Many Nikon CZK users, after a certain period of time, want to try, in addition to their standard “dark” zooms, some fast lens. Most often, their choice stops at 2 lenses: Nikon Nikkor AF-S 35mm 1: 1.8G DX Aspherical и Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical. This article discusses these lenses exclusively for use on cameras. Nikon DX.
About lenses
Features Nikon Nikkor AF-S 35mm 1: 1.8G DX Aspherica
- only suitable for Nikon DX cropped cameras, on which the equivalent focal length is 52,5mm. In order to avoid confusion in the comments to this article, I repeat once again that the focal length is a physical quantity, it is indicated for objects, regardless of whether the lens is cropped or not. Many photographers use the concept to their advantage. EGF, which is described in more detail here. On full-format cameras, using this lens is not recommended. Who cares link You will find sample shots taken with this lens and a full-format camera in FX crop mode.
- slightly cheaper than its competitor.
- has a real internal focus mode, in which the front lens remains stationary
- diameter of light filters - 52mm. Unlike 58mm for 50s, filters of this diameter can be a little cheaper.
- It has no indicators and marks at all (except for a point for docking with the camera mount). This can be considered the most truncated lens design.
- the aperture can close up to F / 22, which in very rare situations will be better than the competitor's F / 16.
- viewing angle is wider than that of a competitor, which is important for indoor shooting.
- The lens has been available since spring 2009.
Features Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical
- Suitable for both full-size Nikon FX cameras and Nikon DX cropped cameras. When used on a crop, the equivalent focal length is 75mm.
- has a depth of field scale for F / 16, which the amateur photographer is unlikely to be useful.
- the diameter of the front light filter is 58mm, slightly larger than that of the 35mm.
- has a focusing distance scale, which is a nice difference from its competitor. For the amateur photographer who is used to shooting with automatic focusing, such a scale will not be in demand, but it has one pleasant property - looking at it you immediately know in which direction you need to rotate the focusing ring. The 35-point does not have a scale and you will have to remember in which direction you will have to rotate the focusing ring in manual mode to reach infinity or the minimum focusing distance. Of course, the docking mark with the camera mount is present.
- the lens does not have real internal focusing, but because of its peculiarities, there will be no difficulties with this, because the front lens moves only in the middle of the frame of the body and for simplicity, we can assume that focusing, like that of the 35-ton, is internal (and if we add protective filter then there are no differences).
- autofocus speed is slightly faster than the 35-tki.
- the lens more blurred the background, which is sometimes better for creative or portrait shooting
- The lens has been available since spring 2011 and is 2 years younger than the competitor.
- the lens has a narrower viewing angle. Because of what, with this lens, you will have to further move away from the subject.
I want to note that the lenses have a lot of similarities:
- both have a built-in focusing motor like SWM and will automatically work on any Nikon DSLR camera.
- both lenses have a metal mount.
- no aperture control ring.
- there is a constant manual focus control Nikon M / A.
- focus mode switch M / AM.
- the same number of aperture blades - 7 pieces.
- make them only in China.
- in the optical design, both lenses have one aspherical element, for which it’s not a pity to pay money.
- Each lens comes with a lens hood that can be installed back and forth.
- lenses have different minimum focusing distances, but the magnification factor is almost the same. Roughly speaking, macro shots are of the same level.
My experience
I used Nikon 35 / 1.8G for 1-1.5 years, I shot on Nikon 50 / 1.8G during two weeks of my vacation and occasionally borrow the lens from my partner. I would like to point out that both lenses are actually very good lenses and are unlikely to be disappointed with the photo quality of either lens.
But the slightly slower focusing speed of the 35th and its visually stronger distortion and sometimes very strong chromatic aberration at f / 1.8 they prefer my Nikon 50 / 1.8G. When I started shooting less and less on Nikon DX cameras, I sold a 35-ton, replacing it with a full-length Nikon 50 / 1.4G (but that's another story).
