Nikkor cropped 35/1.8 review is up on DPreview

[Titan10k]

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/

. standard range for aps-c
. moderately fast @ f1.8
. real ring-focusing motor

sigh this is something i want to see on alpha mount... not that weirdo 50mm DT

[Rashkae]

Eeeh. Only 7 blades, stong CA, and so-so bokeh.

Sony can do better.

[navlem]

Sony has a 35mm F1.4 wat

[Titan10k]

Originally Posted by navlem Sony has a 35mm F1.4 wat

This is a budget standard prime for aps-c, to be priced below US$200.

I really don't expect stellar performance from a lens like this, but Nikon did it, a low-cost, fast standard prime for aps-c, not some weird stuff like what Sony announced at the PMA

[navlem]

If you want fast standard prime for aps-c at low cost, get the minolta 50mm 1.7

Its definitely low price

[lenrek]

Originally Posted by navlem If you want fast standard prime for aps-c at low cost, get the minolta 50mm 1.7 Its definitely low price

Is not APS-C lens as Nikon did.

From the review, is not that fantastic.

[Titan10k]

Originally Posted by navlem If you want fast standard prime for aps-c at low cost, get the minolta 50mm 1.7 Its definitely low price

I wouldn't call 50mm on aps-c standard... it's just not...

[afipuffy]

isn't Sony 35mm 1.4 better? or worst? Its Carl Zeiss lens right? Even it is expensive, but its much better than that Nikkor 35/1.8?? Or worst? If its better, then its worth buying Carl Zeiss.

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by afipuffy isn't Sony 35mm 1.4 better? or worst? Its Carl Zeiss lens right? Even it is expensive, but its much better than that Nikkor 35/1.8?? Or worst? If its better, then its worth buying Carl Zeiss.

The 35mm is a G lens, and is far superior to the Nikkor lens. It also costs 5 times as much.

[lenrek]

Originally Posted by Titan10k I wouldn't call 50mm on aps-c standard... it's just not...

You can get a Minolta or Sony 20mm, it should be closed to 35mm (on APS-C, if I remember correctly). I think the IQ will beat the Nikkor lens.

[Titan10k]

Originally Posted by lenrek You can get a Minolta or Sony 20mm, it should be closed to 35mm (on APS-C, if I remember correctly). I think the IQ will beat the Nikkor lens.

Actually I was looking for 50mm equiv, not 35mm equiv. I know there's a minolta 35/2, but that thing is like super rare, and I wound't call it low-cost either. Saw one on B/S some time ago for like, $800?

[Ouverture]

I agree with bro titan10k that sony is giving us all the useless primes and overly expensive 35G that are putting the users off, so much so I have to get myself a Sigma30 in order to meet my needs for indoor fast lens with useful focal length. (Which I think many cropped body users are having the same issue), 50mm is just a useless lens for cropped body, too tight for indoors while it's useless to use F1.4/F1.7 outdoors.

And it's not really a useful portrait lens either...

And dun tell me about the old Minolta 28/2 or 35/2 or even 35/1.4G, they are priced so ridiculously even they are 2nd hand that I can anytime get a new 3rd party lens at much lower price....and come to think of it, those sellers even bought them at half the price during Minolta era...and now trying to ripe off the "blur" Sony users for a fat profit...

Sony should have come out a 28-35mm with F1.8 or best F1.4 at a good price (400-600) to retain their cropped users quickly...

This is what a real Sony users is getting pissed off...and making us thinking of switching camps...

[lenrek]

Originally Posted by Titan10k Actually I was looking for 50mm equiv, not 35mm equiv. I know there's a minolta 35/2, but that thing is like super rare, and I wound't call it low-cost either. Saw one on B/S some time ago for like, $800?

I thought Sony did intro a 50mm APS-C lens at PMA?

[lenrek]

Originally Posted by Ouverture ... This is what a real Sony users is getting pissed off...and making us thinking of switching camps...

Real Sony user?

I guess, I am not a real Sony user then...

[Titan10k]

Originally Posted by lenrek I thought Sony did intro a 50mm APS-C lens at PMA?

yes and that 50mm is 75mm equiv, which is not something i'm looking for.

@bro Ouverture: well each camp has its pros and cons. Nikon's lens line up may be better than Sony's, but that doesnt mean it's perfect... My first DSLR was a Nikon and I never regret switching to Sony, but again, that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement for Sony.

[lenrek]

Originally Posted by Titan10k yes and that 50mm is 75mm equiv, which is not something i'm looking for. @bro Ouverture: well each camp has its pros and cons. Nikon's lens line up may be better than Sony's, but that doesnt mean it's perfect... My first DSLR was a Nikon and I never regret switching to Sony, but again, that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement for Sony.

Is a FF lens? Are you sure? I thought all Sony lens with model 'DT' are APS-C lenses. At least, that is what I notice when I check the lens spec from dyxum.

[Titan10k]

I think you miss the point, bro lenrek.

The newly announced 50/1.8 DT is an aps-c lens, but it's angle of view is equal to that of a 75mm FF.

[huggable]

This lens is released to fill the gap that D40/x/60 users find missing, that is an AF-capable "normal" prime lens equiv to 50mm focal length. As the D40/x/60 are entry-level bodies, naturally the lens has to be low-priced to suit the target user group.

[boombox]

I think the compromise is well struck for the price for the Nikkor.




The Sony DT50 1.8 isn't that bad really, you can say that the 75mm is closer at filling out the duties of a 85mm FF equiv.

So let's hope that we've got a DT35 1.8 then yeah?

Griping about a lens with questionable intent is pretty pointless. We should really be shooting more yeah? Concentrate on photography, and worry less about equipment - remember that good equipment just gets out of the way of a photographer while he works, and I guess it's not worth getting worked up about something that I would consider as a "paint brush".

Besides, I think the A mount is still a long way from maturing yet with a system of updated lenses, but that doesn't mean we cannot turn back to the fantastic KM lenses that are floating around in the market - those lenses are every bit as good as the other lenses out there.

Also, I guess, many of us don't need a wide range of glasses to do your photo work. I am living with 3 lenses for the foreseeable future - and would probably stick with it for quite a while, until I officially Tan-Jiak with photography.

[Agetan]

Well, I guess if you still think a lens is limiting, I guess you haven't really spend time taking pictures, but spend too much time worry about the gear that you don't have.

Why don't blame yourself that don't know how to take a better pictures with a particular lens.

lens and camera is nothing more than a tool. Blaming a tool is almost like Picasso blaming the brush that can't give the drawing he did... but guess picasso spend a lot more time "create" drawing from heart and blaming the brush....

Is 35mm f1.4 that expensive? I don't think so personally.

I don't quite understand about DT lenses... cheap price, yes, but guess it is a lot more expensive when you get a full frame and buy another full frame lens....

and 24MP FF DSLR from Sony don't cost over $10k....

I think it is still a lot cheaper to buy a A900 + 35mm f1.4 G from Sony than buying a D3X alone.

Uhm....