Table of Contents
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G ED
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
It’s a great lens without doubt – but technicalities aside, I, like you, found the Sigma 35 images to just be…..well, just more pleasing. They have that little something which makes the extra weight and iffy AF (just once in a while) pale into insignificance. I reckon your review is spot on – as always.
Chris, could you shed some light on “iffy” AF on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art? I did not notice major AF issues, but perhaps I overlooked something?
Hi Nasim. I have much love for Sigma’s lenses, especially their recent work, but have never found the AF to be as consistent as my Nikon f/2.8 zooms. While my 35 1.4 is certainly much improved, I still get the odd missed shot. Judging by your findings and those of another contributor here, perhaps I should get it looked at.
Hi Chris,
I have 3 of the newer Sigma’s and have had no AF issues. Admittedly, the oldest one is just over a year old (17-70 2.8-4.0, use it as a light walkaround lens) so AF issues may appear over a longer period. I also have the 18-35 and the 50 Art and all 3 have been flawless. Maybe I have just been lucky, but I would have it looked at.
Note that I shoot with the D7100 and am a working pro, so these lenses get a workout.
I encountered AF hunting with the 18-35 Art on a D3200 and D7100 only if I use Area AF and shooting dark/night scenes. Changing to single-point focus easily works around this issue.
Thanks for this review ! I love your reviews as always.
It would have been nice to see more examples of the harsh bokeh.
I’m currently using the 35mm DX version and i’m in love with it but I cannot use it passed f5.6 cause the vignetting becomes unusable.
So i have to decide between the Sigma and the Nikon 35mm1.8G FX. I just keep reading that the sigmas have lots of problems with focusing… My friend has the sigma 50mm 1.4 and with his 6d he has trouble in low light and even day time… it hunts a lot and the accuracy ain’t spot on…
Any thoughts on that ?
Duncan, I do have a few examples of harsh bokeh, but those were not very pleasing images to look at, so I excluded them from the review.
The Sigma art series are great, but I did hear that they have consistency issues with AF, particularly on Canon DSLRs. The Art series lenses I have tested so far were all quite good with AF (18-35mm f/1.8, 30mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and 120-300mm f/2.8), but I only used them on Nikon DSLRs. I did not use them for very long though – usually no more than a few months. Perhaps they develop AF issues overtime?
Contrary to many people who criticize Nikon I believe they are on the right track. The F/1.8 primes are solid and somewhat affordable. Take a look at the F/4 zooms; 16-35, 24-120, 70-200 also stellar performance at their price point (I friend of mine just sold his 24-70 F/2.8 in favor of the 24-120).
I fully agree! The lenses that Nikon has been making lately are all excellent. Love both f/1.8 and f/4 series – excellent value! I own a few f/1.8 and f/4 lenses myself and I am very pleased with them.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for another excellent review :-)
Any thoughts on these lenses vs the Zeiss 35mm F2 (which I think you have/had)?
Fred, that’s a tough question, because I am in love with the Zeiss 35mm f/2 :) Stay tuned for a fully updated Zeiss 35mm f/2 – it will be republished pretty soon with Imatest numbers :)
I have the Zeiss and love it to bits. Just wondering how one would improve on it (other than IQ at longer distances – it seem to be optimised at short/mid distances) and if the alternatives are worth considering.
I own both Sigma 1.4 Art and Nikon 1.8, and I have to say I haven’t found any difference in AF performance. I believe the Sigma produces a more pleasing & sharp image, but the Nikon is very close. Another big difference is that the Sigma is much heavier and larger, and for that reason only, I end up carrying the Nikon much more than the Sigma. However, when I want the best quality, I usually carry the Sigma, but the Nikon is much more versatile in my work given its portability.
Excelent review and photos Nasim.
Thank you for your feedback!
Thanks for letting us know! I also did not see much difference in AF, but some people state that Sigma Art series can be inconsistent…
Hi Ksrhee, since you have both Nikon and Sigma 35.
I would like to get yr advice if I get Nikon 35 1.8 as an amateur photographer.
A friend of mine has Sigma and mentioned of the same thing you posted here.
Kindly provide me advice, thank you….Angie
Nasim,
your test was on a DF . I have not yet decided to step up to a full frame camera. How about the D7100 . I would like to buy a 35mm lens that will work well for both the D7100 or a full frame . Be it the D750 or D810. I was considering the sigma 35 1.4 or the sigma 18-35( for dx only of course )
Jerry, yes, most of the shots were taken with the Df, but I did use the lens on other cameras and the actual MTF test was performed on the Nikon D810. This lens will work wonderfully on any Nikon DSLR, including the D7100…
Great review, as always.