A funny moment - in the official video of the camera presentation Nikon D5200 (link to video, 1:28 min) the Nikon 35 / 1.8G lens is called a portrait lens, and the photo shows a face portrait of a girl. I would like to point out that even on Nikon DX 35mm cameras it is by no means an analogy. classic portrait lens. In other commercials, for example Nikon D3200 (link to video, 1:30 min) Nikon calls the 35-tku lens for blur background, which is sometimes really important for portraiture. Of course, on Nikon 35 / 1.8G no one forbids taking portraits :)
I think the Nikon 35 / 1.8G is better suited as one single prime lens “for all occasions”. And as a supplement to the stock zoom lens, the Nikon 50 / 1.8G will be much more interesting. Of course, everyone must draw their own conclusions for themselves.
Leave your opinions and reviews in the comments, help newcomers to decide on their choice.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
It seems to me that depending on what you shoot more often ... I used to shoot landscapes more, and took 35mm for myself, it is more versatile because of the wider focus ... now I would choose 50mm, since I often shoot people)
but for me 50 mm on the crop is unnecessary. Portraits are not portraits and as a staff only on the street. I would take 85 “in addition”, and “instead of” 35. People are usually attracted by the phrase “you’ll go to ff, but you don’t need to change the lens” ... but will you?
50 mm on the crop is an unnecessary thing.
==================================
I agree in principle. let's say - very rarely needed. :)
on FF too - there 35mm and 85mm completely cover the most popular focal lengths.
for a portrait, the optimum is 135mm at FF.
I don’t agree. 85 if necessary, only for large-face portraits. For example, I have few of them.
And the rest at 50 is much easier and more convenient to shoot. Yes, it may blur the background more weakly, but I don’t like making porridge at all.
And 35 is an attempt at fixing the staff, as in FF 50. The trouble is that 35 / 1,8 is very low-quality, the focus on a covered hole very often goes away, it is impossible to fix it.
Please tell me, is it not better to use a 35mm lens on a crop for full-format cameras than 35mm for DX? Both will be equivalent to fifty dollars. It seems to me at full-frame 35mm when he on the crop will not be in the frame of the edge with distortions and they will be cut off or am I mistaken? I need to take pictures of the pictures and I need straight sides, without distortion
Of course it’s better, the current 35mm af-s fx costs more than 35dx and 50 1.8g combined
And what do you not like 50? You can shoot a good portrait on an iron, you just need to be able to, and distortions, even in a face shot, are now ELEMENTALLY corrected. SMEED HERE A LOT: 135 HERE, SUPERPHOTOGRAPHERS, damn it, HOMEPAGE. Henri Cartier-Bresson spent fifty dollars all his life shooting. Try to create such a photo. WHAT WITHOUT 135 FIX IN ANY WAY? And nothing at all? Then go drink tea or plant potatoes….
I have it at 35 and at 50 with the letter D (There is not a big difference between D & G) I have a camera with a screwdriver .. As 50 appeared, I put 35 aside for now .. and in general I almost did not shoot 35 with cameras.
G and D series differ both in design and in picture.
if we talk about fifty dollars, then the older version is less contrast but slightly better in color. Well, a bunch of other differences.
The difference between G and D is VERY big.
I had D, recently bought myself a G, now I sell D.
The reasons - the aperture more than 2,8 on D is completely inoperative. The image is not sharp, there are large purple halos around the edges of light objects.
G is much sharper on open, you can shoot.
The more you cover the hole, the smaller the difference in sharpness in the center. The edges of the G version on any aperture are much sharper.
The appearance of the bokeh is still different, but these are trifles.
In general, if there is no interest in 1,8-2,2 holes, then you can take a cheaper version.
There is also a good Nikkor 50 mm f / 1,4 G, I have been in personal use for 1,5 years. There are pluses and minuses for it, it seems like a leisurely focus ... I conducted an experiment - I was filming an event the other day, for 8 hours, almost all of the “dynamics” (dances). I didn't take other lenses with me on purpose. For myself, I made a conclusion - at a (slow) “half” f / 1,4 G, you can shoot a high-quality report (not soapy shots, I want to say - everything conceived in focus, a nice picture against zoom). Everything was filmed with the D7000 + SB900.
I liked the Nikkor 50 mm f / 1,4 G. beautiful picture.
but IMHO, a lens for FF.
It would also be interesting to read this article:
50vs85, or fifty dollars, as a budget replacement for a portrait lens. Already very often in all kinds of forums this topic is touched.
Everything is very simple here - half, this is “a portrait lens for those who didn’t have enough / sorry / unnecessary money for 85 / 1,8G, and didn’t have enough brains or conditions to shoot with manual 135”.
