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
Please tell me if it is not better to use a lens for Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm 1: 2D full-format cameras on a crop than 35mm for DX. Both will be equivalent to fifty dollars. It seems to me at full-frame 35mm when it on the crop will not be in the frame of the edge with distortion or am I mistaken?
Optically 35 1.8DX is better than its full-length brother, and I recommend it.
The lens for the FF can be used without problems on the crop, but on the contrary it will not work.
In fact, the Nikon CCD has a 'DX image area' crop mode, so there shouldn't be any special problems, also, if you dance a little with a tambourine, you can shoot in normal FX mode, some details are described here - https://radojuva.com.ua/2012/09/living-with-nice-lens-v/
The error is that on cropped DX cameras the equivalent focal length of the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 35mm 1: 1.8G DX is 52,5 mm. This is mistake. The equivalent distance is already indicated on the lens - it is 35mm. In reality, this is a 23mm lens on a full-frame camera. But due to cropping (cropping) part of the frame on a DX camera, the angle of view decreases and the angle of view becomes like a 35mm lens on a full-frame camera. Therefore, 35mm is also a network equivalent focal length.
But if it were a 35mm non-DX lens, then when installed on a DX camera, the equivalent distance would be 52mm, since the angle of view decreases on the crop camera and corresponds to a 52mm full-frame camera.
But the depth of field (lens sharpness area) remains at the same level. That is, although this is a 35 mm lens, but the depth of field is still the same from a 23 mm lens.
There is no mistake. First, understand this issue before writing erroneous information :)
Arkady, tell me please. I photograph a small object at 35 and at 50 nikon d90 and d5200, the focus goes both in front and back, I test from one point and in one place. Just a small object and it’s difficult for automation to visit? Can you tell me something?
Good day. Arkady, tell me please, with a cropped camera (D5200) which of the lenses would be preferable: AF-S DX 35 1.8 or full-frame AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1.8G ED (http://www.nikon.ru/ru_RU/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/fx/single-focal-length/af-s-nikkor-35mm-f-1-8g-ed )? Does it make sense to overpay?
For an amateur - does not have a word at all.
Hello, I need a lens for shooting in large rooms, (ballroom dancing tournaments) where there is not always normal lighting, whether the fifty-fifty 1.8 G is suitable for me, when shooting in motion and the lack of light. Or what can you advise
A fifty dollars for ballroom dancing will be too wide, you will not be able to frame a couple, they will all climb together in a frame.
Depends on your crop, how new it is. If 24MP, optimally you need to take Sigma 2.8 50-150.
Of the fixes, you need a Nikkor AF 85mm f / 1.8D. With sufficient dexterity, zoom is not needed here.
You look at the date, she asked a question a year ago. Go figured it out, for a year then. :)
Yes, I wanted to buy 35dx for crop, well, there’s a bummer (I need exactly 35 but not 52.5. Well now I have to look for 24mm to get about 35 on crop?
To get a viewing angle like that of 35mm on FF, yes, you need to look for 24mm.
And here it is, the crop will crop the frame anyway, and the distortion of 24 mm will remain.
even if you screw on a crop fish, it will not become wide-angle.
if you want shirik - get ff
Guys! Look at things really! You can’t decorate Baba Yaga with pigtails!
C'mon, the pigtails really fit you.
hello arkady. on the advice of a friend bought 50mm 1.8. cool photos but ran into 2 'inconveniences' - if you shoot at home, then there is not always enough space, and on the street the background is always blurred (small depth of field). Would you advise, in addition to it, to take 35 (many talk about him as a staff member) as in his plan for depth of field? can you see a clear image over the entire area or will it be like 50?
sorry forgot to add: d3100 camera
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drraveendra/15283779877/in/pool-nikon50afs/
here it’s impossible to get such pictures even on a more closed aperture :(
For greater DOF, clamp the diaphragm harder.
vsem spasibo kupil segodnya 35mm .. budu probovat after raboti :)
vsem spasibo kupil segodnya 35mm .. budu probovat after raboti :)
I bought a nikkor 35mm yesterday and decided that a bundle of a kit lens and an external flash for indoor shooting would be much more preferable for me than a high-aperture fix, and here's why: 1) the f1.8-2.8 aperture certainly saves from shaking, but the depth of field with such aperture does not enough for shooting a group portrait; 2) I really don't like the presence of HA, although I knew about this feature even before buying :) for myself, I will choose such a gentleman's set - nikon d3200 camera + kit lens 18-105; flash sb-300; and a nikkor 50mm 1.8g lens for more “artistic” photos on the street, in nature (because you don't want to part with the bokeh effect either :) I am ready to listen to all the pros and cons of such a choice.
