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
I had a Nikon 35 / 1.8G, very good! and Nikon 50 / 1.8G was also
Nikon 50 / 1.8G - useless if you have 85
and the Nikon 35 / 1.8G is pretty good, everything shoots into the frame during shooting, and 50mm isn’t even willing to wear
That's just Nikon 35 / 1.8G vignetting, and Nikon 50 / 1.8G on crop is better in the picture
In use on the Nikon D7000 came to the conclusions:
Nikon 35 / 1.8G - a standard high-aperture fixture for all cases, except for face portraits (50% of photos on it);
Nikon AF 50 / 1.4D - portrait (both chest and front), comfortable on the street, perfectly blurs the background (35% of the photo on it);
Nikon AF 85 / 1.8 - seemed very narrow on the crop, good for facial, but I don't shoot them that often. Shoulder-length portraits had to be shot from 7-8 meters. On FF I think it will be very convenient, but for DX - 35 (indoor) + 50 (street) is an excellent combination.
I completely agree with the "arrangement" of focal lengths by genre, but for facial portraits I still strongly recommend 85 and 105 mm, even except.
Regarding focusing mistakes with autofocus lenses, especially 50 / 1,8 G: NIKON's website says, and it really helps - press the shutter release button SEVERAL TIMES (if the focus is not adjusted differently) before the shot (in my experience 3-4 times until the motor stops moving the lens unit), and the fifty-kopeck piece also drains the battery at 2 about 5100 times faster.
Thanks did not know. Sounds like the truth. Because misses are not a stylish front or back, namely, not getting into the FLU. Either a short flight or a flight.
Here, I found the source:
https://nikoneurope-ru.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/55496/related/1
“… When shooting stationary subjects, aim the active focus point over the subject, and then press the shutter-release button halfway several times without changing the focusing distance. When the focus indicator is displayed, press the shutter-release button the rest of the way down to take the photograph. ”
50 / 1,8 G. I noticed that if you first defocus behind the subject, and then ON the subject, autofocus works more accurately than defocus first before the subject, and then on the subject.
interesting. will need to check.
The joyful always has an answer to a burning question! Just today, a friend bought 35ku with it. Before that I wanted 50 1,8D, because a carcass with a motor, but I wanted aperture) I agree completely? that 35koy is enough to cover a maximum of plots, usability above 50nnik on crop at times. I don’t have a half-speed, but the function of 35ki is performed by 30ka 1,4 Sigma, satisfied, even wider, even brighter! but as inexpensive glass is real for every day, 35ka is convenient!
Well, for a carcass with a motor “for every day and with you”, 24 / 2D, the third version, would be best suited. The angle is more comfortable than 35 will be. On non-motorized ones - yes, 35 is the optimum, since 20-24 is already expensive and heavy.
The phrase about the convenience of 35 tk for every day is a little incomprehensible. And if you shoot different stories every day? It's just that each focal length is good for its purposes, and then the quality of the lens works. It all depends on creative thinking. Even such a disgrace as a plastic Holga, you can shoot interesting shots. A 35 tk is a very good lens, tighten your aperture and enjoy sharpness. Arkady constantly reminds everyone that it is important how to shoot, and not what.
Was very long 35mm. I lay down on the shelf after buying 17-50 2.8… and was immediately sold after buying 50mm 1.8 (now it's my favorite lens). The last decision was when, under the same conditions, I shot in pairs with both lenses ... 35 really focused worse and constantly blurred. I agree that the matter is possible in the focusing system of the camera, but for me it was a decisive moment, since I often shoot in poor lighting conditions. 35mm versus 50mm isn't that much of a difference, even when shooting indoors, but 50mm is better. And take 35mm as a wagon, well, if only there is not enough money for more versatile zoom lenses.
17-50 as I understand it Tamron SP AF 17-50 f / 2.8?
I absolutely agree with you.
on d3100 I personally think 50 is much better than 35
Also, when I chose to buy 35 vs 50, I shoveled a bunch of the Internet. And most people are inclined to believe that the picture of a fifty dollars is better. Therefore, he took it. I have a working zoom of Sigma 17-50 / 2.8, but the half-speed in the portrait seems more interesting.
35 vs 50 is useless to discuss without specifying - crop or FF. the behavior, goals and purpose of fixes will differ. IMHO :)
it is clear that crop. It is unlikely that someone will take 35 DX for FF.
