How is it compare to nikon 35mm f/1.8g af-s dx?
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
1650133
While this lens performs well in a fairly wide variety of situations, I would recommend the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 af-s dx or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 af lenses for portraits. Either of those will give you much better performance in lower light situations and they are both very sharp lenses. As I said, the 18-55mm is a great lens but if you want to focus exclusively on portraits, go with one of the others instead. I actually prefer the 35mm over the 50mm. Just my two cents though.
827135
it's an exceptional improvement, and it wold be good for landscapes and small venues. If you want something even better then go with nikon 17-55 f2.8 however that's around 1.4k dollars
1922080
I love my 35 but my 50mm 1.4 was what I started with and I still love it.:)
858187
For the money it's a decent lens. For a little more money you can get a Tamron 17-50 2.8, which I think is a much better lens. Also look at the nikon 35mm 1.8 dx lens.
423677
If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter: - It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces - It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful - It's about $150 less - If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy!
1910672
i'm testing the camera and 35mm 1.8G, please see test videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsE5YLzKkSEplease subscribe for more video test
1370588
Exactly. It should be noted that it's sharp and CA-free at 1.2 as well. If Canon or Nikon made a 1.8 this good, I'd be stoked.
241543
Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this... » Read More Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. « Show Less
1000371
I have the DA 35/2.4. It is an amazing piece of glass for its price point. The 50/1.8 will give you tighter shots (better for portraits) with a better depth of field at f/1.8 (greater separation of your subject from the surrounding environment) and it will perform much better in low light situations thanks to the large aperture, leading to fewer noisy/blurry images.
1276205
The IQ of the Tamron lens is typical of super-zooms, that is, a compromise at all focal lengths. The Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85 is generally well-regarded and is probably sharper over much or all of its range. I would recommend adding the Tamron to your kit for its unbeatable versatility but keep the Nikkor for its better optics.
659560
Hi glenn: how the 105 mm compares with the 85mm f/1.4 lens for portrait shots thank you for your advice
1204900
This is a late post, but for those who have the same question: Nikon's 35mm f/1.8G DX and 55mm 1.8mm f/1.8G lenses are great choices, and can save all but a couple hundred bucks. You will have to move around more than with the zoom, but expect zero distortion as your reward.
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
1203850
yep. I am going to amend my advice and recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8. This gets excellent reviews and is faster than the others for low light shooting such as UW. I shot with the 10-24 such subjects as a gilded church. It came out spectacular. All in all, if money is not an issue, it is a tossup between the nikon and tokina. I switched to fx format and now use the nikon 12-24. It's a monster. BTW, another great option for the Nikon DX is the great 18-200 zoom.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.