Reviews and Problems with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX
Showing 1-10 of 22
Value for money 4
15 May 2014
Summary: After reading the reviews I was really excited to try this lens but was really disappointing. !. I have a D3200 and I just could not get the autofocus to do its job. it would only focus on small areas (even with higher aperture settings). The 1.8 setting produced images so soft they were virtually useless. Granted I was shooting a moving child not a still object but the standard lens had no problem holding focus 2.
Excerpt: After buying the cheap and excellent Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D (http: //www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html), I decided to try the 35mm f/1.8. Why? Because owning a D7000, the 50mm was too cropped on some ocasions. Nevertheless, I got very disapointing with it. 1) At wide apertures - 1.8, 2.0, until 2.5 - it presents a STRONG chromatic aberration. Really! So strong you can see it in the camera screen. 2) AF sucks.
Excerpt: I was disappointed in this lens, since I'd read so many good user reviews, prior to buying it. It was sharp in the center and fast, and might be OK for indoor/general low-light photography, but I am a nature phtographer who needs a fast lens for the low light in dense forests. Unfortunately, this lens produced more fringing around isolated bright colored subjects, such as flowers, than my Nikon D5100's C.A.
Excerpt: I have read/seen many reviews of this lens and know it should be very good. I ordered a refurbished model and believe I must have just gotten a dud. The lens is very slow to focus not only in low light but in a variety of lighting conditions. I am new to the world of slr's but when I switched back to the kit 18-55 lens, there was a clear difference in performance.
Excerpt: Small, reasonable price, good construction<br />The only thing wrong with this lens is that the resolution is worse than f2.8 Nikon zooms... Primes should be as good. A Leica 35mm is better. The Nikon 50mm if1.8 is sharper than this lens and fx and cheaper. So this is only being used for low light travel shots.... And if it broke it would have to be replaced with a 35 f1.4, which is to say, it would not replaced at all. An old ai prime would be in the bag instead....
Excerpt: I thought that this fast normal lens would be a good choice for shooting indoor basketball tournaments with a D5000. I was wrong. The autofocus is slow and inaccurate in low light. It prefers to focus on distant bright objects rather than subjects in the focus target. I have reverted to a pre-set manual focus strategy for low light sports photography. The autofocus on the Nikon 55-200 VR DX is markedly superior.
Pros: Fast, Good color rendition, Good tonal rendition, Lightweight
Cons: Blurry Focus, Chromatic distortion, Not sharp at high f-stops, Slow Focus
Excerpt: I wanted more sharpness than what I get from my Sigma 18-250 zoom. But with adequate lighting, they produced identical images, even at 4x zoom. With very low light this lens produced slightly discernibly better detail in one test. For me it was not worth it. I wanted a lens for portrait photography, but my tests proved the zoom will produce the same quality and sharpness. At lease I ended up seeing the zoom was pretty good after all.
Excerpt: This lens is not as expected. First, there is no meter/ruler/reader on it. You won't know if you are at infinite at night if you try to use it ti shoot for star trails. Focus problem at night is a very huge disadvantage of this product. For its price, I give 2 stars. I would like to sell it though. A Tokina 11-16, which has F 2.8, will be better, if you want that portrait feeling.
Pros: Consistent Output, Lightweight
Cons: Blurry Focus, No focal reader, No focus meter, Poor in Low Light, Slow Focus