Other hacks are only for the purpose of justifying their position logically, and not “I couldn’t do it, I couldn’t”
do not confuse people. Arkady quite correctly poses the question in the article.
"Hacks, half a dozen, I could not help"
==============================================
try to express your thoughts in Russian. teen slang is mostly good at prominence, no more :)
how strange, but where is the link to your site in your answer? O_) somehow even unexpectedly, a comment from Sergey, but without a link to one site.
....
I’ll tell you more, the phrase “I no longer use any slang, I’m already an adult” is pronounced, as a rule, by recent teenagers who, through denial of it, try to assert themselves.
I use slang depending on my mood and circumstances, not counting it "as something bad". )))
sergey, not tuberty, but in puberty and only in it. You confused it with the word prominence and it is a bit from another opera. Just for some reason, it seems to me that you are the very Sergey who fucked up with his stupid and commentary an article about d800 (see. The dispute of flueg and Sergey), you are our prominent!
Age is actually puberty)))
I took sigma 50.1.4 DG in 2012, I was in Svyaznoy at the same price as 85.1.8 G nikkor, it’s not a matter of money, I liked sigma
When I bought 35, I realized that this is what I need for enclosed spaces. With 50mm, you won’t especially turn around. For a portrait from, too, is not entirely suitable. I also took 35 to the mountains, there was no need for 50, there you need either wide or telephoto lens for shooting animals (again, the second lens is difficult to drag, and the zoom has a different picture and aperture).
The only quality is a little unsatisfying, my copy is soaping on the open aperture, and there is a small front focus, which they did not begin to correct me in the service of Rostov. I do not trust the Chinese assembly a bit.
I am a user of 35 and 50.
Maybe not a good instance, but 35 MUCH MUCH slower focus.
at 50 1.8G is a very fast and accurate AF motor.
even more expensive (and with a more beautiful picture) 50 1.4G focuses much more slowly.
Which lens is more interesting than 35 or 50, if you do not take into account the fact that autofocus is faster at 50?
there is another 40mm)
Arkady, learn the spelling of verbs ending in According to sabzh: there were both glasses, they were very pleased, but with the purchase, the d7000 sold 35-ku, since there was a back focus that could not be fixed without service adjustment (by the way, a friend had exactly the same garbage with exactly 35 and d7000). I kept 50 for myself, and replaced 35 with Tokin 124, now it's almost Zen))).
Teacher, please send an excerpt in which you need to fix it, it’s much faster for me to fix a mistake.
Arkady, I have been reading your articles for a long time, which are undoubtedly interesting. Many of them contain the same mistake: you confuse the use of the verbs “Dress” and “Put on”. By the way, many do not understand this. As a rule, things are not worn, but put on. In many articles, you WEAR the hood. In most cases, the hood can only be ON! In principle, you can dress it, but in a dress, like a doll. Sorry!
Guys, don’t be clever, a person writes such cool topics that I find it inappropriate to find fault with words! They themselves probably studied in C grade)
Fixed
I've always been wrong too, but here's a clue
http://www.kletka.net/uploads/posts/2011-09/1316940988_305f084936cc.jpg
this simple rule helped me remember forever.
Thank you for the article! =)
Have you seriously replaced 35 with 124? Well, now for sure "Zen". Without it, such a substitution cannot be made - this is not “to-na-tat”, this is “Zen”.
Yes, seriously replaced. At the far end of this distortion there is practically no distortion, and in terms of sharpness and convenience it will probably give odds to my 35-ke. I still prefer to shoot indoors with a flash, so the difference in aperture ratio is leveled.
Maybe it's enough for the master to make remarks on mistakes? No need to be clever… .. Here is a site about photography, not for clever people….
How can you compare Tokinu 124 with the 35th, teacher, yedrena-matryona ??? They write to you about Thomas, and you about Eremu. Well, you had a lens, well, you sold it ... Why are you writing all this? And to notice mistakes is a necessary thing, but not in this case. You yourself would have muddied something like that, and then you would have climbed to correct the mistakes ... Back-focus appeared, you know. Adjust the camera, not the lens….
