After Nikon introduced the super lightweight and inexpensive Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lens for DX cameras, many Nikon shooters started requesting a similar lens for full-frame cameras. Those who did not want to spend over $1500 on the professional Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G did not have a lot of options from Nikon aside from either using the 35mm f/1.8G DX lens on full-frame, or using the older Nikkor 35mm f/2D lens. Sigma’s timing on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art was spot on for a number of people with its lower price point and superb optical performance, but it also came with both size and bulk considerations. On January 6 2014, Nikon finally announced the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED lens to fill that gap. At $599 MSRP, the lens is not only significantly cheaper than the f/1.4 version, but it is also twice lighter and more compact. I had a chance to use this lens for a few months this year and although I could not work on a full review earlier due to time constraints and other commitments, I was very pleased with its optical performance.
Many photographers consider the 35mm to be a “sweet middle” general purpose focal length for photography – it is not too wide and not too long either, making it great for photographing everything from landscapes to people. And while street photographers love 35mm lenses for that reason, lugging around a heavy and large lens is often quite impractical. For those situations, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED is a great choice, especially when coupled with a lightweight camera like Nikon D610 or D750. With a large maximum aperture of f/1.8, the lens is not only great for low-light photography, but it can also be used for isolating subjects from backgrounds at close distances. Unlike the DX version, this lens is designed to work on both DX and FX cameras, so it can also be considered to be a good “transition” lens for those who are currently shooting with a Nikon DX camera and seriously considering upgrading to FX in the future.
Let’s take a closer look at the lens and see how it compares to other lenses, including the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. But first, we are going to start out with lens specifications.
1) Lens Specifications
Main Features:
- Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
- Extra-low Dispersion (ED) element offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration.
- Aspherical lens element virtually eliminates coma and other types of aberration, even when shooting at the widest available aperture.
- M/A focus mode switch enables quick changes between manual and autofocus operation.
- Rear Focus (RF) provides smooth and fast autofocus while eliminating front barrel rotation and lens length changes.
- Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.
Technical Specifications:
- Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
- Focal Length: 35mm
- Maximum Aperture: f/1.8
- Minimum Aperture: f/16
- Format: FX/35mm
- Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 44°
- Maximum Angle of View (FX-format): 63°
- Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.24x
- Lens Elements: 11
- Lens Groups: 8
- Diaphragm Blades: 7
- Super Integrated Coating: Yes
- Autofocus: Yes
- AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
- Internal Focusing: Yes
- Minimum Focus Distance: 0.82 ft. (0.25m)
- Focus Mode: Auto, Manual
- G-type: Yes
- Filter Size: 58mm
- Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
- Dimensions (Approx.): 2.83 in. (72 mm) x 2.81 in. (71.5 mm)
- Weight (Approx.): 10.7 oz. (305 g)
2) Lens Construction
Lens construction is fairly advanced for a budget lens. The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G contains a single “Extra Dispersion” (ED) lens element that is typically used on high-end Nikkor lenses to boost sharpness and contrast, along with a single aspherical lens element used for correcting spherical aberration issues:
If you would like to see more details about the lens, please see our Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G page in the lens database.
3) Lens Handling and Build
The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED is built similarly as the recently introduced Nikkor prime lenses, with a hard and textured plastic exterior, a metal mount and a rubber gasket on the lens mount to provide good sealing against dust making its way into the camera. The lens feels solid in hands, definitely no worse than any of the modern professional Nikkor prime. Size-wise, it is not as small as the Nikkor 35mm f/2D, which is a good thing, as it feels comfortable to support it with your left hand while hand-holding the camera. Like other inexpensive Nikkor primes, the filter thread is plastic, which is unfortunate, as it could potentially wear out with repetitive mounting and dismounting of lens filters if you are not careful. On the bright side, nothing moves when the lens focuses, so you do not have to worry about having to re-adjust your polarizing filter when using it in the field. In contrast, older AF-D lens designs often had rotating front elements (the 35mm f/2D is an exception), making them hard to use with filters. Additionally, the front element of the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED does not move in and out like it does on some Nikkor primes and it is not recessed deep inside, making it pretty easy to clean and maintain.
