New Nikon 35mm f/1.8 FX in 2014

shawnino

Main blog reports that this lens will be announced in three weeks.

Suppose the price is $500. Aside from $500 being a round number, it's somewhat in-between the 28mm 1.8 and the mass-produced 50mm 1.8.

Given that the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 takes an awful lot of beating at $800-$900, but given that this OEM Nikkor will surely be lighter...

--How good will the lens need to be to sell well?
--On top of it being good, does it need razzle-dazzle (Nano Coating, super-duper-mega ED, unicorn-hide carrying case, retro styling, insert your own ideas here...)?

Vipmediastar_JZ

nano would be cool and that round number looks good. I always wanted a 1.4 lens and the sigma fills the need.
the nikon 35mm 1.8dx is a nice lens and small too. If the 1.8fx is nice and light i'm sure it will be a hit.

henrik1963

The 85 1.8 is good. Hope they will make the 35 as good. If they do I will buy one.

Golf007sd

Lets see what Nikon has to offer @ CES.

Now, for those that are seeking a 35mm for their beloved FX body, I highly recommend looking at the Sigma 1.4. It is a fantastic lens.

roombarobot

I was really psyched about this new FX 35mm this morning... Then Amazon had a lightning deal giving $200 off on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, so now I have one of those on order.

The Sigma is still available at $200 off: Go here on Amazon why it is still going on.

NSXTypeR

Wow, I nearly crapped myself when I thought it was a new 35mm 1.8 DX. Congrats Nikon, you completely forgot about DX shooters!

I mean, sure, 35mm for FX would be great, and it's a missing focal length, but there's been zero love for DX shooters.

It's okay, I can just get the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8.

Ironheart

Last I checked FX lenses work on DX too, might even use the "sweet" part of the lens. Also, what's wrong with the current 35mm f/1.8 DX lens?

JakesGT

Also, what's wrong with the current 35mm f/1.8 DX lens?

It's CA, slow focus, cheap feel and it's a little to close to the 50. I got rid of mine for the 28 1.8 and it's my favorite lens

PB_PM

Wow, I nearly crapped myself when I thought it was a new 35mm 1.8 DX.

Yeah, because the new FX lens wouldn't work on a DX body, oh wait it will. :P

NSXTypeR

Last I checked FX lenses work on DX too, might even use the "sweet" part of the lens. Also, what's wrong with the current 35mm f/1.8 DX lens?

Nah, nothing wrong with using a FX lens on a DX body. I just wanted something wider. Maybe a 20mm 2.8 for DX.

Wow, I nearly crapped myself when I thought it was a new 35mm 1.8 DX.

Yeah, because the new FX lens wouldn't work on a DX body, oh wait it will. :P

People use the 35mm 1.8 DX on FX all the time.

PB_PM

And it looks like crap. I had a 35mm 1.8G DX lens and sold it within weeks of going full frame because it vignetted so badly.

TaoTeJared

I also missed that it was FX! I'm looking forward to this one! That makes a 28, 35, 50, 85 1.8s. that is a good sign.

It is good to see that we might start seeing the 2.8 prime group updated. I just hope they keep them small and "cheaper" under the $600 range. I love the 24/35/50mm size. The 28mm 1.8 and all the 35 1.4s are too big for my taste.

henrik1963

It is a good move that Nikon is updating their classic primes - 28, 35, 50 and 85. Now we need 24 and 135.

I can feel the pain in the DX camp. They badly need a 16 mm.

spraynpray

I can feel the pain in the DX camp. They badly need a 16 mm.

Absolutely - and all the other missing DX lenses too.

PB_PM

Isn't there already a "oh Nikon why don't you make xxxx DX lens" whining thread? Stop bemoaning each FX lens that comes out already, it's getting old. :-@

NSXTypeR

Isn't there already a "oh Nikon why don't you make xxxx DX lens" whining thread? Stop bemoaning each FX lens that comes out already, it's getting old. :-@

It's fine if you can afford the FX primes, but what Nikon is doing is pretty bizarre. I don't think I've seen a company neglect a product line like this before.