I agree 100% !!! Breach, do not roll bags! (This is "teacher number 1")
The intra-camera autofocus adjustment on d7000 with this fix turned out to be useless (at distances of 1,5-2 meters everything became less or less sharp, and everything that later turned into soap), you can read about the autofocus bug in this camera on numerous forums and its problems specifically 35th (in live view mode, the camera with this glass focused exactly), google to help. You need to align the camera with a lens if you did not know, and give all the equipment for almost a month (there is no Nikon service in our city) for adjustment and pay 60% of the cost of the problem glass for it, I considered it inappropriate. Therefore, yes, I sold the glass and replaced it with a token (by the way, I was guided by the review from this site).
Thanks to Arkady for the review, as always, everything is accurate and concise, but now there is even more confusion, so what to take 35-ku or 50-k ??? It looks like both for insecurity)))
I tested 35,50,40 lenses and still left Nikon 40mm 2.8 micro :)
I will look for Fujik)))), at your advice Sergei!
There is little experience using 50 / 1.8G on the d5100.
The lens leaves a double impression. In low light, at an open aperture, autofocus often smears. Almost every third photo. Perhaps a feature of my copy. 50 mm on the crop, for me personally - uncomfortable. This is just a portrait, and then you have to go far. In the room, often, rested his back against the wall. For landscape and reportage, coverage is sorely lacking.
From the positive impressions - the picture. Very pleasant and organic. The lens draws exactly. Photos are light, airy with beautiful transitions and blur. If he hits, then he gets into the “ten”. Glass with character and potential. A large (for me) percentage of marriage is explained by the fact that I still “do not know how to cook it”.
I do not regret buying. Not going to sell. Given the low price, I think possession of such a lens is justified.
I totally agree with you - only a portrait. For the rest, the crop is not suitable.
Let me disagree with you - I shot SUCH landscapes at 50 mm in Crimea !!! (Nikon D3100 + Gelis 81N)
Nikons 50mm 1.8G and 1.4G have a huge percentage of back / front.
AF itself, especially in 1.8, is very accurate and fast.
therefore, judging by your description, you have a problem in missing the depth of field and not with AF for the reason:
- back / front in carcass or lens
- wrong depth of field (especially at open aperture)
try to test your carcass / lens kit on the target.
try using the DOF calculator
Yes. You are absolutely right. Small DOF in the open requires decent experience. Front / back focus is also possible. Be sure to tackle this lens tightly and adapt to its nature.
Learn to shoot on open apertures and everything normalizes. You see.
Hello. I want to share my observations on the operation of a 50mm lens on a crop. I have a Nikon 7100. He has the ability to make a crop from a crop (1,3) or 16-12 as it is written on the LCD monitor. Here in the review of this device it is written about this and that equiv. fr grows 2 times (instead of 1,5 on a simple crop). In total, instead of 50 we have 100mm, and this is a portrait lens. One more thing - the camera begins to shoot with that part of the lens area that is closest to its optical axis - with all the ensuing pleasant consequences. As a result, we have a high-aperture high-quality portrait lens with minimal optical distortion for a quite acceptable amount. At the resolution of the resulting picture, 15MP remains. I read about this here on the site, applied it - I liked it.
crop do not change the focal !!!
they change the ANGLE of VIEW of the lens - that is, they cut off useful information on the area of the frame. those. - digital zoom.
in other words - a 50mm lens on a x2 crop (lens angle of view is equivalent to a 100mm focal point) will give a different image in terms of depth of field and distortions compared to a 100mm lens, crop = 1 (lens angle of view is equivalent to a 100mm focal length) in a full frame.
experts are well aware of this because they remove porteteurs all the same for a full frame and still for a normal 135mm despite the price of such a solution.
Yes Yes. This is what my post is about: the angle of view changes. the matrix (or part of it) receives light not from the entire area of the lens, but from its part far from the edges, that is, closer to the optical axis. We shoot with an even smaller area of the matrix - this effect is even more pronounced. Therefore, there is practically no optical distortion. The angle of view is quite portrait - i.e. it is necessary to move away, the geometry of the face is natural ... everything is fine in my opinion.
and what will happen with the DOF? :)
for the IPIG portrait is of great importance.
here is an example of FF and crop 1.5 - pay attention to DOF:
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/01/fujifilm-x-e1.html
in fact, therefore, it is for a portrait that any crop is a bad option.
it is important for the pros. And I am an amateur and my camera is an amateur. The portraits I shot are watched by people who do not attach any importance to the blurring of the background, I know perfectly well about the grip on the crop from the article on this site. By the way, I do not consider the resource indicated by you to be suitable because of its extreme bias and my doubts about its competence. Therefore, I prefer my own experience in this matter.
