[Dorian Gray]

Today Nikon announced another DX lens. A fourth 18-55 mm, you ask exasperatedly? A replacement for the trusty 18-70 mm? An 18-95 to go between the existing 16-85 and 18-105 lenses? An 18-120 to go between the 18-105 and 18-135? An 18-150 to go between the 18-135 and 18-200? Nope! This one doesn't start at 18 mm! It starts at 35 mm. And thankfully, it ends there too.



The AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

This is a standard lens for the DX-format Nikons such as my D60. It's lightweight and compact compared to zooms (though pretty big for its specs). It has a metal lens mount, a rubber seal to reduce the ingress of moisture around the mount, and a SWM focusing system with full manual override. It does not have an aperture ring or a distance scale/window.

The optical arrangement seems fairly sophisticated, with eight elements including one with an aspherical surface in six groups. This suggests an excellent image quality: especially considering the conservative angle of view and conservative speed (f/1.8 on DX is about equal to f/2.7 on FX in terms of total light throughput and design difficulty).

But the best specification is the price: $200 or £200. One could argue that Nikon should have made a full-frame 35 mm, or that the existing 35 mm f/2 would work fine on many DX bodies. But I have a feeling the optical quality of this lens will impress. And at this price, it's sure to find fans.

Here's a sample photo from Nikon. Girl Bokeh looks nice!

[PB PM]

This looks like it will be a great little lens, which will prove to be very useful. I wonder if Nikon made this lens to go up against the Sigma's 30mm 1.4? One thing is for sure, the Nikkor will trump the Sigma in the bang for your buck area, if its anything like the 50mm 1.8D. Cannot wait to see how it performs optically, since this is just what my sister needs for her D40.

I think I'll still get a 35mm F2D, simply because I want to use it once I move to FX at some point in the future.

[veryamusing]

What would one use this lens for? I guess I just don't "get it."

I have a Nikon D70 from a while back that I've started using more and more.

Thanks!!

[AWR]

Nice in an androidy way!!
Thanks for the update.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by veryamusing What would one use this lens for? I guess I just don't "get it." I have a Nikon D70 from a while back that I've started using more and more. Thanks!!

On a DX camera 35mm is about the same field of view that you would get from a 50mm lens on FX/35mm film. Since the field of view of the human eye is approximatly 47mm, this makes it attractive for full body portriats. It's also fast, which means better performance in low light without a flash.

[veryamusing]

Sounds like a winner.

Thanks, PB PM!

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by PB PM I wonder if Nikon made this lens to go up against the Sigma's 30mm 1.4?

No doubt! I can't imagine how many sales Nikon has lost to that Sigma. I've seen it on far more cameras than I would have expected.

Originally Posted by PB PM I think I'll still get a 35mm F2D, simply because I want to use it once I move to FX at some point in the future.

This lens will likely slaughter the 35 mm f/2 on a DX sensor in terms of image quality, though we can't know for sure until someone reviews it. I think this lens shows that Nikon won't replace the f/2 in the near future, which is a shame. They'll likely make a full-on 35 mm f/1.4 for FX (like the Canon), with size, weight and price to match (over $1k for sure), and leave the new f/1.8 for the DX users.

Originally Posted by veryamusing What would one use this lens for? I guess I just don't "get it." I have a Nikon D70 from a while back that I've started using more and more.

Apparently it will legitimise the DX format. That's got to be useful for something. Seriously though, a 35 mm f/1.8 can be used for nearly anything on DX format. It's similar to the fast 50 mm lenses on FX, i.e. great optical quality + useful field of view + high speed = hugely versatile. More so than a kit zoom in my opinion, though people do love their zooms.

Many people have bought the 50 mm lenses for use on DX, but they tend to be a bit long in many circumstances. I get some use out of my manual-focus 50 mm on my D60, but a 35 mm lens would be nicer most of the time.

Originally Posted by PB PM Since the field of view of the human eye is approximatly 47mm

Since when? The human eye is more like 17 mm, with an ultra-sharp centre and a fuzzy but massively wide-angle field of view (near 180-degrees) around that. I think what people mean when they compare the 50 mm lenses to the human eye is that they provide a pleasing perspective for a typically framed pic of a person. But that's exclusively due to subject distance, as perspective has nothing to do with the field of view of the lens.

