35 1.8 DX on FX, in FX mode - impressive!

Absolutely had to try this out since it's sadly my only >f/2 lens in my current lineup, and boy does that help in low light. So how bad is vignetting when using this in straight-up FX mode? Hardly any! And this is with vignetting removal off.



This definitely makes my day instead of being "stuck" at 2.8 at the highest.

It seems the 35mm DX on an FX body is one of the best-kept secrets around.

This really, really makes my day. Since I'd honestly only need a high ap lens for indoors and indoors only benefit from wider angles, so its a major win-win for me instead of trying to invest into f/2 D or one of the AF 50s.

much less noticeable than this shot of 17-55 2.8 shot in FX mode on D600....

SkvLTD said:

Absolutely had to try this out since it's sadly my only >f/2 lens in my current lineup, and boy does that help in low light. So how bad is vignetting when using this in straight-up FX mode? Hardly any! And this is with vignetting removal off.

This definitely makes my day instead of being "stuck" at 2.8 at the highest.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing it would be pretty easy to set up a Lightroom preset to remove what little is there too, right? The 35mm f1.8G, may have jumped up my list of lenses to buy, since I was trying to only buy lenses that would move to FX with me if I decided to upgrade. Will this generally work with all FX bodies, or is it something that has to be tried on each FX body to be sure?

All in general. Its not like their sensor size varies that much. And in-camera vignetting removal takes care of this completely in jpegs, so RAW and PP will be very easy to do likewise.

Now, this lens does show horrible CA in bright situations, so its hardly all that great, but given the price and AF-Sness on DX, it's a bargain.

singlerosa said:

much less noticeable than this shot of 17-55 2.8 shot in FX mode on D600....

View attachment 75937

Click to expand...

I suspect they're not too generous with zoom lenses since making those a little bit wider would affect the whole design, but on a simple prime it's easier to do. That or it was a (an intended?) fluke to make it sharper in the edges on DX.

Anyone considering the new Nikon 35mm f1.8G FX lens? Weight wise, it is pretty light and it is similar to the 28mm f1.8G lens.

Oh? What will that bugger run our wallets? In a way though, I kind of don't see a point since DX performs very well and lots of us already own one.

SkvLTD said:

Oh? What will that bugger run our wallets? In a way though, I kind of don't see a point since DX performs very well and lots of us already own one.

Click to expand...

Looks like about $600. Probably will be better quality in the corners, but worth the extra $400...probably not to me, but I'll probably end up skipping the 35mm prime altogether since I'll probably add a better WA zoom like the 16-35 f/4 or 17-35 f/2.8, and a tele-zoom like the 70-200 f/2.8 to my 50mm prime and ditch the 18-105 kit lens at some point. Not sure what else I'd need after that (maybe a 105mm macro or the 24-70 f/2.8 if I come into some extra money though I think I'd have that range pretty much covered good enough going up to 35mm plus the 50mm).

gqtuazon said:

Anyone considering the new Nikon 35mm f1.8G FX lens? Weight wise, it is pretty light and it is similar to the 28mm f1.8G lens.

Click to expand...

I have shot with it and I was very impressed. The build quality is obviously not the equal of the 1.4, but for $1,000 less and lighter in weight, it is a very good alternative.

Yea. I personally don't quite quite fancy the 35 angle, but it's an angle I'm very used to at this point, as well as a 50 angle of view, so one lens to kill 2 high aperture birds without having to go and buy anything.

How good is this lense? DXO rates it below the 50mm F1.8d in sharpness.

In India, this lense is available for US $130, just for today. So I just ordered one. Could not justify the new FX version.

Honestly, on DX it's just fine, especially for that price.

Hmm, unfortunately, mine does not seem to be so forgiving. I shot four images, one at each of the Vignette Control settings, and this one is the best:

To be fair,this is with a UV filter. But I can't imagine not using one in the field, so I guess this is a non-starter for me.

robertlewisca said:

Hmm, unfortunately, mine does not seem to be so forgiving. I shot four images, one at each of the Vignette Control settings, and this one is the best:

To be fair,this is with a UV filter. But I can't imagine not using one in the field, so I guess this is a non-starter for me.

Click to expand...

I still have to try it @ f/2. If it's better at that, it still beats 3.5 or 4.5 of my other AFS glass. Also, I'm almost a year into NOT using any quality-crapping cheap filters and I've no complaints. Glass is tough. Always go in knowing you cannot afford to drop/damage the equipment and chances are it won't happen.