The focus ring is quite thick, making the lens very easy and convenient to use for manual focusing with a thumb and index fingers, whether shooting images or video. A petal-shaped HB-70 Lens Hood is provided with the lens. It snaps easily on the front of the lens and sits tight without wobbling. The M/A and M switch on the side of the lens allows autofocus with manual focus override and full manual focus operation. The latest Nikon DSLRs immediately recognize the focus position and some even provide notifications on the information (“I” button) screen.
As I have already pointed out, the lens is very light and compact. At just 305 grams, it is heavier than the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, but a bit lighter than the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G.
4) Autofocus Performance and Accuracy
The lens is impressively fast and snappy in autofocus operation. I found the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G to focus faster than its big brother, similar to what I have seen with other current generation f/1.8 Nikkor primes. Since it takes less turns to move an f/1.8 lens than an f/1.4, it is not surprising to see the lens go from close focus to infinity noticeably faster. And this surely impacts the overall feel of focus speed, although the motor itself is not necessarily faster. Thanks to the AF-S silent wave motor, autofocus operations are barely audible. The same definitely cannot be said about the 35mm f/2D and most other AF-D lenses, which can be quite loud during AF. When it comes to autofocus accuracy, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED is quite good, even in low-light conditions. My copy perfectly matched my cameras and did not require any fine tuning, which is always a good thing.
5) Lens Sharpness, Contrast and Color Rendition
When testing the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, I came across a lens sample that was unusually good. Why “unusually”? Because the sharpness numbers I obtained from my copy indicated very impressive performance throughout the aperture range. Center, mid-frame and corner sharpness figures indicated excellent performance and wide-open performance was surprisingly good. In fact, as you will see further down in this review, the sharpness results I obtained indicated even better center performance than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art when the lens was stopped down to f/4!
Although I am planning to test a few more samples of the lens to see how far my copy was from an average copy, it was pretty exciting to see such good performance from an enthusiast-level lens. Below are my findings, shown in a form of graph from numbers generated by Imatest software:
As expected, the lens starts out a bit weaker wide open at f/1.8 and gets stronger from there. Peak performance is reached at f/4, where the lens shows very impressive figures in the center. Mid-frame and corner performance is a bit weaker, but still quite good for a lens of this class.
As for microcontrast, it is superb and color rendition is very similar to what you would get from other modern Nikkor primes.
6) Bokeh
Bokeh is definitely not a forte of wide angle lenses and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED is not an exception. Unless you get really close to your subject and shoot wide open, you will have a hard time isolating your subject from the background. And as you might already know, getting too close to your subject will distort their facial features, so it is best to avoid photographing people at very close distances with this lens. Here is the best case scenario I could find in my photo library of my daughter, photographed at close range – I cropped the image to focus on her face. You can see how the lens rendered the background here quite well:
In most other cases, I found bokeh to be rather nervous, especially at longer camera to subject distances. If you want a 35mm lens with better bokeh rendering capabilities, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art will be better candidates. Sadly, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art exhibits onion-shaped bokeh (which is not very pleasant to look at), while the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G shows defined outer rings, as demonstrated in the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art review. If you are after beautiful bokeh, you will be better off with a dedicated portrait lens like the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G.
7) Vignetting
Another weakness of the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED is the amount of vignetting it exhibits at large apertures. While it is normal for prime lenses to vignette on full-frame cameras, the amount of vignetting varies from lens to lens quite a bit and in the case of the 35mm f/1.8G ED, it seems to be a bit higher than normal. Sometimes even expensive professional lenses have pronounced vignetting at wide apertures though, so it is not unusual to see heavy vignetting on most prime lenses. Here are the vignetting levels measured by Imatest for both minimum focus and infinity distances:
In comparison, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art measured around 1.83 EV at maximum aperture of f/1.4, while the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G measured around 1.64 EV. However, stopped down to f/1.8, both lenses were close to the 1 EV mark, putting them far ahead of the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G in vignetting performance. Vignetting is easy to fix in post-processing, so if you find darkening of the edges a bit extreme for your taste, software like Lightroom and DxO already has full support for it.