I read reviews at 35 mm in stores, many indicate that his autofocus often misses as a drawback, have you noticed this in your work with the lens?
Yes, he has such a weakness :(
Yes, it really smears very often.
did not notice
I had 4 such lenses, on none of the cameras I did not blur the focus in normal lighting (tested on d3000, d3100, d5100, d5200, d7000, d80, d800 and fuja s5pro). With poor room lighting, any lens can occasionally smear, they also smear elki on ff canon. To do this, digital SLR cameras have an excellent opportunity to make 2-3 frames of the same object, so if there is very little light, the grip is obscenely narrow, and sharpness is extremely important - it is better to take several frames.
The subject of the lens has not been disclosed. So what is better to take for a constant, I'm interested in video on the 5300, portrait and home shooting ...
you just can't read comments ..
35 mm.
Maxim ,
Sell everything and buy a sony A7II + 55mm Carl Zeisse!
For a week now I have been struggling with the question: buy AF-S 50 mm 1.8G or AF-S 50 mm 1.4G. And the matter is not even in a small supply of aperture, but in the number of petals (7 by 1.8 versus 9 by 1.4). Arkady, tell me whether it is worth overpaying for this nuance? How does he improve the picture? How often do you have to shoot at 1.4?
D5100 camera, KIT AF-S 18-55 mm and AF-S 35 mm 1.8G lenses.
Sorry to get in. If you do not know which one to take, then definitely you need to take f / 1.8.
F / 1.4 for those who know exactly how they will use it. Otherwise, you simply will not see the difference.
I used to take 50mm / f1.8d and it seemed to me that it was no different from 1.4d. Then he experimentally found that on the open aperture 1.8d is very weak. In my opinion,
aperture 1.4 makes sense if you plan to shoot art on an open aperture with a shallow depth of field. If you shoot on a covered aperture, then there is little point in overpaying. If you have little idea what it is about, then take 1.8)
Thank you, glad to any advice, but I am still waiting for discussion.
Most likely you will play with fifty dollars at the beginning, and then abandon. I speak from experience, half a cent on crop either here or there. After all, you have 18-55, so play around 50 mm to understand what stories will be available to you. And just keep in mind that fifty dollars gives a lighter, juicier and contrastier picture, well, and accordingly it blurred the background well, the stronger the closer you are to the subject. Hence the conclusion: if hunting is more than captivity, then take 1,8, it is simply cheaper. And best of all, look for something aperture from 70 or 85 mm or longer, you will see portraits will sparkle in a new way. Good luck.
Regarding “whether a fifty-kopeck piece is necessary for a crop”
He made an analysis of images for the year, according to the FR used, 12100 frames were analyzed. I have a D5100.
So 27% - 18mm, 10% - 50mm, 6% - 70mm, 3,5% - 105mm, the rest are even smaller, despite the fact that these 50mm are mainly from the 18-105 zoom, because fifty dollars is not so often and use it.
Of course, all this is individual, and the author of the question can also analyze the frequency of use of the FR 50mm, and find out how much it is needed.
27% + 10% + 6% + 3,5%. where are the others?
The full list of focal points is a 66-line plate))
Here is an abbreviated one, with the combination of FRs into groups. FR = 0 - these are manual glasses - Yu-37a and G-44-2, as well as macro with macro rings
hmm…. “Give a person a zoom, he will remember the zoom, and he will stretch the sign”.
in general - wide angle, from 18 to 25 - 35%
normal angle (25-40) 22%
"Like a half" - 21%
short portrait type ”(about 80-85) - 15%
classic portrait type (100-150) - 8%
“For some reason, telephoto” - 4%. \
the rest is in error ...
Total - "over 35 mm" about 50-57%,
for half a day - 20-27%
“Long portraits 80-135” - 20-25%.
iiiiiiii .... !!!!
35 mm is still the most running fix.
But more% - 27 - by 18mm! And the second goes 50mm - 10%. This is if you don't customize anything ...
Eugene ... Eugene ...
There is no need to think and draw “conclusions”. It makes me sad.
No need to be upset :), I concluded that a staffer of 35 is needed for the crop, and it costs 85 to buy. And I just commented on the provided table.
I don't understand your math. What does “Total -“ for 35 mm ”mean about 50-57%” - where are these numbers from?
If we count "about", then we have
26-40mm - 16,3%
45-58mm - 16,1%
Where is 27% or 50% here?
Or do you think you can put on 35mm and do without 18mm? In my case - no, I do not work in greenhouse conditions.
