Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens rest report: Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G
#1
Very good ... except for bokeh wide open:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...kkor3518dx



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#2
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305788239' post='8579']

Very good ... except for bokeh wide open:



[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/628-nikkor3518dx"]http://www.photozone...28-nikkor3518dx[/url]



-- Markus

[/quote]



:-)) Markus is on fire.
#3
I wonder why Canon have not copied it. Maybe they feel their outdated 35/2 is fine. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />
#4
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305788443' post='8580']

:-)) Markus is on fire.

[/quote]

Reviews 24x7 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

You have to be careful though - at this pace there will be no lenses left to review in a couple of months <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />
#5
Thanks for hard review.

Why the vignetting and CA on D7000 higher than D200?
#6
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1305789340' post='8583']

I wonder why Canon have not copied it. Maybe they feel their outdated 35/2 is fine. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />

[/quote]

Well, actually it IS fine, Yakim. Try to valuate the results carefully:

Distortion wise:

The Nikon does show some visible barrel distortion, the FF Canon is almost distortionless.



Vignetting:

With the Nikon D3x compared to the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, the D3x' different tonal curve makes the 5D mk II appear to vignet when you compare the numbers than it does in reality. Not sure if that is the case between the D7000 and EOS 50D too, only Markus and Klaus can figure that out.

If that is the case, the Nkon 35mm f1.8 vignets quite a bit more. If that is NOT the case, and both tonal curves are comparable, the Nikon still vignets a tad more than the Canon.



Resolution wise:

The Nikon Is a bit sharper, especially wide open. The extreme corners are a bit less sharp, wide open and past f4.

Both lenses are very sharp anyway.



CA wide:

The Canon has the advantage here.



Bokeh:

Tricky subject as it is not measurable easily, and it triggers brand loyalty discussions. But in my experience/perception, the Canon 35mm f2 has an unusual, but smooth bokeh. The Nikon has a nervous bokeh.

Highlights: the Nikon has rounded highlights, the Canon has 5 sided highlights when stopped down. This 5 sidedness can make for unusual or unruly effects, concerning highlights or back light.



So, both have their plusses and minusses concerning bokeh, and both are not even close overall with 35mm bokeh wonders like the Zeiss 35mm f2's.



Size and weight wise:

Both are comparable here.



The Canon has the added bonus that it is not APS-C only (which also explains the bit better correction and vignetting figures.



So, when compared to the Nikon, I do feel the old 35mm f2 is "fine".

The lesser CA, the smoother bokeh, the not really visible distortion, I would not want to trade it for the Nikon's optics.

The Nikon on the other hand has the silent AF-S and the more modern coatings, making it more contrasty with back light.
#7
[quote name='xiaomeng' timestamp='1305791211' post='8591']

Thanks for hard review.

Why the vignetting and CA on D7000 higher than D200?

[/quote]

vignetting higher due to difference in tonal curves, it gets done with standard JPEG. So, that makes vignetting not cross camera comparable, with dpreview. Not an issue, once you know that.



The CA is higher by the nature of measuring in the first place: If you have a higher pixel density, and you measure CA by pixel size, CA will be higher in "value" with the camera with a higher pixel density.



Anyway, the way of measuring CA seems to not be fault free, as at times there are unexplainable differences between measured CA between Klaus' and Markus' results..



But here, it can simply be explained by difference in pixel density.
#8
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1305790415' post='8589']

You have to be careful though - at this pace there will be no lenses left to review in a couple of months <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />

[/quote]



Don't worry ... continuing at this pace would lead to the loss of a Nikon reviewer within a couple of days, I'm afraid <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />



I certainly need a little break soon ... but don't be afraid, I won't fall back to my earlier publishing lethargy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#9
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305792009' post='8594']

Well, actually it IS fine, Yakim. [/quote]



I had one for several years and I beg to differ. It had bad AF and bad bokeh. Thus,it was not fun to shoot with and too many pictures were not fun to look at. Yes, I really liked this FL and yes, it was small, light and sharp. As I was a poor student at the time it was a good companion to the 50/1.8 and Tokina 100/2.8 macro I also had but to call it fine? Not IMHO.
#10
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305788239' post='8579']

Very good ... except for bokeh wide open:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...kkor3518dx



-- Markus

[/quote]



Nice lens. Are they going to make a wide-angle DX prime too?

Pentax has one (21mm) but it's only F/3.2.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)