I was scrolling through the review and now the comments to figure out which camera the MTF test was performed on. Would love to see this information included in future reviews.
Just a nitpick: on the first page you write “The same definitely cannot be said about the 35mm f/2D and most other AF-D lenses, which have pretty loud focus motors.”
But unless I forget my head this early in the morning, these lenses don’t have focus motors at all. Which of course doesn’t change the point about focusing noise. I suggest changing the last word from “motors” to “noise” or similar.
Dan, you are quite correct, all fixed now, thank you!
Hi Nasim,
finally….great pleasure to read! I would have had put in the Nikon 28 1.8 in the comparative section….but thats just me! I know thats personal preference if more 28 or 35 shooter…But nevertheless, a lot of people thinking about getting either the 28 or the 35….(cropping is always possible!)
I had both (Nikon 35 1.8 is gone traded in for the 20 1.8!)
I found the 28 to be the overall better performer (even more pleasing bokeh for env. portraiture and street, less vignetting, better flare ghost proofing but less center sharpness). Surprisingly, a lot of my friends find the 28 better as well esp. in order to “tell a better story of the person due tot the fact that more of the whole scene/environment/surrounding is on the image”!) and you only have to be slightly more careful with the distortion when shooting people with a 28 …its the “bottom limit” for shooting portraitures still well
Sample variation is sadly common when buying lenses….(my 28 has not any focus shift like ming theins one too!) The 35 1.4 is one of the weakest 1.4s with the 50 of the Nikon lineup sadly…..even good samples are still horrible weak for the price performance ratio esp. with reagard to the siggy 35 1.4….They just have to update several lenses even there are relatively new… a lot of of their so called pro line is not well performing (35,50 1.4…) on d800, e and d810……pressure is growing sony a7II, lens development etc.
Excited on your upcoming 20 1.8 review!!!!
You should also have a look on the Nikon AFS Micro lenses the 60 and 105 2.8 VR excellent for macro and portraiture too..esp. the 60 2.8 is underrated could be used as a standrard lens as well if you dont mind little more weight and smaller aperture….
20,28,50 and 85 thats my split up…
20,35,50 and 85 thats the theoretically better one..
All comes down to personal preference!
Keep it up Nasim! Take care! Nice christmas holidays for you and your family in advance!
Best regards
Ciro
That’s actually a great suggestion – as soon as I get my PC back from the project (currently working on a 2 week project outside), I will add the 28mm data into this review.
I think it does come down to focal length preferences, as you have rightfully stated. For photographing people, I find the 35mm to be more suitable, but if one is willing to not get too close and crop tighter, then the 28mm would also work. Personally, I would pick the 20, 35, 50 and 85mm setup though :)
Ciro, the 28mm f/1.8G Imatest figures have been added. Will be working on revising other lens data as well. Happy holidays!
Hi, very nice landscape shots, can you tell me how and where to focus? A sort of tutorial for landscape shots…
Greetings, Bart
Bart, have you seen my Landscape Photography Tutorial?
On a full frame, this lens should be pretty wide, like the shorter end of the 18-55mm on a DX camera. When i went to Europe last month, i found that the streets are too narrow to get a whole building in frame with the 35mm f1.8 DX on my d5100. I also had to movea fair way back to get the group photos.
Have you had a chance to try this with an IR filter? I was curious if it had a hot spot.
I haven’t tried it yet, but I am going to be testing all lenses going forward for IR :) In fact, my IR modified D800E will soon be here!
Nasim, nice review. Thank you. The 35mm f/1.8G is an excellent lens.Thank you. Regarding alternatives, there is nothing wrong with the 35mm f/2D, which is also an excellent lens. For those who cannot afford to shell out $600 for a new lens (or $$$$ for anything new), the 35mm f/2D performs just as well in the hands of good photographer. You probably wouldn’t even tell the difference between them on real pictures. The 35mm f/2D costs $330 new and about $200 used. It would be nice if in your reviews you could also recommend more affordable and comparable alternatives in your gear reviews. Not everyone needs the latest and newest gear to take good pictures. Just saying…
He actually does point out affordable alternatives. In fact he even mentioned the very one you pointed out. Whether someone can tell the difference… that very much depends. Still, it’s a good alternative. However there are two things: the new lens gathers a bit more light and, more importantly, has a focus motor. When Nikon eventually drops screw motor support on FX lenses then the 35/2 becomes a manual lens. For some people that’s very important to know. And if you’re using a DX camera with this lens (as a bridge as suggested in the article) that could be a reality today.