By the way, the Nikon-provided MTF chart for the new lens looks promising, if there's any truth to it (always a doubt with Nikon's MTF values, which seem to have as much to do with the lens' performance as the phase of the moon...).

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Since when? The human eye is more like 17 mm, with an ultra-sharp centre and a fuzzy but massively wide-angle field of view (near 180-degrees) around that. I think what people mean when they compare the 50 mm lenses to the human eye is that they provide a pleasing perspective for a typically framed pic of a person. But that's exclusively due to subject distance, as perspective has nothing to do with the field of view of the lens.

Guess the other photographers I've talked to are idiots then. Fine by me. It kind of puzzled me, but I guess they were trying to justify spending $500 on their 50mm F1.4s. Anyway, I fully believe, as you do that this was Nikon's attempt to go after Sigma. I think they might have done better to go with 30mm also, since it is a little wider, but if its as good as the sample images Nikon has provided, its sharp even at F1.8. Considering MSRP in Canada is $289, I think I might go for the F2 full frame version, simply because its not that much more expensive. Then again if DX is here to stay, which as you noted, some are saying then this lens paired with a D300 or the up coming D400 in pro applications might not be a bad idea. DX is nice for the type of shooting I do (mostly on the long end), so that might be the way to go.

[Matsu]

Out of focus rendition looks very nice.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by PB PM I think they might have done better to go with 30mm also, since it is a little wider

Agreed, but the fact they didn't go for 30 mm suggests to me that we will indeed see a new 24 mm in the near-ish future. Could be wishful thinking though! Ideally they'd release affordable 16 mm f/2.8 and 24 mm f/2 DX primes to round out the range, but that's hardly likely while the FX primes remain in serious need of attention to compete with Canon.

If I had a D80 like you I might have already got the 35 mm f/2, but that lens doesn't autofocus on a D60. But even in your situation (with a planned body upgrade at some point in the future), keep in mind that Nikon won't keep built-in autofocus motors forever. Every additional AF-S lens militates against the presence of an AF motor in the [distant] D90 replacement, and eventually the D300- and D700-class cameras too.

Personally, I like small cameras and small lenses. I'd love to see the DX format hanging around in the long term as a format for smaller cameras. Even the D40/D60 is very bulky compared to the E-420, for example, so there's plenty of room to move down.

[PB PM]

The body motor is one issue I am keeping in mind. I find my current screw driven telephoto lens too slow at focusing for bird photography, so I do want to go with AF-S lenses long term. If they do keep DX around, I might look at the D300 or its replacement. Then again a few years from now a used D700 might just hit the spot. Nice thing about the D80/D90 is that they would still be a useful backup body, which would allow me to continue using my screw driven lenses. Since I only have two of them, I'm not concerned.

[Matsu]

Small, fast affordable lenses are a good thing. Probably why Nikon chose to make a 1.8 rather than a 1.4, just compare it to the Sigma 30mm 1.4.

It looks like Nikon may run two parallel lens line-ups: a smaller more affordable DX and faster aperture FX versions of same.

Using the 35 1.8DX and new AF-S 50 1.4 as a comparison, we can expect the DX versions to be 1/2 to 1 stop slower, a lot smaller, and about 50-65% cheaper. A 70mm f/2 DX seems in order as well, and why not 2 24mm primes - a big fast FX, and a smaller cheaper DX?

It makes sense on a lot of levels. You ad the roughly 2 stop advantage of the large sensors, and comparable full-frame kit is potentially 3 stops faster in extreme circumstances, but the DX cams are small, light, affordable and have familiar working fields of view... nice.

[PB PM]

It actually does make sense, and its not the first time Nikon has had a two tear lineup, for those that remember the E series lenses.

