do. That never changes. Its just what you can all fit in the frame that changes. That's why I say a 35mm lens will "frame" like a 50mm but will not shoot like a 50mm.
Your Tokina 11-16 is always shooting at 11-16mm. The perspective that lens has on the world is always 11-16mm. It doesn't matter what camera you put it on, every shot will look the same (relative to its perspective (elongate/flatten)). The reason people say "effective 16-24mm" is because it "frames" like a 16-24mm lens would frame on film or an FX sensor. However, if you took your 11-16 on your camera and shot a photograph, and compared it to someone who shot with a 16-24mm lens on their film or FX sensored camera, the two shots would look different. The "stuff" that is in the frame may be the same (remember the area in which you can fill the frame will remain the same), but the perspective (elongate/flatten) will be different. And could very well be vastly different between your 11mm and their 16mm.
The lenses perspective always remains. No matter what camera you put it on. The lens is an inanimate object. Its optics are always the same. They don't change if you put it on a DX sensor, or a FX sensor, or a film camera, or if you figure out a way to slap it on to a medium format body. It doesn't matter. The lens will always act the same. Its just what all fits in the frame that changes.
Cyberwlf
05-11-2009, 12:41 PM
Okay thanks, obviously my level of understanding of optics on FF vs DX was more limited than i was aware. Thanks for the info tho :)
nsjuice
05-11-2009, 03:23 PM
Okay thanks, obviously my level of understanding of optics on FF vs DX was more limited than i was aware. Thanks for the info tho :)
Indeed some valuable info.
I'm wondering though, if the distortion is noticeable enough on the 35 to not use it for portraits vs. a 50mm lens.
It can still be used for portraits. It just depends on the orientation and angle of portrait.
A 35mm lens wont elongate things too much, but it does elongate things relative to a 50mm, just as an 85mm lens flattens subjects relative to a 50mm lens. Its not much but it does make a difference.
I think a lot of people get confused thinking that if they buy a 35mm lens that it will act just like a standard 50mm lens on film or FX. This is untrue. It frames, as in the area (amount of stuff) you can fit in the frame, is similar to a 50mm lens on film, however the perspective is different. It slightly elongates things. It is not severe but depending on what you are shooting, lets take portraits for example, it will stretch the features of a persons face. Their noses will look a little longer and larger than it would in real life. The 50mm will shoot exactly like a 50mm should weather it is on film, or FX sensors, or DX sensors. Its perspective (elongate or flatten) will always remain the same. Just as a 35mm will do. Just as a telephoto will do. That never changes. Its just what you can all fit in the frame that changes. That's why I say a 35mm lens will "frame" like a 50mm but will not shoot like a 50mm.
Your Tokina 11-16 is always shooting at 11-16mm. The perspective that lens has on the world is always 11-16mm. It doesn't matter what camera you put it on, every shot will look the same (relative to its perspective (elongate/flatten)). The reason people say "effective 16-24mm" is because it "frames" like a 16-24mm lens would frame on film or an FX sensor. However, if you took your 11-16 on your camera and shot a photograph, and compared it to someone who shot with a 16-24mm lens on their film or FX sensored camera, the two shots would look different. The "stuff" that is in the frame may be the same (remember the area in which you can fill the frame will remain the same), but the perspective (elongate/flatten) will be different. And could very well be vastly different between your 11mm and their 16mm.
The lenses perspective always remains. No matter what camera you put it on. The lens is an inanimate object. Its optics are always the same. They don't change if you put it on a DX sensor, or a FX sensor, or a film camera, or if you figure out a way to slap it on to a medium format body. It doesn't matter. The lens will always act the same. Its just what all fits in the frame that changes.
Hmmm... can you explain how this applies to digital compacts, e.g. a superzoom with a 1/2.5" sensor and a 6-72mm lens? Or a pinhole camera with no lens and a wall as the screen!
