New Nikon 35mm f/1.8 FX in 2014

WestEndBoy

Golf said:
@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...at it compares to the Sigma 1.4, as well as, Nikon's own 35 1.4.

I must admit to a couple of biases.

1.
Nikon makes a great product and I am willing to forego the best deal to support them - within reason. I also appreciate the value of a competitor like Sigma keeping Nikon honest.
2.
I love fast lenses because of their light gathering power and narrow depth of field. I also want them to have great image quality wide open.

These biases might be blinding me somehow. But that is OK. I will eventually figure it out and the learning process is quite the ride.

Golf007sd

Well it is official...the new Nikon 35 1.8G for FX was announced at CES 2014. Those that are interested will be able to get one for about $600.00.

TaoTeJared

Wishing that it was for about $400. Smallish though which is good. Looking forward to getting my hands on one and try it out.

Issue I see for me personally at that price, I can sell my X100 used and get the new x100s for the same cost.

shawnino

Not sure if this is the place to put this or not but...
...$600?? Really??

People who buy this glass can comment if it's worth $600. Not me. I think the Sigma will take an awful lot of beating at $700 (sale) $800-$900 (regular).

The one thing I think I know "for sure" is that given recent prices:
--800mm $17K
--updated 80-400 $2600
--58 1.4 $1700
--Hipster camera that lets you do "Pure Photography" $2700
--this 35mm 1.8 $600

anybody who is expecting the 200/4 and 300/4 upgrades to be at $2K or less, the D400 at requested specs (which I still think isn't coming) at $2500, or the updated FX fisheye (still a rumour) under $1K, is crazy as a soup sandwich.

TaoTeJared

35mm equiv:
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS $579.00 (why can't Nikon put VR on it?)
Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 $899.00
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital 17mm f/1.8 $499
Hell even the SLR Magic 23mm f/1.7 Hyperprime toy Lens for Fujifilm X-Mount is $399.00

Lens prices are on the rise across the board and if you want high quality, every lens is shooting to the $700-999 instantly.

I like 35mm primes for mostly personal stuff. I just want one that is small and easy to carry with a 50mm, with close distance - this has it. For work, my zooms are in their optimal range so I don't bother with wide primes.

Sigma's lens and this new 50 lens are very large. If you want them for studio work, not a big deal, but personally I look at primes as my small kit.

I just wonder if it will have a character to it.

WestEndBoy

How useful is VR on a short focal length? Extra dollars, something else to break. Not sure I find that appealing.

adamz

way to overpriced, it can't cost 3x more to produce FX equivalent.

NSXTypeR

way to overpriced, it can't cost 3x more to produce FX equivalent.

The 35mm DX already kind of covered the FX circle to some extent. Maybe they put nanocrystal coat on it.

Nikon wants to increase their profit margins, so that's where this has gone...

PB_PM

No, nano crystal coating is not listed on the Nikon website.

Photobug

Not sure if this is the place to put this or not but...
...$600?? Really??
...anybody who is expecting the 200/4 and 300/4 upgrades to be at $2K or less, the D400 at requested specs (which I still think isn't coming) at $2500, or the updated FX fisheye (still a rumour) under $1K, is crazy as a soup sandwich.

+1 and I love the referrence to "crazy as a soup sandwich".

TaoTeJared

How useful is VR on a short focal length? Extra dollars, something else to break. Not sure I find that appealing.

Very useful for low light especially for those who didn't receive the ultra steady hand gene. The D800 will show any movement unlike the sub 20mp days where just due to the resolution, you could get away with some.

TaoTeJared

way to overpriced, it can't cost 3x more to produce FX equivalent.

I'm in hopes this will be one of those "MSRP" but in stores $550 in 6 months and dropping for the next 18 to settle around $450.

Elvishefer

Have there been any sample images yet?

adamz

some examples

Elvishefer

Thanks Adamz

donaldejose

I would say it looks quite nice from those examples.

WestEndBoy

I will watch the reviews on this lens closely. Not because I want to buy it, but to try to gain insight into what is in Nikon's head regarding the "Sigma 35mm 1.4 challenge" (and now the 50mm 1.4 challenge) and how Nikon might respond to it. I am hoping that Nikon responds to Sigma trying to outdo it with an updated 35mm that reminds us all how good Nikon is when it wants to be.

heartyfisher

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

Absolutely - and all the other missing DX lenses too.

Well if nikon is not supporting the DX other brands will ..

WestEndBoy

Ken Rockwell has a review of this lens on his website and it is only a day or two after its announcment. When I read his review, it seems that he has not actually tried it.

Interesting.....

donaldejose

Yes, he sure makes assumptions (probably correct though) about something he has not tried. One has to take his comments with a grain of salt. As Ken Himself wrote: "my usual long-winded full of hot air reviews." Ken is part solid information, part skewed opinion and part entertainment. Ken first writes up published information in his format and then adds some opinion which odds are will be mostly accurate. I am sure he has ordered the lens and will edit his "review" when he actually obtains a copy to test. When you don't see photos of his kids accompanying a review you know he has not yet actually tested the lens!

WestEndBoy

Yup!

adamz

As we agreed some time ago, maybe even on the old forum. Please don't state KR as someone with valuable opinions unless you want to start a word fight on the forum, which will not be tolerable.

Photobug

+1 Adamz...tired of that KR stuff.

Vipmediastar_JZ

There should be a stickie "don't qoute KR"

He does have some useful info and sometimes a google search KR comes up with the answer.

However his imginary reviews are annoying. Its more for the SEO i assume.

TaoTeJared

some examples

Bokeh looks good - also a bit soft (hard to tell but a bit expected). Seems like a good cheaper option.