[Matsu]

Out of focus rendition is superb, actually. Just looked at some samples on DPR. f/1.8 on a normal on DX doesn't give totally blurred backgrounds, but there's enough for sensible subject isolation. It looks sharp enough at max aperture, and it transitions to out of focus very smoothly. Top marks, especially for a $200 lens.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by PB PM It actually does make sense, and its not the first time Nikon has had a two tear lineup, for those that remember the E series lenses.

Yeah, reminds me a bit of the Series E lenses too, actually, though this time they're branded Nikkor!

Originally Posted by Matsu Out of focus rendition is superb, actually. Just looked at some samples on DPR. f/1.8 on a normal on DX doesn't give totally blurred backgrounds, but there's enough for sensible subject isolation. It looks sharp enough at max aperture, and it transitions to out of focus very smoothly. Top marks, especially for a $200 lens.

I took a look too. Nice bokeh indeed! Is the chromatic aberration just slightly disappointing though, bearing in mind the field of view? I'm not sure. General sharpness seems excellent.

[PB PM]

Considering that even the 17-55mm F2.8 DX ($1200-1500 lens!) has CA, I don't think we should be shocked to see it in the 35mm. Nikon's answer to why this this has CA is, Capture NX2 will remove it. Nice answer Nikon.

[Matsu]

Looks like there's a 10-18 f/4 DX coming too. Again seeming to follow the idea that DX be a smaller, lighter, slower (and Cheaper) version of FX.

[PB PM]

Yup, they need to add something cheap to do battle with the Tokina 10-17 ATX, 11-16mm Pro DX, and Sigma 10-20mm EX lenses, so that makes sense. Although Nikon rumors is saying it wont be DX, rather a standard G lens called that "Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N."

[stevegong]

I know DX is well and alive, but don't you guys anticipating moving to FX in one or two years? The prices are clearly dropping fast.

Also, the CA removal in NX is actually surprisingly good - like amazing.

[Matsu]

Not really. I think both will exist for some time, because glass will be the ultimate determiner of overall cost. Sensors will get cheaper (and better), but glass much less so. Lenses will only be more affordable if they are smaller, or slower, or both. Long, fast glass is extremely expensive, and HUGE.

People playing at the telephoto end of things may really appreciate DX sensors in the future, if they don't already.

So long as the performance of a DX sensor can be kept within 2 stops of an FX sensor, then depth of field and field of view can make it just as desirable, if not more so, in some applications, and not strictly an ambient light/quality issue either.

And even if you're not buying dedicated glass for DX, it can provide a nice alternate framing to your FX lenses. The 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 are about the same price (~ $5500). You could save $4000 buying just the 200mm and a second DX body when you need more reach.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by PB PM Yup, they need to add something cheap to do battle with the Tokina 10-17 ATX, 11-16mm Pro DX, and Sigma 10-20mm EX lenses, so that makes sense. Although Nikon rumors is saying it wont be DX, rather a standard G lens called that "Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N."

If it's FX, it's either impossible, a fish-eye, or going to be priced up around $3k. If it's DX it will still be expensive (my guess would be around $1k).

Originally Posted by Matsu Not really. I think both will exist for some time, because glass will be the ultimate determiner of overall cost. Sensors will get cheaper (and better), but glass much less so.

Glass prices aren't coming down much, that's for sure (in the UK they're going up, and a lot!). There's no real way to make conventional lenses hugely cheaper, particularly when the quality requirements keep going up due to higher resolution sensors, although hybrid aspherics have helped with costs in the past.

However, if an FX sensor cost the same as a DX sensor there would be little point in using DX, because you could simply crop an FX image to get the DX equivalent. The trouble is that FX sensors still cost hugely more than DX sensors (on the order of ten or twenty times more!). The source of the trouble, beyond the usual costs of making larger chips, is that a full-frame sensor is so enormous that it's impossible to project the circuit pattern onto the silicon wafer in one go. The Nikon and Canon full-frame sensors have to use a clumsy lithography process in which three masks and three exposures are used, which drives costs up enormously. There's no way to get around this in the near future, either.

The cost of the sensor is still very important. I'm pretty sure the D700 sensor costs more to make than an entire D90 camera. For that reason we won't find a full-frame sensor in a D60-class camera for a long time to come (the D60 sensor probably costs less than $50). And speaking for myself, I can't afford/justify much more than the D60, as much as I love taking photos.