I think you'll find that the distortions occur primarily at the edges of the frame, so cropping does actually change the effective perspective character of the lens.
I think you'll find that the distortions occur primarily at the edges of the frame, so cropping does actually change the effective perspective character of the lens.
I would have thought cropping changes the field of view not the perspective.
VTEC_EATER
05-11-2009, 04:17 PM
Indeed some valuable info.
I'm wondering though, if the distortion is noticeable enough on the 35 to not use it for portraits vs. a 50mm lens.
Distortion, or that whole elongation/flattening thing, is more pronounced the closer you get to your subject. So, if you try using your 35 for a headshot, you will probably notice the distortion. On a full body shot, ehhh.. not nearly as much and probably not something anyone would point out. Heck, you can get somewhat normal looking a shot of someone with a 12mm lens so long as you don't get too close to them. They wont look exactly how they might look with a 50mm, actually they will look a bit different depending on the angle at which you shoot them (above (squatty and short) or below (stretched and tall) etc...), but the shot can work.
The one thing you should think about when choosing a focal length, especially when it comes to portraits or when there is a distinct subject and background, has to do with what you all want to "fit" in the frame. I did a quick post on here a while back about focal lengths and the effect there is on your subject and your background. Let me see if I can find it. Oops, I erased the photos...
Anyways, the just of it was, if you frame your subject to look the exact same (size wise) in a shot, the wider lens will show more of the background. The longer focal length will show less of the background. So if you really want to show the scenery, or "location" in your shot, then choose a wider focal length. If you want to show less of the background/scenery/landscaping because its ugly, or whatever, then choose a longer focal length and move further back from your subject. Anywhere between 35-85 you are going to get a similar looking shot without worrying too much about the distortion you see in a lens.
VTEC_EATER
05-11-2009, 04:30 PM
Hmmm... can you explain how this applies to digital compacts, e.g. a superzoom with a 1/2.5" sensor and a 6-72mm lens? Or a pinhole camera with no lens and a wall as the screen!
I think you'll find that the distortions occur primarily at the edges of the frame, so cropping does actually change the effective perspective character of the lens.
When you crop a photo in photoshop, does the effective perspective of your image change? No. Its the exact same image, just cropped. It doesn't matter if you shot it at 12mm, you will never make the image look like an 18mm shot if you crop it. Its because the lens' focal length needs to change if you are to change the perspective of the image. You can crop it to "frame" like an 18mm shot, but the perspective is still 12mm.
As for compact camera lenses... that's a strange one. I'm not sure how those lenses work and unfortunately I cant find any quick info on how those lenses are developed and how the focal lengths work on them. I'm sure others out there will have some incite on this.
Cyberwlf
05-11-2009, 04:46 PM
So effectively a 35mm @ 50mm equiv is fine for portraits which maintain effectively what the human eye captures anyhow, ie a full body length portrait (people aren't typically that close to see things from purely a headshot perspective). Where as the 50mm @ 85 effective allows the user to get that close should they choose without the distortion.
I just know in terms of distance to a subject the 50mm has required me to step back more often than not to capture what i've wanted to in general with it, so imagine with the 35mm i should be able to more or less maintain my current position to photograph something. But then again i rarely do headshots either.
PS. I went back through this thread looking at the images and did notice any noticeable distortion except in r3g's head shot, unless his head actually looks that way normally :p
nsjuice
05-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Great Technical aspect of things VTechEater.
It's quite logical if you really think about it.. something I let you guys do for me. lol
But without being analytical, those 35 shots aren't noticeable... and are beautiful if you ask me.
Just like everything else in life, look for flaws and youll find them.
VTEC_EATER
05-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Cyberwolf, the 35 will always shoot at the perspective of 35mm. You wont notice the distortion that much on full body shots, but for head shots, like r3g's self portrait, you will see the distortion. But 35mm lenses shouldn't be used for portraits... correction, typically 35mm lenses are not used for head shots because of this reason. That is unless you are trying to use that distortion for some photographic effect. For a headshot, 85-135 is the way to go. Its much more flattering and compresses things like noses, and the distance from your eyes to your ears.