Elvishefer

I picture a bunch of Nikon execs sitting around a war conference table saying, "OK, look, we all agree it can't get worse for us in the marketplace. Time to play the DX card," followed by huzzahs all around.

The important question is when that discussion took place, and when the products resulting from that discussion can hit the market. Maybe 2014 will be the year of DX patches.

In other news, I'm very much looking forward to this lens from Nikon. I shoot the 35mm DX on my D700 because I like the focal length, weight of the lens and the look it gives. But it is a look, and that look doesn't fit all situations. A quality, FX 35mm has potential.

WestEndBoy

I was sitting next to someone at a Christmas party two weeks ago with my Coolpix A - a 35mm equivalent 28mm prime and I asked her to take a picture of my wife and I. She couldn't find the zoom and was besides herself, "How can a camera not have a zoom." I tried to explain and she said that she went to photography school and a real professional got a zoom. She then summoned over the professional photographer shooting with a D700 and 24-70 2.8 and asked for his opinion. He said "Hi Jeff" as I know him and she said "you guys know each other?
' He asked me how my D800 was going, she asked what a D800 was, and he said it was the newer version of "this". She said, "you have the newer version of that!!" and then went quite, embarrassed about her tirade about me not knowing anything about photography.

My point is that the vast majorities of entry level and medium amateurs want zooms and view a prime as a "cheapo lens" and are unaware of the professional market. I have been trying to find a cheap prime for my sons 8th birthday which is on Christmas. I can't do it and have been scratching my head for months. I will probably end up getting him a D3XXX with the 35mm DX and then he can emulate me with my D800 and 50mm which he is always trying to do with the Coolpix A.

Nikon is marketing DX to amateurs. I would not expect to see more than a few token primes.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@jshickele similar situation with a friend. my friend was thrown back with the 35 and 50 prime. he liked his zoom kit lens better. I tried to explain the benefits of a prime but he insisted on the zoom kit to be better.

shawnino

Zoom vs. Prime a matter of style, and the issue leads me to think Nikon is really trying to thread the needle here. The 1.8 series are aimed at "people who appreciate the importance of primes" and yet "people who don't want or can't afford the f/1.4".

This is great at 28mm where there's no 1.4 selling new. It's probably quite good at 85mm, where the 1.8 is about $1,000 cheaper than 1.4G and $400 cheaper than 1.4D. I wonder if, at 50mm, where the price is half but effectively only $200-$250 less, there's the same traction.

I think sledding will be toughest at 35mm because of the excellent Sigma. Sure, some people will pass the Sigma based on size/weight or that it's 3rd party. But if I was looking for a 35mm, this new Nikkor is $500, and the Sigma is $700 on sale (as it was yesterday), well, Sigma please for me.

As a corollary, once the Nikkor 1.8 comes out, I can't see anybody at all paying $1600-$1700 for the Nikkor 1.4. Very good lens (my copy is, anyway), but the value proposition has completely disappeared. If the Sigma doesn't get you, the 1.8 will.

WestEndBoy

I think that Nikon has to fix the 35mm 1.4G. They will also need to fix the 24mm 1.4G which has the same issue just waiting for Sigma to exploit it.

Or if there is another argument to buy the lens besides sharpness like there is with the 58mm 1.4G, then they need to explain it. Nikon will need to explain why sharpness doesn't matter past a certain threshold.

Or just fix it. How much would it cost Nikon to make their 35mm 1.4G sharper than the Sigma?

Hmmm.....they didn't really do that with the 58mm 1.4G very well either.

Golf007sd

@jshickele: If you are seeking a 35mm prime for you FX body, I would not wait: get the Sigma and you will be one very happy camper.

I think that Nikon has to fix the 35mm 1.4G. They will also need to fix the 24mm 1.4G which has the same issue just waiting for Sigma to exploit it.

What "issue" are you talking about exactly...in relation to the 35 (as well as the 24)? I have the 24 1.4G and it is one of the most amazing primes Nikon has ever made and I'm very proud of having it in my bag. It produces results that continue to "blown my mind."

