Opticallimits

Full Version: Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G (on FX)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Solid performer. But, personal opinion: lacks the "excitement factor".
 
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/89...rafs3518ff
 
-- Markus
Welcome back Markus!  

 

  The Nikon is up against the Tamron 35mm F1.8 VC,   maybe the VC adds the missing excitement that's lacking in the Nikon, also no VC in most of their fixed focals, here in France the Tamron is a little cheaper too.

 

  I'd pick the latter!

 

 

  A review of the upcoming Tamron 85mm F1.8 VC perhaps?

Yay. Markus, I was about to ask why no HR with these results, but you've already answered this question. Smile

Quote:The Nikon is up against the Tamron 35mm F1.8 VC,   maybe the VC adds the missing excitement that's lacking in the Nikon, also no VC in most of their fixed focals, here in France the Tamron is a little cheaper too.
Interesting, because over here the Tamron is considerably more expensive (Nikon around 475 EUR, Tamron closer to 700 EUR).
But yes, the VC maybe adds the "excitement" I was missing. But as Klaus' review shows, the lens doesn't really impress in other regards.
 
Quote:A review of the upcoming Tamron 85mm F1.8 VC perhaps?
Sure Smile And the 35 VC, too, I will likely order it soon.

However, next stop: the AF-S 20/1.8, then Tamron 15-30 VC. And I got the AF-S 24/1.8 today Smile

-- Markus
Quote:Markus, I was about to ask why no HR with these results, but you've already answered this question. Smile
Well, just to be clear: no HR not because of my personal opinion mentioned above, but because of the vignetting and bokeh issues.

-- Markus
I stand corrected, then. Guess I'm usually only taking the sharpness results into account. Smile

Quote:Interesting, because over here the Tamron is considerably more expensive (Nikon around 475 EUR, Tamron closer to 700 EUR).

But yes, the VC maybe adds the "excitement" I was missing. But as Klaus' review shows, the lens doesn't really impress in other regards.

 


Sure Smile And the 35 VC, too, I will likely order it soon.


However, next stop: the AF-S 20/1.8, then Tamron 15-30 VC. And I got the AF-S 24/1.8 today Smile


-- Markus
 

Same in Switzerland: Nikkor 488.-, Tamron 693.- 

 

20 francs more is a Sigma without OS but with f/1.4

 

AF-S 20/1.8? I'd be interested how the Sigma 20/1.4 would stand against. Shall I send you mine?  Smile  Good you're back!
http://www.clubic.com/shopping-959842-3-...canon.html .....576€ delivered.

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.fr/Nikon-35-AF-S-NIKKO...B00HQ4W4XO.....475€ no postage mentioned.

 

 

 

  My first search brought up the Nikon at 590€ , but yes the Nikon is 100€ less here, 

 

  But for the extra the Tamron has quite a bit of metal in it's construction as opposed to Nikon's all plastic "sauf" the mount........ and that VC is a bit of a game changer as hand held you can shoot in lower light than the "ferociously" priced Nikon F1.4 version!

 

 

  (Did I say I would pay 100€ more for a similar Nikon lens?..............I must be losing the plot)   :blink:  Rolleyes   

 

 BTW. The first site is where I bought the Tamron 150-600, when I returned the first copy they refunded my postage.

you didn't compare the Nikkor with the Tamron. It's not about lenses for Canon.

Quote:http://www.clubic.com/shopping-959842-3-...canon.html .....576€ delivered.
That doesn't look like a really representative source to me. They claim to be based in "Hong Kong - Singapore - London", so this is most likely someone who profits from special tax regulations.

For a customer this usually means: dirt cheap, but no warranty, since they very likely sell grey market stock.

So, the real street price is quite a bit higher.

Regarding your other statements: I haven't touched the Tamron VC primes, yet, so I can't comment about their quality. The Sigma f/1.4 lenses are no doubt impressive, but also terribly heavy. A collection of Art primes looks tempting performance-wise, less so if you have to carry the weight on your back or shoulder.

-- Markus
Pages: 1 2