Here is the worst case scenario at f/1.8, as illustrated by Imatest:
8) Ghosting and Flare
Although the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED does not have nano-coating as its bigger brother or other pro-level Nikkor glass, it does come with super integrated coating (SIC), which helps reduce problems with ghosting and flare. I have used the lens in different lighting situations, including photographing subjects backlit with the sun in the frame. The results are quite pleasing to look at and I do not see any serious issues with ghosting and flare destroying the image. Here is a sample photograph captured at f/11, with the sun in the frame:
The sun served nicely as a secondary light on the back of the model, while the model’s face was lit up with a large octabank in off-camera flash setup. I have a number of similar shots with the sun in different parts of the frame and most of them look great. Only at some angles and stopped down to f/16, you might see streaks of light in your frame, but those are rather rare and can be avoided easily.
Please note that using UV and other filters can potentially introduce more flares and ghosting to your images.
9) Distortion
When it comes to distortion, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G is actually better than the f/1.4G model and far better than its DX counterpart, as can be seen from the graph below:
The clear winner here is the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, which practically has no distortion when compared to all other lenses.
10) Chromatic Aberration
Lateral chromatic aberration levels are pretty light, also being a bit better than on the 35mm f/1.4G lens at wide apertures. Stopped down beyond f/2, however, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G is clearly better, as shown below:
It is worth noting that the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX lens was mounted on a full-frame camera for this test, which explains the weaker figures achieved in both distortion and CA tests. The best performer for lateral CA here is the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4, which shows very little presence of CA even at maximum aperture.
I would not worry about lateral chromatic aberrations though, since those can be easily fixed in Lightroom and Photoshop. As expected on fast aperture prime lenses, there is a visible amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration and that one can be tough and sometimes impossible to correct in post-processing.
11) Nikon 35mm f/1.8G ED vs Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX
If you already own the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX and wonder how it would fare against the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED full-frame lens, then you might find the below results interesting. Please note that the 35mm f/1.8G DX does produce rather heavy vignetting at close distances, as shown earlier, so its corner figures are definitely impacted as a result:
It is impressive to see the 35mm f/1.8G DX lens perform on a full-frame camera with big enough of image circle to cover most of the FX frame, so if you do not mind the heavy vignetting at close distances, the results can be quite decent. Sharpness-wise, the 35mm f/1.8G ED is obviously much stronger in the center, while the DX is not bad either, especially at large apertures. The biggest difference is corner performance – that’s where the 35mm f/1.8G DX suffers quite a bit at large apertures. However, once stopped down to f/5.6, sharpness picks up quickly.
Given that the 35mm f/1.8G DX is half the cost of the 35mm f/1.8G ED lens, I would say that you get a lot of value from that little lens…
12) Nikon 35mm f/1.8G ED vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4G
Now let’s take a look at how the 35mm f/1.8G ED compares to the bigger, heavier and more expensive 35mm f/1.4G:
When I first saw the above figures, I honestly had a hard time believing that the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G would do so much worse in comparison. Its wide open performance at f/1.4 is rather weak and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED still outperforms it at f/1.8, especially in mid-frame and corners. The biggest difference, however, can be seen when both lenses are stopped down to f/4 – the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G seems to be noticeably weaker in the center and about the same in mid-frame and corners. Based on feedback that I have received from other readers, there is a possibility that the 35mm f/1.4G lens sample I tested had optical issues, so I am planning to retest another copy of the 35mm f/1.4G lens to see if it does any better.
At the same time, you should keep in mind that it is common for f/1.8 lenses to outperform f/1.4 lenses in sharpness alone, as we had previously seen with other Nikkor primes. Expensive pro-level f/1.4 primes aim for better aesthetics, colors, microcontrast, bokeh and superior handling of distortion, vignetting and CA, so they are not typically optimized to yield maximum sharpness. Without a doubt, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G produces more aesthetically pleasing images than the 35mm f/1.8G ED and that’s what you pay the big bucks for.