TaoTeJared

I believe the "issue" is that DxO isn't telling them "this is the best" by our cookie cutter measurements that change when mounted on different bodies and won't tell you the process behind it - tests. I guess for some, hyper sharpened crops at 500% distinguishes a good lens or not. Personally I like the look of the Nikon better over the Sigma's. I don't think I will ever be sold on buying a Sigma lens again and certainly not one above $500. If it is a bit sharper doesn't mean squat to me when the tires hit the pavement. They have got to last. A bunch of Sigma fanboys at the local shop all bought their 85's when they came out, each of them have sent them in with focus issues and gear problems after 2-years of use. Kind of sad hearing that one, I was looking at a 85 to update my stuff with.

People here are test and pixel peeping junkies. Neither of those things equate to a good image though. Most prime shooters I know for for the "Look" rather than some generic DxO test. For 1.8 -2.8 primes I could care less if they are as sharp as "X" but I just want a small prime set that is easy to take along. Packing for my vacation I'm really feeling the pain. I could get buy with a 24/35/50/105 small prime set. On my film cameras that total set I can fit in a small bag and weigh less than my 16-28 & 24-120 and are less noticeable. Now I need a backpack and people look at me as if I'm attached to an elephant.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'm tired of seeing Fuji, Oly, Pany, and Sony pump out small primes and small bodies while Nikon & Sigma believes that the size of the lens needs to be larger. Leica's 30yr old primes are sharper and 10 times smaller. Time to break the mold.

Msmoto

@TaoTeJared

"If it is a bit sharper doesn't mean squat to me when the tires hit the pavement"

Love it. And I agree, the minimal issue of sharpness under extreme conditions is not very useful to me. My Nikkor 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 plus my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 are the primes I love to use. I have not had an issue with any of these. They are so superior to my abilities I will never be able to fully exploit them.

WestEndBoy

This is getting interesting:

Golf said:
jshickele said:

I think that Nikon has to fix the 35mm 1.4G. They will also need to fix the 24mm 1.4G which has the same issue just waiting for Sigma to exploit it.

What "issue" are you talking about exactly...in relation to the 35 (as well as the 24)? I have the 24 1.4G and it is one of the most amazing primes Nikon has ever made and I'm very proud of having it in my bag. It produces results that continue to "blown my mind."

My answer follows:
The issue may be more of a marketing issue than a real issue. The discussion and my experience trying out the 58mm 1.4G has me thinking about this because I really like how that lens looked on the DF I tried i

The issue with the 35 is that many are complaining about the softness of the Nikon lens and touting the superiority of the Sigma. DXO's lens score is 39 and 33 for the Sigma and Nikon respectively. Sharpness is 23 and 17 "Perceptual Megapixels" for the Sigma and Nikon respectively. In both cases, the higher number is better.

I claimed that the same issue exists for the Nikon 24mm 1.4G because its score is 34 and 17 for overall performance and perceptual megapixels respectively. The performance is nearly identical to the Nikon 35mm 1.4G FOR THESE TWO SPECS. So, if Sigma can upstage Nikon on the 35mm, they should also be able to do it on the 24mm. One "proviso" that I will identify up front. It might be harder to achieve a higher score for a shorter focal length, so I may not be comparing apples to apples. However, even if it is true (probably is), is it material enough to nullify the point?

So:

Is this a marketing issue or a real issue. Golf, you seem to really like your Sigma. Is it based on your experience validating the above point, and if so, would not the same point be valid for the 24mm?

Heck, for all we know, Sigma underpriced their lens and is losing money on every one so they can benefit from the publicity of "upstaging Nikon".

I wonder if this belongs in the new lens softness thread?

Golf007sd

@jshickele: At the current moment, Nikon's F 1.8's have given the end user a great bang for their money. In fact, the I personally feel that the 50 & 85 1.8's have shown better results than their counter partners 1.4's and left the buyer with more cash in the bank.

As for the Sigma 1.4, it too is not without its issues. Many have stated that they have had focusing issues and had to return the unit and purchased the Nikon, thus resolving their focusing issue. Personally, I have not had a problem of this nature but I know people that have.

When this new lens does show its face, lets see what it can do...as it compares to the Sigma 1.4, as well as, Nikon's own 35 1.4.