35mm Sigma 1.4 is quite possible - excellent lens for both crop and FF.
although you're right - the emphasis is mostly on 35 HHs for some reason.
Maybe because “These lenses are exclusively for use on Nikon DX cameras in this article.” ? ;)
I have 35/50/85 G 1.8 versions available. The most sought after was and is 35mm. Even with the transition to full frame, I still often use 35mm 1.8 DX on the D600. What you like about it so much, it focuses much closer than 50/85 ka. Blur like it. Portraits are also no problem. I would advise for crop 35 G 1.8 price and quality at high altitude! You can also use it at full frame without any problems. With 50mm it’s difficult to shoot in cramped spaces (apartments), for the street there is no problem, you can move away. If I were asked to leave one lens from my entire collection (7 legendary lenses), I would choose 35G 1.8 for crop or 50mm for FF.
I have d5200 a month since I bought 35mm. After a couple of days when I noticed a back focus, I changed it .. but during the test in the store of three lenses everything turned out to be the same and it turned out that with good daylight or a fluorescent lamp, the focus shows 100 percent accuracy, but with incandescent lamps (yellow light) there is back focus. You will have to take this into account when photographing at home.
Sorry, Arkady, for boring.
Logical discrepancy in the phrase “When I started shooting less and less with Nikon DX cameras”
Maybe “began to shoot”?
Thanks for the article, I would certainly like to understand the pros and cons of 35 and 50 on a crop in a more structured way. And most importantly, I really would like to see something similar for Canon (for example, 35/2 and 50 / 1,4 - if I'm not mistaken they are in approximately the same price category).
Canon has 35 fixes for crop for the same money as Nikon - it just doesn't.
I own a 17-50 tamron and a 35th. Despite covering the tamron with the focal zoom (by the way, I went through a whole mountain of glasses until I found an acceptable one without F / B / F at both ends, almost perfect), and so, despite this, I'm not going to sell it. It is light, oversized, in comparison with the tamron, just a feather. When choosing a 35-ku, too, sorted through the glass. It turned out that B / F was at the carcass, which I did not notice in a timely manner on dark 18-55. Aligned the carcass. Now everything is fine. In general, for the price that they ask for 35ku, this lens simply does not get any better. And it will not hurt, it won’t take up much space. He won’t add much weight either.
Advise a zoom from 50mm focal length and higher for crop and with a stub, and that cheap and good in terms of picture. There is not enough zoom, sometimes it is really not enough.
Thank you for the detailed description of the 35, by the way I also own a similar tamron, but I was lucky, the first copy was quite good - without BF and FF at all distances. I use 35-105 / 3,5-4,5 to cover long distances. Despite the fact that this is a pretty old glass, it gives, in my opinion, a good picture. I was considering options for long distances, the idea came to my mind to take 70-200 / 4 L - it can now be bought for reasonable money, although it is without a stub, but is it so critical?
Nikon 55-200mm f / 4-5.6G AF-S DX VR IF-ED Zoom-Nikkor I have been using for several months. I liked it, I never caught it, there seems to be no distortion either. Not bad as a portrait photographer. For this money - great zoom!
Add honey to the topic. Nikon introduced a new budget 35mm / 1.8G for a full frame.
http://nikon.ru/ru_RU/press_room/press_presentation.page?ID=templatedata%5Cru_RU%5Cnews_article%5Cdata%5CBV-PR-WWA-NIKKOR-35mm-07012014
Dear d.martyn, do you have any information about the budgeting of this miracle in arbitrary units? And then, as always, they promise from three boxes, and then they fill up 600-650 bucks for it, as for the Nikon AF 28mm f / 1.8G
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f / 1.8G
• 11 elements in 8 groups, 1 aspherical and 1 ED elements (the 35mm f / 1.4G lens has 10 elements in 7 groups with 1 aspherical element) (11 elements in 8 groups, 1 aspherical and 1 ED element)
• No golden ring (without a golden ring)
• Minimum focusing distance: 25 cm (minimum focusing distance 25 cm)
• Filter size: 58mm (filter 58cm)
• Weight: around 300g / 11 oz (weight 300g)
• 7 blades aperture (rounded) (7 rounded aperture blades)
$599.95
on sale since February 20.