Eugene, they told you from the very beginning.
I understand about the aperture, I wanted to hear about the dependence of the pattern on the number of aperture blades. How much this really affects the result.
Do you really think that these petals will paint you unearthly beauty? If you do not learn how to shoot, neither the lens nor the camera will help you. Look right here on Radozhiva, reviews with examples of both of these fifty dollars. Better as they say once to see.
In your case, they have absolutely no effect.
and taking half a dollar if you have 35k, for a crop is completely pointless ..
85 / 1,8g still wherever it went, if you need fashion, portraits, shoot on the open air.
Thank you all - we convinced you that you shouldn't overpay for 1.4. But I do not agree that fifty dollars is not relevant for crop. I also have a Helios 81H with a chip and a Helios 44-2 converted to infinity (the flange is changed). And they make beautiful portraits.
The number of aperture blades has no effect on the lens "pattern." aperture blades have absolutely nothing to do with it ...
By the way, it is believed that the best figure is 50 1.4g, and q loses, including the figure. Although I, too, like you more like 50 1.4d, including thanks to the drawing.
I don't like modern hybrid-plastic optics, the one that Arkady praises so much and calls all this disgrace "modern technologies". I see in it a rather flawed quality, a loss in color rendition, volume and contrast, in the very “picture” for which everything was invented ...
did you even compare them ?? in real conditions, lenses of G and D series, for example?
render.
Excellent - I'm taking 50 1.8, 85 1.8 in perspective.
If you have a Helios 81H, why another fifty dollars ?! I sold 50 1,8G a year ago and stayed with Helios 81N, believe me, he just rolls in a box, not even in a wardrobe trunk. Make no mistake, take 85 1,8G immediately. But of course, all this is true only if there are denyuzhk because 85mm is not cheap.
“All this is true only if there are denyuzhki” - that's the whole point - I don't think that when I decide to rob a family by buying an FF device, but on the 85 crop it is too narrow, it will definitely be in the box ...
Sing the old song again - pay attention to 35-70 \ 2,8D. For a crop portrait (and not only) there is no alternative ...
Do you bet there? :)
For the money, no, for sure!
There are even cheaper :)
For example?
Not for example, but for sure - the previous version 35-70 \ 2,8D, which is without the letter 'D' :)
I agree, but it is difficult to buy it in good condition, and we have the D version in excellent condition from Japan ... In general, I appreciated your sense of humor ...
Thank you :) 35-70 / 2,8 / d is a good lens. By the way, 28-70 / 2,8 also has character, and 24-70 is already “licked”.
I watched a lot of samples from 24-70, they reminded me of 16-85, my ex reminded me of which, like a bad dream, I remember ... For the future, I only plan 28-70 ...
If the question was about the acceptability of buying the “D” version, there would be no problem. The choice is made among AF-S models. There are plenty of cheap used D lenses in the net.
I understand you have a carcass without a motor. Then the sadness ...
Obuenno! 85 is too narrow for portraits ..
and how do I shoot at 135? O_o
You are very mistaken. Using a lens of 70-210 f4, I rarely use fr less than 100mm, of course on crop. And my favorite lens is generally 105mm 2,8 micro. So 85mm and even F1,8 is a magical combination, fifty dollars to it as if to China on foot. Just think, 127,5 mm (almost one hundred and thirty-five) in equivalent and even 1,8. You have no idea what you are giving up.
“85mm and even f1,8 is a magic combination” is understood, so I will look for it at a reasonable price.
not magic ...
just from AF-s versions is almost the only one at least at a reasonable price at this moment.
If today is the day of cats - here is a cat-portrait on 85 1.8AF, S5Pro :)
Good, handsome !!!
Bagheera is a beauty :)
Here is a portrait of a friend on 35-70 \ 2,8D
D90, 70 \ 3,5
oh what amazing bokeh! the elaboration of eyelashes is amazing, and the skin is soft, without “unnecessary” details, you don't even need to process it!
what a skinton!
really a pity - a little blue skinny then.
No no, it's a gray card. :)
China or what? Ms. went to the blue!
Everything here corresponds to the realities - skin tone, softness of the skin, eyelashes and even a rug with walls ... I'm glad you liked it ...
Here is Helios 81H. 50mm, ISO 100, f / 2, 1/2500
and what?
And here is Helios 81 n.
50 1.8G
35 1.8G too! ISO 100, f / 2.2, 1/320
Hello, please advise a fix for a crop, I think between 85mm F1.8 G AF-S and 50mm F1.4 G AF-S
85mm F1.8G AF-S