From now on, don't think of the 35mm as a 50mm. Its not. Its a 35mm lens plain and simple. If you take a photo and crop the image in post processing, do you say you shot the image with a longer focal length lens? No. It was still shot with the same lens. It was just cropped. That is exactly what DX sensors are. They are "crop" sensors. They are not focal length changing sensors.
If you have any concern with distortion in any "people" shots you may shoot, stick to above 30mm. 30mm can be pushing it a bit depending on how close you are to your subject, ie. 30mm lens for a head shot vs. full body, but you should be okay. I pulled out the old Pentax ME film camera last weekend and shot with a 28/2.8 lens. Not the most flattering of shots, let me tall ya.
But ideally, you want to use the right focal length for the job. I wouldn't use a 35mm lens for a head shot unless for some reason I needed to fit a lot of the background in the photo. If the background is crap, then pull out the 50, or an 85mm. Frame it nice and tight and you will have a very flattering shot with the longer focal lengths.
VTEC_EATER
05-11-2009, 05:17 PM
Great Technical aspect of things VTechEater.
It's quite logical if you really think about it..
Well it would be common sense for everyone, but probably some moron in a marketing department way back in the early days of the Digital SLR said, "well, with these new crop sensors we need to tell all the people moving from 135 film format how their new lenses will act on these Digital cameras. I know, lets put a conversion factor on there and tell them that their lenses will be another 1.5x longer!"
Problem is, the lenses aren't any longer. They are still the same length. The image was just cropped, just like you would do in photoshop.
Unfortunately word spread and now everyone tacks on an additional 1.5x to their focal lengths thinking a 50 acts as an 85, and an 85 acts like a 135... Or a 12mm acts like an 18mm... I only wish. Seriously, my interior Architecture shots would benefit greatly from moving to full frame and shooting at 18mm vs using DX and shooting as 12. Much less perspective distortion and I would have far less elongated furniture, or lamps/light fixtures. But alas, I can not afford a D700 and a 14-24/2.8, so I will stick to what I have and try to find different ways to get things to look a bit normal.
Cyberwlf
05-11-2009, 05:24 PM
I was actually looking @ the 35mm not for head shots primarily anyhow as i mentioned in my previous post, it was because i wasn't getting enough of the 'background' that i am enticed by the effective focal length it offers. But i think you are slightly off in one point, that being in the way the lens can be easily used on a DX body.
You don't for example get say a 50mm on a FF and think lets imagine how this would look cropped to say 1.5x what i can see for every shot, no, you see what focal length it gives you to your subject on the body your using. But i do acknowledge that the glass itself regardless of the effective focal -length- will give you the same distortion regardless of the length it effectively offers, which is where your point comes in :)
Problem is, the lenses aren't any longer. They are still the same length. The image was just cropped, just like you would do in photoshop.
Unfortunately word spread and now everyone tacks on an additional 1.5x to their focal lengths thinking a 50 acts as an 85, and an 85 acts like a 135... Or a 12mm acts like an 18mm... I only wish. Seriously, my interior Architecture shots would benefit greatly from moving to full frame and shooting at 18mm vs using DX and shooting as 12. Much less perspective distortion and I would have far less elongated furniture, or lamps/light fixtures. But alas, I can not afford a D700 and a 14-24/2.8, so I will stick to what I have and try to find different ways to get things to look a bit normal.
all very true. the thing is though that the vast majority of people shooting are buying lens' for focal length, (not the true focl length but the visible in-the-frame length), without an understanding, (or care), of the perspective a lens gives.
case in point....take a pretty lady and shoot a head shot with a 105VR and then gt much closer and take the same headshot with a 35mm and the actual image itself is very different even though what you can see in the frame may actually be very similar. not many women like the result of a 35mm headshot in comparison to a longer focal length lens.