Everything would be fine, but MADE IN CHINA for $ 599.95 !!!
Who will buy it? On FF, an amateur will take Nikkor 35mm f / 2D AF, a professional will get confused on Nikkor 35mm f / 1.4G AF-S.
It turns out that they release it in order to keep up with competitors? Or what am I misunderstanding ...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18-fx.htm
I honestly wonder if the lens was introduced yesterday (and 35tku and the new 18-55 and the new d3300), how does Ken already have reviews of all these new wonders of technology?
So NIKON type Rockwell as a court marketer! Oh, sorry, I wanted to write a photographer
Apparently, Nikon sends him a test beforehand. As far as I know, in the field of computer electronics this is a common practice - first, the first copies are sent to magazines for testing, then the novelty is released to the market.
Arkady, tell me, please, whether the results on
35 Sigma 1.4mm f / 2013 or Samyang 35mm f / 1.4
than on
Nikon 35mm f / 1.8G or Nikon 35mm f / 2D?
Of course, on all available apertures. Considered as a challenger Nikon 35mm f / 2D, but it seems that he is the weakest of these.
Judging by the lenses you listed - Nikon 35 2D is the best, I think that in terms of quality it surpasses all of the above.
I use 35 on Nikon D40. IMHO, the lens is convenient for indoor shooting. In principle, I'm happy with it. Wild chromates on open aperture when shooting in bright sun. I fight them with a polaric. With the polarizer, you can also shoot at an open aperture in bright light. I took from a dude to shoot D200 in conjunction with a fifty-fifty - the result was oazozy. Poltinik didn't like it at all. True, the fifty-fifty was 1.8D. IMHO 50 is a useless focal length on the crop. I am saving up money for 85 1.8 g. Here everyone writes that they use the D7000. Why nobody buys d300s? My friend has d7000. Judging because he tells a very problematic camera.
firstly 300s is not so easy to find in the primary market. I have never seen in stores.
on the secondary, people do not always see the point of overpaying for screwed-up videos, and takes the usual three hundred.
And they buy what they advertise and what they see in stores. Not everyone dares to communicate with the first camera “hand-held”.
Arkady,
Thank you for your project, I am a beginner photographer, but I am learning, it seems to me, quickly, incl. thanks to you.
Does it make sense to dig on the D5200 35ku as a staffer for all occasions and in addition to it Nikon 50mm f / 1.4G AF-S Nikkor for portraits?
If anyone else unsubscribes on this issue, I will also be very grateful.
It definitely makes sense to put on a 35, especially if you are going to shoot indoors. Just keep in mind that the D5200 has 24 megapixels, which means that the diffraction threshold will start at aperture 6.5 (just simply do not clamp the aperture more than 6.5, otherwise there will be soap). If you are impatient to buy a fifty-dollar amount, I advise you to look towards Zeiss 50 1.4 zf.2. The killer thing is only 725 tanks. Nikon's fifty - Chinese plastic will break down.
When talking about a landscape at 50mm cropped, many people only mention the lack of a wide angle, but everyone forgets about depth of field and the diffraction limit of the optics and camera matrix. The trick is that not only the narrowness of the frame, but also the exorbitant values of the aperture, at which it has to be clamped to obtain sharpness throughout the frame and the resulting depth of field, does not allow to properly shoot a landscape at 50mm. For modern cropped DSLRs, the diffraction limit is in the f / 8 region, after approximately the same value, the resolution of the optics begins to significantly decrease. It is also known that a landscape requires sharpness throughout the frame - hyperfocal. If you hold down the aperture at f / 50 at 8mm, then when you reach hyperfocal we lose almost 16 meters of the foreground, which, if you are not shooting in the mountains, will have a catastrophic effect on the composition of the frame. Even with the aperture clamped to the maximum for 50mm f / 16, almost 8 meters of PP is lost. But, the most interesting thing is that even in this case, we run into the diffraction limit and get a significant drop in detail, both due to the optics and due to the matrix. And detail for a landscape is a critical parameter. Such pies ...
That is why normal heroes take a zayce of 50mm 1.4 zf.2 and do not buzz. And by the way, at 24 megapixels, the diffraction limit is f / 6.3. On my 6 megapixel Nikon D40, the diffraction threshold at f / 13, i.e. at least 11 can still be removed.
