Nikon AF-S 35mm F1.4 G

[texfoto]

I'm debating this lens myself. It's between this and the 24 1.4.

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm debating this lens myself. It's between this and the 24 1.4.

Do it - it's almost wielded to one of my bodies

 

[texfoto]

Do it - it's almost wielded to one of my bodies

35, 24, or both?

 

[boyfalldown]

35, 24, or both?

The 35 - it's far and away my most used lens, just awesome.

The 24 is a magical lens but I wouldnt be without a 35

 

[texfoto]

The 35 - it's far and away my most used lens, just awesome.

The 24 is a magical lens but I wouldnt be without a 35

As I have a 50 1.4 AF-S already the 24 would fill a bigger gap as I sold my 24-70 (too bulky). The 35 F/2 could sort of be my poor man's 35 for now. Decisions, decisions......

 

[Philx1979]

very poor this thread is still going on without a single picture yet.

 

[treeman]

It was the 35mm for me as I rarely shoot around the 24mm area, plus the 35mm would work in well with some reportage ideas I'm working on.
Mike, The 35mm is actually quite bulky, but yes certainly less than the 24-70.

 

[treeman]

very poor this thread is still going on without a single picture yet.

I hope you don't mind Dave, and seeing as you've just cost me a fortune :nuts:

http://www.davidnashphotography.co.uk/personal-photography/new-york/

 

[trevorbray]

I hope you don't mind Dave, and seeing as you've just cost me a fortune :nuts:

http://www.davidnashphotography.co.uk/personal-photography/new-york/

Great bit of marketing for this lens. Easy to see why you were convinced Mark

 

[Dman]

Well, cheers Dave, your New York pics finally did it for me. Picked one up from Park Cameras this afternoon

Great stuff! You won't regret it one bit, that and the 85 are pretty much all I use these days now.

 

[gad-westy]

Well I currently have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses which I am happy with, but I was thinking of getting either the 35mm 1.8 or 50mm as an xmas pressie... but not sure which would be best... and now I see the 35mm 1.4... hmmmm it's for my D5000.

Good review here.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/N...G_vs_35mm_f2D_vs_DX_35mm_f1-8G_compared.shtml

This is the verdict:

"The unassuming Nikkor AF-S DX 35/1.8G puts in a surprise performance here. It is the clear choice if you are a DX-shooter and can even perform surprisingly well on a D700 if you know what you're doing. The nominal 2/3 larger aperture from the 1.4G does not sound like a huge incentive to get over the hurdle of investing almost 9x the money even if you factor in the better build quality, nano-coating, and the distance window. But keep in mind that the better transmission characteristics of the larger lens deliver almost 1.3EV more light. That is substantially more than the nominal values of f/1.4 vs f/1.8 suggest!

For serious FX shooters the AF-S 35/1.4G is certainly the weapon of choice as it is so much better than the 35/2.0D: the new design gives not only a one stop advantage over the smaller/older sibling, which means that you get more dof-separation and more light to work with, but it also delivers better image quality at every aperture.

If price, size and weight is a concern for an FX-shooter, the AF 35/2.0D is still an alternative to the new 35/1.4 at a fifth of the price as it does in itself perform pretty decent, even very good from f/5.6 on - if you don't need top corner performance.

The findings support that the DX 35/1.8G already earned a "highly recommended" from Gordon with an overall score of 87%. But one thing is already clear: The 35/1.4G is simply the best 35mm lens from Nikon for the serious pro."