James, I did mention the 35mm f/2D, but did not have any numbers for it to show differences. At the time when I did this, B&H was out of stock on the 35mm f/2D, so I could not compare. However, going forward, I am definitely planning to do a comparison and introduce more budget alternatives. I also have a few budget lens reviews coming up, as soon as I am done with the ones I have right now :)
Thank you for the review… and every other of your’s.
Resolution wise, I was expecting something more like the chart of your April, 28th article but it seems one other lens, or one other camera.
Even the compared chart for the Sigma ART is also very different indeed.
¿What has changed?
Pedro, I have actually explained the difference in numbers in my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art review. Basically, I switched to DCRaw for converting NEF files directly, rather than converting to JPEG first. This change is what caused the numbers to drop. I have a plan to go back and revise every review I have written to date with the updated numbers, just have not had the time yet. I already have the numbers for about 1/3 of lenses, just need to update the reviews. Hoping to complete most of the reviews later this year/early January.
Given the drawbacks as quoted: “Despite these strengths, the lens does have some optical issues one should be aware of. Its vignetting levels are rather high and chromatic aberrations tend to be on the higher side even when stopped down.”
I don’t see how this lens then grades out as 5/5 on Optical Performance. I did read the previous bit, but if there’s a fair amount of CA and much vignetting (at least on FX), 5/5 seems big. Am I misunderstanding something?
Shawn, you are right, I should revise those numbers based on the overall performance, rather than just MTF numbers. Actually, I should probably change the grading system a bit for lenses, so that they include more info…
Hi Nasim,
Great review, as always !
In order to appreciate aesthetics, colors, and microcontrast
(and not only sharpness !), could you show us some side by side pictures
of the same scene shoot with Nikon 35/1.8, Nikon 28/1.8, Nikon 35/1.4, Sigma
35/1.4 ?
Thanks…
Best regards
Chris
Chris, that’s a great suggestion. Will have to plan that out next time, because the lens has already been sent back… I think it would be great to do another comparison with all 35mm lenses. The only problem is, I do not want to involve different focal lengths, as it either changes perspective or framing, which can skew results significantly.
Nasim Mansurov
yes do this Nasim! I agree with Chris and Ciro another reason (beside cropping is always possible! ;))why I would prefer the 28 anyday over the 35 1.8 fx even when shooting mainly portraitures is: It does have Nano coating which is quite useful for portraits esp. outdoors and also the lenses with nano coating have better colors and microcontrast imo…..also the 28 as you rightfully stated has a much better overall performance (mid and corner sharpness)
Hi Chis and Nasim,
At below link you can find a great comparison of 35 lens, but in Vietnamese, use Google translate I think.
www.vnphoto.net/forum…p?t=189358
Best regards,
Dphan.
For those who want to save money and want an even smaller lens: don’t forget the underrated old 35mm 2.0 D. Up from 4.5 it beats the big and expensive 24-70mm 2.8 lens in sharpness on my D800. The 24-70mm is the workhorse for most professional photographers, so the old 35mm lens should be more than enough for amateurs. Second hand very very cheap, smaller and extremely light. Only if shooting at 2.0 is important for you I would not recommand but for object isolation there are better options anyway.
Thank you for your review, it’s always wonderful.
I am thinking of having this one, kinda comparing to Sigma 35 1.4 as well.
Finally I found a lens that has minimal distortion for my Nikon crop camera. I love how low amount of distortion it has.
People keep saying that you can fix it in post, I just prefer to not be moving pixels around in my photograph and I much prefer how lenses with little distortion look.
Nikon has this Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D and even though I can’t autofocus with it on my DX body, it looks so natural and good because it produces almost no distortion.
Hi Nasim, Greetings from India. Your website is the best work I have came across till now. I always get to this treasure whenever I look for any information. I am a beginner and have just started several months back with a Nikon D3200 (18-105 mm); though I have not practiced much but on several occasions I felt that my lens wasn’t good enough – once when I was in a zoo and another problem which I face is the depth in a frame – I do not get a blurred background – So, I’ve shortlisted two lenses
(1) www.flipkart.com/nikon…b314174430
(2) www.amazon.com/Nikon…olife0c-20
Now, a couple of questions have been on my mind for quite sometime now.
(a) Should I go for these lenses being so new to the photography that I still struggle with the exposure settings and all? (b) Are these lenses good enough for my Nikon D3200 or there is a possibility that with my entry level camera I would find those problems again? (c) This telephoto lens I am getting through a friend of mine in US (as there is a huge price difference between www.amazon.in and www.amazon.com) – why this is so cheap just ~$240 that too along with all the other accessories? I won’t be having any way to return or complaint or anything. (d) The 35 mm lens is without VR – so would it make much of a difference?