[Matsu]

I wouldn't bet against technological improvement getting the price of full frame way down, even accepting the current manufacturing realities. When it comes to electronics, history argues strongly against apparent technical and cost barriers.

But as far as cameras are concerned, history also argues in favour of a progression towards smaller formats. Once enough "quality" can be established in a particular smaller format, photographers generally chose smaller, lighter equipment. Photography being a relative young medium, the whole history is readily available. Looking merely at the contemporary history, four major shifts take place - large, medium, 35mm, and digital (the majority of which are sub 110 size, even just a fraction of that).

Now, people continue to use all of the above, and even some more exotic stuff, but I think I describe what is safely mainstream professional and enthusiast equipment. Pros will use whatever gets the job done comfortably.

35mm was the most popular format just as digital was in its ascendency. But medium format (645 to 6x7) was widely used by many working photographers to get the images they needed. The other day I looked through my parents wedding album (shot almost 40 years ago), and the negatives they had bought just before the photographer, a family friend, passed away. All 6x6, including the stuff shot in church/reception. On the other hand we had a huge laugh playing back the 8mm "video" with my dad's old projector, seeing all those pompadours and beehives in their flickering glory... Pros used what worked, people used what they could get...

And that's still the case.

If we can make APS work for pros, why wouldn't they use it? Especially at the telephoto end of things. Just cropping a 35mm frame drops the print resolution down a bit from whatever the image processing pipeline can handle, and makes for a more expensive camera/sensor. I see a definite role for cameras like the D300 and 50D, both as a stand alone solution, and as an adjunct to a 35mm system.

One thought on a a possible future for cheaper large sensors: stitching. Right now we have stitching camera backs, and stitching software. We don't yet have stitched sensors. 35mm is just over 2x larger than APSC, but it costs 10X or more to make. If there's ever a cheap reliable way to stitch two sensors seamlessly onto the same image plane, maybe it would only cost 2-4X more to make a 35mm frame? Perhaps, manufacturing just needs to be good enough to get within a specific tolerance, and software could perform the last bit of alignment digitally in camera. If it could work, you would never know two sensors had created the image when looking at the output... Software already does an amazing job correcting perspective and chromatic aberration, alignment seems a relatively simple demand, though this may be challenging as the human eye is extremely sensitive to linear alignment.


PS

As I think about it, one possible way to make a proof of concept would be to create a digital Xpan of sorts. Two APSC frames side by side lengthwise would create a 48x16 (3:1) panoramic that's almost within the 44mm diagonal image circle of a 35mm frame. It's 50mm diagonally, actually. Cut the sides of the frame down to 43mm, and you get a 46mm diagonal, just almost within the 44mm diagonal of a 35mm image circle. Very close, provided light fall off isn't 100%, you can correct the rest in software.

This is the exact 2.7:1 of the X pan by the way. Only now, it works with regular 35mm lenses. With digital, you could control vignetting, centre hot spots, and to some degree corner softness, as well as provide a digital level indicator in camera. If sensor stitching proves to be idiosyncratic at best, requiring post production alignment control in software, that's a small trade-off compared to the inconveniences of working panoramas in film, and acceptable for what would be a niche tool...

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray The cost of the sensor is still very important. I'm pretty sure the D700 sensor costs more to make than an entire D90 camera. For that reason we won't find a full-frame sensor in a D60-class camera for a long time to come (the D60 sensor probably costs less than $50). And speaking for myself, I can't afford/justify much more than the D60, as much as I love taking photos.

