11-01-2011, 09:05 AM
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1315995146' post='11587']
It's a nice little lens but I really hate lenses without IF design. If I were in Nikon I think I'd rather have the 35/1.8 + Raynox 250 for the price of the 40/2.8.
[/quote]
These are my words, but I need to revise.
I have heavily used my Raynox 150 and 250 in the past on various lenses.
And for some time the AF-S 35/1.8 was my favorite walk around lens.
But the AF-S 40/2.8 has changed that.
It is much more resistant to harsh light conditions, it has almost no distortion, CA/PF are better controlled and it is sharp. The bokeh is more pleasing and getting near to objects without worrying about the working distance is just nice.
For low light an social shots my new favorite is the 50/1.8. Better working distance for people than the 35 and I just love the creamy way lights melt in the background.
Ok, I need to lenses now, for what I used the 35 in the past. The 35 still is the all-in-one lens and only a 40/1.8 Macro could really top all.
It's a nice little lens but I really hate lenses without IF design. If I were in Nikon I think I'd rather have the 35/1.8 + Raynox 250 for the price of the 40/2.8.
[/quote]
These are my words, but I need to revise.
I have heavily used my Raynox 150 and 250 in the past on various lenses.
And for some time the AF-S 35/1.8 was my favorite walk around lens.
But the AF-S 40/2.8 has changed that.
It is much more resistant to harsh light conditions, it has almost no distortion, CA/PF are better controlled and it is sharp. The bokeh is more pleasing and getting near to objects without worrying about the working distance is just nice.
For low light an social shots my new favorite is the 50/1.8. Better working distance for people than the 35 and I just love the creamy way lights melt in the background.
Ok, I need to lenses now, for what I used the 35 in the past. The 35 still is the all-in-one lens and only a 40/1.8 Macro could really top all.