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.
2193894
I have no idea if it is as fast as the 35mm lenses, but the performance has been excellent. My husband and I got into bird feeding in the last couple of years, and with this lens I've been able to capture some amazing shots.
543325
No comparison! This lens even out performs Canon's 1.4 in most areas! One area it really blows a lot 50mm out of the water in is bokeh quality! It has 9 round blades that make a heck of difference and give it it's quality D.O.F. and bokeh. Some have compared it's build quality and performance more closer to Canon's 50mm 1.2L. I'm a fashion and beauty photographer and use this lens quite often, and I can confidently stand behind this glass! If you can buy it, buy it! To see some of the photos I've taken with this lens visit my site: www.richardanthonyevans.com.
1381522
I don't have the 35mm David but its excellence is reputed and I do not doubt it's better than canon's 24 but it's a completely different focal lenght. If you dont mind manual focusing Samyang Rokinon makes excellent 24, 35 and 85 all of them 1.4 and you can get all 3 for the price of the canon's 24 or 35!
1041292
I agree with the 35 F1.4 response. It is a very sharp lens and with the sale, it's priced great. WELL worth the $.
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
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
394030
agreed with the sentiments above. I have purchased the tamron 16-300, as well as the nikon 18-300 f6.3 and this lense. The difference with the nikon is noticeable. Not only in picture quality. But also in distance. the 300 on the tamron doesn't reach where the nikon does. granted the nikon 18-300 @300 doesn't match the nikon 55-300 @ 300 either. Also the movement, the tamron is much stiffer than the nikon options. A Great all day lense. Im working into prime lenses, and high quality fixed aperture lenses, but for now I still use this as my main glass.
1041296
The 35mm f1.4 is amazing. The photos I gets are out of this world. I'm saving now for the 56mm f1.2. Prime lenses are pretty much all I work with.
2193892
Do you mean fast as in how quick it grabs autofocus? If thats your question, i dont know about the 35 but this is pretty quick. If you were asking about the max aperture, well, this is a f/4 glass so its not as near as fast, but they re two totally different lenses for two different purposes.
1856381
Its decent, but with the 20mm 1.8G or 24mm 1.8G, both of those lenses are much better for landscapes than the 18-35mm. The 24mm 1.8G is hands down sharper than both the 20mm 1.8G and 18-35mm. At 24mm's, its the typical landscape lens and it costs the same as this lens. Cons, its a prime and this is a zoom. But, I'd rather scoop a 24mm 1.8G and 35mm 1.8G because primes will always be sharper.
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!
795288
I have the Nikon S8100 and tested it against the Canon S95 and Canon SX210. Overall I like the Nikon the best based on very good photos, great 300mm zoom, terrific indoor (on Party/Indoor mode), and ease of operation. For 5x7 prints or posting photos to Internet the cameras were all comparable. However, when really zooming in on my 27" monitor you can see the qualitative difference. The Nikon S95 simply gets sharper colors perhaps due to its lens and larger sensors. The SX210 and S8100 took similar photos. If I sifted through many comparison shots really zooming in I'd say the SX210 was, at times, just a hair sharper than the S8100. Having said that I like the overall results from the S8100 based on its superior indoor results, bigger and easier to use controls and overall simplicity of use. However, if you are comfortable with the controls of the S95 the SX210 has similar menu options.
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 !
990749
I have a D5000 with the standard kit lens (18-55mm) and also the 55-200mm that you are considering. I do not use my 55-200 much for day to day shots. Unless you will be doing a lot of travel or outdoor shots where you need to zoom a lot, I would definitely go for the 35mm f/1.8g. I plan to buy one myself in the next few weeks and think it would be much more versatile for day to day shooting. I, too, have heard rave reviews about it, and speaking from experience, neither the 18-55 mm lens included in the kit nor the 55-200 are particularly good in low lighting situations. Go for the 35 mm, and let me know how you like it! I expect to order mine soon! I have a D5000 with the standard kit lens (18-55mm) and also the 55-200mm that you are considering. I do not use my 55-200 much for day to day shots. Unless you will be doing a lot of travel or outdoor shots where you need to zoom a lot, I would definitely go for the 35mm f/1.8g. I plan to buy one myself in the next few weeks and think it would be much more versatile for day to day shooting. I, too, have heard rave reviews about it, and speaking from experience, neither the 18-55 mm lens included in the kit nor the 55-200 are particularly good in low lighting situations. Go for the 35 mm,... » Read More I have a D5000 with the standard kit lens (18-55mm) and also the 55-200mm that you are considering. I do not use my 55-200 much for day to day shots. Unless you will be doing a lot of travel or outdoor shots where you need to zoom a lot, I would definitely go for the 35mm f/1.8g. I plan to buy one myself in the next few weeks and think it would be much more versatile for day to day shooting. I, too, have heard rave reviews about it, and speaking from experience, neither the 18-55 mm lens included in the kit nor the 55-200 are particularly good in low lighting situations. Go for the 35 mm, and let me know how you like it! I expect to order mine soon! « Show Less
579923
I love that lens it's more comparable to a Ziess 85mm. The bokeh at 1.5 is awesome! I would highly recommend it over the canon 1.8
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.