Moderator: donholg
Sehe ich auch so. Meine erste DSLR wäre wahrscheinlich auch eine Nikon DX. Bisher habe ich aber unter den lichtschwachen Standard-Zooms für DX keine überzeugende Lösung für mich gefunden.mtrab hat geschrieben:das 35er passt genau in mein Budget.
Und da eine FX in der nächsten Zeit nicht in mein Budget passen wird, ist es mir eigentlich egal, dass es DX ist.
StefanM hat geschrieben:Hast Du Dich von der D3X gedanklich schon so weit verabschiedet, daß Du sie im Kopf verbannt hastpiedpiper hat geschrieben: Es gibt bisher 2 FX-Gehäuse - und wie viele DX-Bodies seit der D70?
Ich komme da auch 3 FX-Bodies
EDIT: Oder ist die D700 Kinderkram und Du meinst nur die D3 und D3X
Für mich spricht nichts gegen die Nutzung an der D300. Der einzige Unterschied zur D40/50/60/70, der bei deiner Entscheidungsfindung eine Rolle spielen dürfte, ist der bessere AF-Motor der D300, mit dem man auch das alte 35/2 komfortabel betreiben könnte.htz hat geschrieben:... Auch wenn das Teil noch nicht am Markt ist, würde mich schon jetzt interessieren, ob das Objektiv zu einer semiprofessionellen D300 passt oder man eher die Finger davon lassen soll?...
Bjørn Rørslett schreibt:
Spent the morning shooting those boring resolution test shots with the 35/1.8 and using the 35/1.4 as a reference. In many ways an interesting comparison. The 35 is venerable and old, with a fierce temperament of its own that you have to learn in order to master. The 35/1.8 is youngish, brash, and unconcerned.
[...]
The 35/1.8 goes straight off at f/1.8 with a high-contrast image rendition, totally unlike the f/1.4 lens. It keeps the high contrast fairly well up to f/5.6 or so, from which setting the contrast gradually declines. Yet, even at f/22, wholly acceptable sharpness is observed. Still not a flat-field design and I have no information as to its optical design except it's a double Gauss derivation, which shows in the tendency for a mild barrel distortion (the 35/1.4 is no better, by the way). Flare is kept well under control, but shooting into the sun will provoke a few rainbow-coloured ghost spots. There is a mild tendency towards CA that is fairly evident when the lens is stopped down, but sharpness is scarcely impacted and I assume Nikon relies on the EXPEED processor to relieve the in-camera jpgs from the vestiges of CA. As this lens clearly is targeted at the volume market segment dominated by D40/40x, D60, D70, D80, D90 and similar models, shooting in-camera jpgs will likely be the prevailing approach. If you stray away from the majority and try raw files instead, Nikon is eager to stress that their NX2 software will remove CA automatically also from NEFs.
In direct A/B comparison, the 35/1.8 is sharper up to f/2.8 by virtue of having much less internal flare and better contrast, but the 35/1.4 gets the upper hand from f/4. So I'd call it a tie between them. Both are capable of delivering excellent imagery, but only the 35/1.4 can safely be used with an FX camera. The 35/1.8 DX G is not for FX use (unless you always shoot in the near range). Do not let its low price fool you into thinking the 35/1.8 G is just a toy for low-end cameras, though. This lens shows what Nikon can deliver at an unbeatable price point.
[..]
IR Hotspot (like the 35 1.4)
[...]
It is better than the 35/2, yes. No direct comparison to the 50/1.8 available, but clearly the new lens shines at the widest settings, not known to be the strongest area for the 50/1.8.
Whether it is more "suited" for a D40 than a D300 will be a personal choice. The lens is an excellent performer, though.