13) Nikon 35mm f/1.8G ED vs Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art
The last comparison is between the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. When I initially tested the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, I was stunned by its sharpness. Let’s take a look at how the two compare sharpness-wise:
You can now see why I said that the copy of the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED I tested was rather unusual – its peak performance surpasses that of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, which previously held the record for the sharpest 35mm f/1.4 lens I’ve tested. Looks like the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED now holds that crown, with its impressive score of 3119 versus 2974 on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. How much difference is there between these numbers? Very little – you will never be able to tell by looking at the two with your eyes. Simply put, both lenses will look equally sharp in the center. At f/1.8, the two seem to be equivalent in sharpness, and stopped down, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is a bit better in mid-frame, while being weaker in the corners.
Again, don’t judge the performance of lenses based on sharpness alone. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has superior optics when it comes to handling of distortion, vignetting, CA and bokeh, so it also produces images that are more aesthetically pleasing.
14) Nikon 35mm f/1.8G ED vs Nikon 28mm f/1.8G
Lastly, our readers have asked to provide a comparison to the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G, so here it is:
The 28mm f/1.8G starts out a bit weaker in center resolution at f/1.8, but its mid-frame and corner performance is pretty impressive – it is visibly sharper compared to the 35mm f/1.8G ED there. As you stop it down to f/4 and smaller, the 35mm f/1.8G ED catches up pretty quickly and more or less evens out. However, it is pretty clear that the 35mm f/1.8G ED is superior in the center at all apertures.
15) Summary
The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED follows the footsteps of the budget-friendly enthusiast level line of f/1.8 lenses from Nikon. Its sharpness, microcontrast, color rendition and other optical qualities are very impressive for its price, making it another “great value” addition to the already strong line of Nikkor lenses. If you have been impressed by such lenses as the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G and 85mm f/1.8G, you will be very pleased by what the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED has to offer. As demonstrated earlier, its sharpness figures are very high, surpassing both the Nikkor f/1.4G and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lenses in peak center performance. It also exhibits very little focus shift and its handling of ghosting / flare is very good. Autofocus performance and accuracy are also impressive, even when shooting in low-light conditions.
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. The biggest drawback in my opinion, is its handling of bokeh, which can look rather nervous. As a result, it tends to yield less aesthetically pleasing images than its bigger brother, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G.
Overall, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED is a superb performer and I would not hesitate to recommend it for everyday photography needs.
16) Where to Buy and Availability
B&H is currently selling the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED lens for $596.95 (as of 12/08/2014).
17) More Image Samples
All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED
- Optical Performance
- Features
- Bokeh Quality
- Build Quality
- Focus Speed and Accuracy
- Handling
- Value
- Size and Weight
Photography Life Overall Rating
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.
http://www.vnphoto.net/forums/showthread.php?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.
Thanks for yet another excellent review, Nasim!
I’ve been seriously considering both this lens and Sigma’s 35/1.4 ART to supplement my 18-35/3.5-4.5 G at 35mm (where the 18-35G is extremely weak, in my opinion). In comparing your Imatest results across these three lenses, I noticed a downward revision in the numbers for both primes from your preliminary post (https://photographylife.com/nikon-35mm-f1-8g-fx-superb-performance-sample) to this review. The revised numbers for both of the primes are now substantially lower than reported for the 18-35G as well (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-18-35mm-f3-5-4-5g). I’m assuming there are methodological, reporting, and/or sample differences at work here. Any insights?
Yes, sorry! I am currently working on revising all lens reviews. Want to start over and provide new data, so that cross-comparisons can be done without issues. Sorry about that, those reviews take a long time to write and update!
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) http://www.flipkart.com/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-35-mm-f-1-8g-lens/p/itmcxgeqhjvz8qeb?pid=ACCCXGEQHJVZ8QEB&otracker=from-search&srno=t_2&query=Nikkor+AF-S+35mm+f%2F1.8G+DX&al=U%2Fj2go1fXgrjHabAZJC39r2Riyr%2FWYgquhbeVvFEYvOyFgI%2F06mOq4aLq2lx4bRfFLwHQxVDMNU%3D&ref=9d825f2f-a25f-45e0-a3a6-ffb314174430
(2) http://www.amazon.com/55-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Nikkor-Digital-Package/dp/B00L88IWAS/ref=pd_cp_p_0
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 http://www.amazon.in and http://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.