Well, it’s not in vain that we came up with an unspoken rule when moving a portrait to move at least 2 meters, preferably 3-4. Hence, the portrait portrayal is 85-135mm so that the model’s face takes up a frame. Nobody forbade to shoot portraits on 35mm and then crop the image to an acceptable size, just remember to move away. Although this is some kind of perversion in my opinion. But on the lack of fish and a 50mm portrait, observing the shooting technique
the reason for choosing a focal one is geometric distortion.
optimal - 135mm on FF.
any equivalent on the crop - blur is killed - large depth of field.
then shoot at 20mm at a distance of 15m and cut up to the shoulder portrait. also get "almost a real portrait")))
I just have it idle. So I tried how to make 50mm out of 100mm using a 7100 crop. The result exceeded expectations. Just. True, I have 1,4, not 1,8.
I use 7100, I agree in 1/3 mode fifty dollars gives an interesting picture
Arkady, it is in this context that there is a great option at DH - Nikon 40mm 2.8 micro.
at a price of $ 250, the lens provides:
- zero distortion - unlike 35mm and 50mm
- beautiful boke
- the ability to play macro
- compromise focal length between 35mm and 50mm
after buying this lens, I sold my 50mm and 35mm :)
who are interested in more information and test photos with this lens here:
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2014/01/nikon-tokina-zeiss.html
Well, I don’t know, a compromise and a compromise, so as not to satisfy either side))) In general, any attempts to do something multitasking ends with the fact that everything will not be very ... in this version, the aperture ratio for fix is weak, and 40 mm for macro only snails to photograph and focus speed is no for reportage, and the price is higher than 35 and 50 ... I am for the specialization of the instrument. And if you want a penny macro with aperture and sharpness, then take an industar 61 l / s on the advice of Arkady, all the same, on such a FR, only a motionless photograph, so why then autofocus?
not quite right.
40mm provides 0 distortion which is important for portraiture.
the aperture is more than sufficient - why do you need more? to get depth of field less than 2cm?
the price of $ 250 is a big difference from 35mm or 50mm?
she removes like this:
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/vmirefoto-blogspot/view/823387?page=0
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/vmirefoto-blogspot/view/823399?page=1
this is certainly not a snail, but in my opinion for that kind of money it’s not bad :)
The fact that a macro lens shoots macro well is not an achievement (although it’s good for flowers and other non-fast material and an industrial for 3 rubles, but it won’t work to catch ants either 1 or 2). But the fact that he as a staffer is worse than 35mm is a fact. And portraits on a non-portrait lens will still be fig. In general, a 40mm micro is for those who do not know what they want or want all at once
your remark is absolutely illogical and incomprehensible.
40mm differs markedly from 50mm on the crop for the better - there is no problem with a lack of space.
zero distortion - no distortion problems that Nikon's 35mm suffers from.
micro - as good as possible on a 40mm lens.
about portraits - I recommend looking at Nikon's website - what kind of illiterate they are! :) make awful portraits with this lens :)
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2200/AF-S-DX-Micro-NIKKOR-40mm-f%252F2.8G.html#lightbox/carousel/media=2200_ER_land_port_01.jpg
The AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f / 2.8G is compact, lightweight and versatile enough for everyday photography, including flattering people shots
what else? in the photo zone
In summary, the lens is compact, light-weight, affordable and, most important, optically very good.
what exactly does not suit you in the lens for $ 250? :)
but in general it’s clear that you didn’t even hold it in your hands :)
There is an experience of owning and using a 50 / 1.8G on a d7000. The impression is ambiguous. An unfinished "portrait", a converted "staff". And from the picture, I would not say that the drawing is a masterpiece. Boke-cream (for an amateur). Autofocus (my copy) is normal-fast, ALWAYS accurate. The aperture often saves in low light. I'm not going to sell, but I don't wind it very often. It may be useful for growth.