You paid attention only to the diffraction limit, and the depth of field missed. 50mm. on crop at f / 11 it will give a hyperfocal from only 11 meters, i.e. 11 meters of the foreground will be blurred and will need to be cut. If you are shooting not from a height or 3/4 of the frame, as intended, it should not be sky, then you simply cannot compose the frame. :)
And I did not understand why when 50 1.8 has the ability to work fine on FF, + less distortion + less chromaticity + better for portraits on crop, and Arkady advises 35 ku?
Because of the price, half as much ??
In general, my personal method is a large set of fixes. I take 3-4 pieces for a specific shooting, with a margin, so to speak. (all the same, an amateur will either stay on the kit lens, or he will reach good glasses himself, and here everyone prefers the focal length, fix or zoom)
I have a friend - he took a new d700 and rushes from the photo to Tamron 28-75 / 2.8, and I feel sick from its dull colors, although the focal is certainly convenient.
By the way, I can still advise beginners with aperture of 3.5-4.5 to beginners, as a rule, this is good optics. a kind of compromise between the price for unnecessary amateur mega picture and money thrown into the wind due to a misunderstanding of optics.
Look how the people hait helios 40. And why? Yes, you need to be able to shoot! but in general - manual optics will benefit anyone. At least for a week, fill your hand.
UPD: i.e. d600 he took a new one, I made a reservation ((
I like the 24mm crop. I had samyang 24 / 1.4 (bower version) on trial for several days - this is glass! I fell in love with him. big, slow, beautiful, comfortable, with contacts on the bayonet! working with an open aperture without any conventions! the picture is rich, contrasting, juicy! it can be seen immediately. of the minuses - the samyang seems to have no motor optics at all (including 24 / 1.4) and a tiny depth of field, as if it were not a wide lens but a telephoto lens.
and by the way, as far as I know, Nikon has no 24mm focal length with such aperture. and at the same time the price for it is 15-17 thousand rubles for a new one. and countless marriage like tamrons and sigma no. shorter mast hev!
Hello. For a long time I chose 50 or 35 for shooting a child mainly in an apartment and preferably without a flash. I read a lot of tests and forums. Because of the focal point, I realized that more than 35ka suits me. I bought it. It turned out to be with back focus, but because the D7000 body was corrected in the menu. I took 50ku from a friend. It seemed more "artistic", but it is more difficult indoors. During the comparison, I also drew attention to the different recommended hand-held shutter speed (opinions differ either 1 / focal, or 1 / 1,5f or 1 / 2f), respectively, for example 1/35 or 1/50, which is about 42% or about 1 / 3 feet. A little, but in any case, at 35k, a small plus is obtained, which turns into a lower ISO value and a decrease in noise.
I was faced with the same problem and, in the end, I decided to stop at 50 ke. I chose the main reasons for myself:
1. As you wrote above, 50 mm is more artistic.
2. At home, you can take pictures of a child using the standard zoom 18-55, which is even more convenient than 35 fixes. Yes, he has less aperture, but at home, in the same scenery, the pictures are unlikely to shine with a variety ...
3. For taking pictures in 4 walls, I decided to focus on learning to shoot with the built-in flash until I get an external one.
I would be glad if I help at least a little to fix the porridge in my head on this issue;)
you need to take 35 and 50 and all and more. you need to take a large cupboard. I have a large closet and everything is fine however. tsya ..
For fans of flash photography, I advise you to stick masking (paper) tape on it. and play with the power of the flash. I don't remember in which particular menu, the values 1/10 ... 1/50 I think are suitable for an apartment
I also read all the comparisons, in the end I looked at what I was filming with the whales, looked at what FRs "fit into the apartment", took 35mm, while satisfied. It's just that you can shoot at home without a flash, children's portraits on the street are also excellent. As the first fix for a crop, to understand what it is without spending too much money - a very good option. As I put it, I have not taken pictures for so long, as it turned out, the zoom is not particularly needed for everyday photos. The only thing is that because of the small depth of field it is easy to miss the focus, thus. you have to align your hands. The approach like “I shot a series without looking, then I'll figure it out” with an open aperture works poorly, almost the entire series is blurred. Carcass 5200 if that.
Guys, tell me the whole head has already broken. I have a d7000 + tamron 24-70 2.8 + 18-55 VR II, I want to buy a performance glass, I broke my whole head 35 or 50.