Tested: Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G

Nikon 35mm f/1.4G

I just got the F/1.8G and it is a terrific lens which only cost US $199.95. versus $1799.95 for .4 Difference. Not on my Buck.

Missing the point, Jim.

You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not about the speed; the 35/1.8 is a DX lens, so it's useless on full-frame bodies.

Nikon AF 35mm f/2 D

Ok, okt is right. It cannot be compared with the 35mm f/1.8 since this is a DX lens. But when we think that the price of the f/1.4 version is more than 5 times the price of the f/2 version it makes me wonder if one stop is really worth it; let alone the increase in size and weight.

Corner shading?

I guess 'corner shading' must be the new technical term for light falloff.

Peter

missing the point

The thing is, if you are going to take pictures such as the ones illustrating this article, then surely, a slower lens is all you require?
However, when reviewing a top-o'-the range prime lens that is 1.4, then to my mind, you need to be showing something far more photojournalistic and not the front of a house or some distant people. That, surely, would be to miss much of the point of a lens such as this. What we gain however is that we will need to correct the images in LR if we shoot architecture. This reportage set of images (that is sadly missing), would have given us some idea of the likely bokeh since that's an effect that potential clients may well be looking for. If you are shooting interiors and the barrel distortion is greater than the 2.0 lens, then it's a no-brainer, the 2.0 wins hands down.

GearBack link your post

Hi! It's Florante from GearBundles. Nice post - can we feature it on
our Lenses page? Drop me an email at florante@gearbundles.com. Thanks!

technical?

…corner shading and light falloff must be the new (and very untechnical) terms for vignetting…