Thanks in advance! :)
Hi, I am new to this site and late by about 5 years to this review/comparison. I have a Nikon D3200 and have just started out on Photography. I am contemplating adding a lens to my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens and have a dilemma. I prefer shooting landscapes, street views, buildings, roads and the like and am particularly fond of shooting in low light while my spouse prefers shooting animals, birds and the like. What will be the best all purpose lens for my requirements. I was considering 50mm f/1.8D, but that will not autofocus on my D3200 – so contemplating 35mm f/1.8G after reading lot of reviews. Also, I found a cheap niko 70-300mm lens which does not have VR – will that help in handheld shots without tripod and how good will these lenses be in low light? My budget stretches only to this – what would be your advise on procuring a new lens. Thanks for all your time.
Hi, Nasim. Great review as always!
whereelse this lens better vs sigma 18-35mm beside the price?
i’m using d7200. sigma 18-35mm f1.8 art is about 3times on the price compare to this lens… but it comes with 18 to 34mm which i dont have it when i choose only fix 35mm.
which one gonna be more worth?
thanks.
Any plans to review the new Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC? I would love to see your impressions of it and how it comparison with the Nikon for FX.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for this review.
after reading this blog I have started using 35 mm 1.8g and found it v. useful in all the situation (low light, portrait, bokeh, pre-wedding shoot, indoor event photography, landscape and street too ). the best part of this lens is it is v. sharp in all conditions, produce natural colors and v. lightweight ,(have taken almost 1000 shots in 4 hour event).
The only thing needed is…. technique of taking different kind shots.
Thanks
Great website and well considered reviews. My thanks for this great resource. I am confused on one detail though. The MTF chart for the Nikon 35 1.4 in this review (MTF comparison 1.8 vs 1.4) does not match the MTF chart in your Nikon 35 1.4 review. I assume they should be consistent – which one is correct?
Hi. In my opion, this lens is the best around 30mm for me, because is so small, light and optical excellent. The price is also acceptable. Tamron 1.8, Sigma and Nikon 1.4 are much bigger, heavier, most expensive and the output is so similar. If I didn’t deal with the weight, price and autofocus, I would buy Sigma art. All Sigma art lenses for portraits are unique.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the review.
After reading your review, I’ve really in love with both lens Nikon 50mm f/1.8G and Nikon 35mm f/1.8G ED.
But due to budget limit, I decide to buy one lens 1st (but will own both for future). :)
I was use for travel to take tourist attractions and portrait. Anyone can advice me to buy which one 1st?
Thank you and appreciate it.
Hi Nasim,
So useful reviews thanks & keep going. My question is I have a Nikon D750, Since i have a Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens i use it on my FX body for low light situations. I come a cross in your reviews that DX lens on FX bodies doesn’t suit well. I know i am loosing much area as it is a crop sensor, but does it make any or much difference in the quality of the picture.
Please recommend me weather its worth to buy any FX prime.
I also have Old Nikon 35-70 mm 2.8D ,& Tamron 70-200.
Please let me know using the 35mm DX on my body is a better idea or its make much difference if i change to FX lens.
I am not a professional, its my hobby and passion. So i am not prepared to pay out a lot.
I shoot portraits and family parties in the nights. Otherwise 35-70 mm is my all time lens.
Hi,
Just bought the d850. Since all of my lenses are more than 20 years old I want to catch up with today’s sharper lenses and AF possibilities.
I want to buy a 35 mm and tend to buying the 35/1.4 Sigma because of the lesser level of distortion as written in your test. But, in the manual of the d850 Nikon says that within their own range of lenses there can be differences in the amount of cross-point AF sensors used. Since the more cross-point AF sensors the more accurate AF is, I would like to know what the number of cross-point sensors is when using a Sigma 35/1.4 compared to the Nikkor AFS 35/1.8G. Is AF focusing as good for both lenses ?
Kind regards from Holland
Hello Gentlemen.
I wanted your opinion on what lens to get for an D850. I just purchased the Nikon 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G and wondering of I should get the 24, 28, or 35 1.8GFX. I enjoy taking pictures of people more than landscapes. I’ve read all three reviews just hoping to get the best overall lens (be it perspective, Bokeh, or sharpness). I already have the Nikon 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 2.8.
Thanks!
Hi Nasim,
Thank you for the great review. How does this compare to the new 35mm S (Z Mount)…does the performance gain justify the price difference in your opinion? (for pro use)
Thank you.