Carcass D7000, 35th - favorite, always in place, focusing is the fastest, fastest of all lenses that I have tried, at least my lens.
from poltos I used 50 / 1,8 without a motor and 50 / 1,4 with a motor. As for me, half a crop on a crop is completely optional. just for a change. when the extra money appears I will buy 50 / 1,8 - cheap, the focus is fast, the picture is a song, and how it sings when focusing)))))
Nikonovskaya 35-I 1.8G rented indoors. Satisfied with the lens. I guess I came across a good copy. On the street 50 will be preferable. Of fifty dollars I use Helios 81N. As for me, if you’re not in a hurry, he shoots no worse than Nikorovsky. I especially like bokeh. Sorry if a little off topic.
Thanks to Arkady, as always an excellent article, I’m just thinking about this eternal choice!
Here's another photo from both lenses in the same setting with the same frame ... there would be no price for this article! :)
Z.Y. if there are owners of both lenses, maybe someone will post here a link to such photos, if not sorry, I would be very grateful like many thousands of readers of this blog!
Colleagues who have both lenses in their arsenal, I beg you, take a photo of the same frame !!! And put a link to the photo!
Respect and respect + a pass to heaven will be provided to you! :)
My sister clicked on the D3100 + 50 / 1.8G, my D5100 + 35 / 1.8G felt about the same, and even in my case, the focusing speed was about the same.
The only difference is for what purpose. Reporter + premises on the crop - 35mm., Street + portraits - 50mm.
ps there are no examples of one scene :( described his feelings
I recently bought a Nikon 50 / 1.8G, under warranty it was possible to return it within 14 days, so I did not bother checking directly in the store. At home, he began to drive focus to the back-front - tin. Pronounced front focus. I thought to carry it back, but then I turned on my head and this is what happened: out of 10 photo-zeroing on a target with defocusing further - closer than 8 - almost PERFECT 2 - ACCEPTABLE. Hence the conclusion - Ladies and Gentlemen, before sinning on the back-front focus, learn how to correctly check.
from personal experience: VN store, purchase 50 1.4G
test - back. replacement, test - backing. already changes the manager, we test together on their carcass - a box of lenses, 3 hours of time - all lenses have a pronounced back. it is clear that there is AF correction in the carcass, but
- on xxxx it is necessary at a lens price of 500 dollars?
- with a back you can't put it in a spare D5100 carcass or in Fuj - there is no AF correction.
- even with a small uncorrected backing it is difficult to use an open aperture
I had a Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4G for a long time, a good picture on a full frame, sorry for a slow one. But there is one thing, about which I just finished writing in the review today - my copy had the focusing motor broken twice, just to hell with all the lenses in the middle began to dangle. The first time this happened was when the lens bounced at a wedding quite lightly. Handed over for repair, changed the entire motor. After 3 months, the lenses began to dangle in the middle again and again the lens was sent for repair. I ended up getting rid of it :)
Hi all!
There were thoughts about the back-front focus. Play around and find the right value in “fine tuning autofocus” what's stopping?
Along the way, I am interested in the question - what is better to take for a crop - 85 or 50 1.4 for a portrait and for a possible transition to FF in some unknown future?
You can pick up. if the carcass allows. see above.
which is better to take 50 or 85 - depends on the goals.
an important point - for fixes, you need to clearly understand that they must be mainly used either on FF or on a crop. too big a difference even with a crop factor of 1.5 in focal.
I would take 85, he is a “real” portrait painter, albeit the youngest))) and after switching to FF, he will remain a portrait painter, only instead of busts you will shoot up to the waist or in height
85 Nikon is good. It’s a pity that on the crop it often does not work out.
Arkady, hello, I always read your articles with great interest, I received most of my knowledge and skills from them, for which I am not grateful and immensely grateful !!!
in recent days I am amazed at your performance, as much as you can treat yourself, rest a little!))
if you have resources for the server, please put the files in free access, if not, please use google disk, or any other file hosting)
I understand your volunteer soul, but it's probably time to collect money from people on a voluntary basis to support and expand the site!
Fees are coming, but very, very slowly https://radojuva.com.ua/2013/07/paradise-circus/ :)
sorry, did not see
The help link on the home page is hard to see. We have to look specifically with the thought “somewhere there must be”. Even if you just highlight it with a bright colored frame, it will be better. And don't be shy. The founder of Wikipedia does not hesitate to climb out on a half-screen when he needs money.
and let's get more votes! )))
give a vote of 35 against 50 on the crop!