Cyberwlf
05-11-2009, 05:58 PM
I disagree. As for starters focal length distortion also varies in degree of distortion, because as mentioned a lens which is a WA or UWA or Telephoto which will still if used with a crop body still to the average user going for anything beyond a kit lens provides a certain expectation as to the general distortion it will provide. I personally just had limited knowledge to the effects of the classic 35mm myself (which makes me question why 35mm was the default focal length on film cameras for so long?).
I have no idea why you guys are making such a meal of this. It's basic maths that any pre school kid should be able to de mentally.
Before every shot I always apply this formula
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/class/refrn/u14l5eb1.gif
where
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/class/refln/u13l3f1.gif
The lens equation expresses the quantitative relationship between the object distance (do), the image distance (di), and the focal length (f). The equation is stated as follows:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/class/refln/u13l3f2.gif
The magnification equation relates the ratio of the image distance and object distance to the ratio of the image height (hi) and object height (ho). The magnification equation is stated as follows:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/class/refln/u13l3f2.gif
These two equations can be combined to yield information about the image distance and image height if the object distance, object height, and focal length are known.
Are you guys telling me that you don't do this? :confused:
Cyberwlf
05-11-2009, 07:03 PM
Algebra was never my favourite subject in school ;) We can't all be rocket scientists like K1W1 :p
I've found that as far as the distortion goes its more noticable in straight lines of the surroundings more than the subject. For example... The pole shes posing on. But 8/10 people viewing that photo prolly wont notice the distortion of the pole. As nsjuice said if you look for it youll find it. Same goes for the CA issues.
http://r3g-media.smugmug.com/photos/518057103_RdNS4-X3.jpg
Check this link out. There are some portraits posted with the 35mm. Distortion is noticeable but IMO its not bad. I'd say its more than passable unless your REALLY close.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/afsnikkor35mm18/discuss/72157617314532183/
PS - My face doesnt look like that IRL :)
VTEC_EATER
05-12-2009, 07:58 AM
all very true. the thing is though that the vast majority of people shooting are buying lens' for focal length, (not the true focl length but the visible in-the-frame length), without an understanding, (or care), of the perspective a lens gives.
Agreed. Admittedly, I'm guilty of buying lenses without knowing what the perspective change would be. Heck, my 12-24 is all about perspective distortion. I never really understood that when I purchased the lens. I just though, "Oh goodie, I can fit more in the frame." Its view of the world is quite a bit different though.
I guess I never really understood the perspective change until I either did my own research (ie. frame the same subject with a 30mm, 50mm, and 85mm lens) or actually saw someone else's demonstration online.
Here's a quick one I found:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/graphics-programs-photo-gallery/15566-demonstration-focal-length-distortion.html
I have been paying a lot more attention to my focal lengths as of late and have been intentionally using my feet to zoom, while using my zoom lenses to get the perspective right. Sometimes I prefer to step back and shoot at 50mm. Other times I may step forward a bit and shoot at 35 and bring in a bit of the scenery.
Speaking of perspective, my greatest concern with even looking at a Macro/Micro lens has to do with its perspective. Yeah, they can all shoot 1:1 but what else will be in the frame? I know a 50mm will fit a lot more than a 105, or especially a 150-200mm. Then again, you have working distance to have to contend with... Ugg. How do you make a choice?
Cyberwlf
05-12-2009, 09:16 AM
My 50mm taught me all about zooming with my feet, it also taught me about being forced to think of composition within a single focal length.
But yeah I bought my Tokina 11-16 with a knowledge it was a UWA and would distort and have converging verticals etc, but as the horse pic i posted here showed it was an expectation i had when i wanted an UWA (or even WA).
The deception for me has been using my 17-70mm or 18-200mm and shooting at the smallest focal length and because its part of a WA to Telephoto zoom sometimes forgetting about the distortion the WA side of it brings (only remembering later on my computer when i see buildings converging in to single points :p ) But yeah i have no one to blame but myself for forgetting that!
I would have thought cropping changes the field of view not the perspective.
Yeah, that's what I was saying...
If you take a portrait at 105mm, then take it again at 35 mm (from the same position), crop the 35mm image so you get the same field of view and resize both pictures you should have essentially the same image. This is contrary to what VTEC_EATER was saying about the physical focal length of the lens being the only thing that matters.
If you have infinite resolution, cropping and zooming in are the same thing, what matters is the distance between you and the subject and the field of view you have.
So a 35mm lens on a DX camera really is like a 50mm lens on a FF camera.
At least, that how it seems intuitively to me. I'm sure someone will type up the maths to prove it either way :)
kjmdrumz3
05-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Would you buy the lens for portraiture work, even if you already had the 50mm 1.4G? I'd like a lens that is a little wider than the 50 but faster than the kitty.
Would you buy the lens for portraiture work, even if you already had the 50mm 1.4G? I'd like a lens that is a little wider than the 50 but faster than the kitty.
Theres no rules that say you cant use it as a portrait lens. It all depends on the look your going for.
kjmdrumz3
05-12-2009, 08:33 PM
Hence the question.....Would you buy it again if you could do it over?
Sorry I misread the question. Ya I would buy it again. I wouldnt use it for traditional portraits though.
i love the 35mm. its my favourite lens. i dont think any of this discussion should detract anyone from buying one. but...and i say BUT....if you want to fill the frame with a girls head then imho, its not the right lens. try it for yourself, use 35mm on your kit lens and say 85mm on your 55-200. see the difference for yourself.
imo, reggie uses the 35mm the exact way it was intended. its an atmosphere lens where you want the model to be photographed in context with her surroundings. thats where the 35mm cant be beat.
kjmdrumz3
05-12-2009, 11:16 PM
Thanks for the info guys! Exactly what I was looking for!
Cyberwlf
05-13-2009, 06:35 AM
I am planning to finally order mine next week when i finally have the money to do so :p
VTEC_EATER
05-13-2009, 08:06 AM
Yeah, that's what I was saying...
If you take a portrait at 105mm, then take it again at 35 mm (from the same position), crop the 35mm image so you get the same field of view and resize both pictures you should have essentially the same image. This is contrary to what VTEC_EATER was saying about the physical focal length of the lens being the only thing that matters.
If you have infinite resolution, cropping and zooming in are the same thing, what matters is the distance between you and the subject and the field of view you have.
So a 35mm lens on a DX camera really is like a 50mm lens on a FF camera.
At least, that how it seems intuitively to me. I'm sure someone will type up the maths to prove it either way :)
I did a test on this last night. Pulled out the 12-24, the 18-55, and the 55-200VR (heck I got to use it for something, right?). Standing in the exact same location, cropping a shot at 12mm to look like the shot at 200mm does in fact frame the same. Foreground to background depth look the same. Depth of field..... huge difference. 200mm F/8 has a nice buttery background. 12mm F/8, quite a bit clearer, though not very distinguishable as the resolution got knocked down to 6% of the original photo. Unfortunately, we don't have infinite resolution, and a longer lens should be used if you want to get closer. Cropping just loses pixels.
Benp, your point is very much valid. 35mm on crop can look like 50mm on a full frame camera. It crops the same angle of view so long as you stand in the exact same locaiton. Depth of field is still quite a bit different. Actually from some test photos I saw in the Canon forum there is approximately a 1 stop difference between crop vs full frame. So framing your subject the same between a 35mm lens on crop and a 50mm on full frame, the shots should look about the same but the 35 needs to shoot at F/2 when the 50 can shoot at F/2.8 to get the same depth of field.
In any case, lets all agree not to use the 35mm for headshots.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.