In fact, they have a different scope to compare like that.
Half a year ago I bought 35 1.8G (DX)
First impressions were not very good - constant mistakes (D90 carcass). Having removed the targets, I found the front focus, handed the camera to the off-site service along with the whale glass, took it two days later - the result is perfect, there are practically no misses, even in small rooms you can cover all the desired space. The depth of field, of course, is scanty at 1.8, more than one face can not be captured close (from 70cm), the rest go to soap (shot by candlelight), but for a single portrait, that's it!
All distortions are corrected at once by the lightroom, I still have it on import when importing, so I don’t want to take a fifty dollars, although it will be a little more convenient for the street (if the surrounding landscape is not critical), for shooting on city streets and traveling 35 then at least for me.
PS: but now I use sb910 in the rooms, all the same, 1.8 does not save XNUMX with a triple of medium bulbs in a dusty chandelier :-( lighting of office planks is enough for the eyes.
To replace the whale 18-55, took 18-300 (d5100), twisted it for about six months. But I didn’t feel joy, neither 18mm nor 300mm were completely working. I won’t write a review of how Arkady will write, I’ll just say that I sold it and bought 35, 50 and 105 af-s vr micro in return. 35tka is a very nice lens, but not for portraits, fifty kopecks is even better, plus close portraits are very good, especially for children, and 105 ka is generally a crazy lens, an absolute tool! Recently acquired 200 mm, an old f4, manual, pretty cheap, $ 80. Strongly lacking 85,135,150,24. In general, fixes are great. Each with its own character. Do not sell 35tki and fifty dollars.
On Nikon 105, I was just very upset with HA. for $ 750 such a g ... get.
gave and ripening for Kenonovskoy Elka 100mm. The best macro lens on the market with a hybrid stub.
In fact, glass number one for macro is Nikon's autofocus XNUMX, but of course, the taste of a felt-tip pen ...
XA and I have it, but not everywhere, if I use three flashes (two ordinary and one annular for the convenience of focusing on clamped apertures)
actually I commented on the best macro lens among 90-105mm. but not the best in principle :)
among makriks 90-105mm the best is Kenon.
to Sergei
About 105 micro lens - Stub, of course, removes shaking hands, but it's better to turn it off and use a tripod or monopod. In good light (shutter speed 1/200 or less), there are no problems at all when shooting without a stabilizer. The included stub always degrades the image quality compared to shooting from a tripod at the same exposure, but without stabilization.
There are no chromatic aberrations at 105 (well, a little, sometimes at extreme values), and they are corrected without a trace in the FS. Maybe I came across a good instance.
CAs are of several types. They are never removed without consequences ...
If you want to shoot scenes and scenes on a non-motorized junior cropper / indoors - take 35 / 1,8G mm, if you want the classic portraits of "sy kyrasivym bake" - take 85 / 1,8G mm, if you want to try to catch up with two birds with one stone - take half.
My opinion is based on the copies that I have. The same lenses may have other qualitative characteristics within the technological tolerances in production.
Used both lenses with d5100 (16MP camera) and with d600 (FF 24MP)
35 / 1.8 mm has strong non-linear chromatic aberration (increases towards the edges), which are difficult (or sometimes just impossible) to remove when editing in FS. Soapy. Suitable only as a lens for landscape photos. At the same time, whale 18-55 showed better results at the same focal length (which is surprising). But one must always bear in mind that specific instances of lenses can vary in quality.!?
50 / 1.8 - worked very well on crop. Photos with him went to photo banks and magazines without any complaints. In the full format, CAs are more noticeable, but, in general, they can be removed in the FS.
Therefore, the fifty is always in the bag, fortunately that it is light. Sometimes it is needed. But it is still inferior in quality to 24-70 at the same focal length (and this does not surprise me anymore). The main advantage is lightweight. Yes, and at a price of 24-70 it is incommensurable (about 8-10 times cheaper), so it will not be too bad if his fifty is damaged during extreme filming. the focusing speed is quite sufficient - it does not bother.
Threat all lenses were purchased from authorized Nikon dealers.
Arkady Respect for the review :)