Sensor cost isn't the only issue at stake here, its the size. You cannot put an FX sensor into a D40/XSi sized camera body, they are too small, and that would kill half the DSLR market! I've read a few articals on this, and the writers of them suggest that it will still be three or more years before FX sensors come down in price enough to fit into the D90/50D price range bodies, let alone the low end models. Personally I can see DX lasting five or ten more years at least, after all many companies are now using the smaller 4/3 sensor because it is great for compact cameras, like the Olympus E-520 or Panasonic LX3. Size and weight of the body are big selling points, that we must not forget. I find DX very useful since I'm into telephoto photography, and it gives you extra reach for your money. I can pick up a 300mm F4 Nikkor and have a 450mm equivalent in reach, and for what I shoot that is important.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by PB PM Sensor cost isn't the only issue at stake here, its the size. You cannot put an FX sensor into a D40/XSi sized camera body

Oh really? Remember what everybody used to own in the early 90s? Yep, 35mm P&S cameras about the size of a D40. And those cameras needed space for a canister and motors to advance the film too. Oh and room for a collapsing zoom lens + its motors.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by PB PM I find DX very useful since I'm into telephoto photography, and it gives you extra reach for your money. I can pick up a 300mm F4 Nikkor and have a 450mm equivalent in reach, and for what I shoot that is important.

Isn't it the case, though, that the much higher mega pixel count on full frame bodies (except the Nikons with lower counts) makes up that difference (i.e. you can just crop to 1.6x if you like)?

Of course, they cost a bundle more!

[PB PM]

Don't get me wrong, I would love a FX senor for light sensitivity. Honestly speaking though, having a larger frame size isn't very important to me. As things stand now, the D90, D300, D700 and D3 all use a 12MP sensor, so not much more room to crop than my 10MP D80, and I don't see myself getting a D3x (24.5MP sensor... drool) anytime soon with its $10,000 Cdn price tag. Another downer is that the D3x has slower continuous shooting than the D3, and speed is important if you want in flight shots of birds. For portraits and landscapes the D3x would be a killer though!

Eugene: I had one of those 35mm P&S, but a SLR is different territory. You need room for the mirror box, which takes up most of the space. The D40/D60 are about as small a camera you can make with a DX (1.5x crop factor) frame, so you'd need a bigger body, maybe only slightly, than that to hold a FX sensor.

Here is something to help you see why a bigger body is needed. The FX sensor is 1.5x as big, physically, its not a small difference. And for those with P&S, your frame is 2/3s, nice and small isn't it?

[Eugene]

Olympus doesn't seem to think you need a mirror box.

And my Minolta XG-2 is about as deep as a D40 anyway...

[PB PM]

Well, it isn't a DSLR if it doesn't have a mirror box. You cannot really compare a film camera to a Digital SLR either, and till the day arrives that live view viewfinders are superior, that isn't going to happen, maybe 5 years from now. Yes its possible to make something like the 1980s style film cameras, Minolta XG-2, Nikon F, FE, F3... etc, but modern SLRs are also built for ergonomics, allowing the operator to hold it for hours without cramping, try doing that with on of those old cameras! My hands cramped up after an 1h 1/2 using the Nikon FE! There is also a space issue, you need somewhere to put the battery pack, allowing it to be big enough to allow the user to take at least a few hundred pictures, room for the sensor, AA filter, and there electronics board, the electronic shutter and its board, internal RAW processor. Those things actually take up more room than film! Then other fun stuff like, output ports, USB, video, etc, attached to another board! Then space for a SD or other format memory card, so yeah small isn't easy!

I can assure you that Olympus uses a mirror box in the E-420 and E520 (4/3s cameras not DX) both have a small Optical Pentamirror, 95% coverage, 0.92x magnification. You must be thinking of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1/Leica V-LUX 1, which is not a DSLR, but rather a 4/3 point and shoot with switchable lenses.

[Matsu]

A couple of things.

The size of a sensor should be measured in area. There's a habit of looking at things by linear or diaganol measure - convenient, but innacurate. A 35mm sensor is not 50% larger than APSC, it's over twice the area, over 100% larger. 864mm^2 vs 380mm^2. Nearly 2.3X the size, or just over double the light gathering ability, about 1 1/3rd stops.

Those compact 35mm film cameras were small for a number of reasons. They weren't SLRs. They had slow, dim, poor resolution, badly vignetting electronically coupled zooms. They only had reasonable quality because because of a relatively large film (35mm) used to make 5x7 prints in 99.999% of cases. None of the people who bought them knew just how bad they were.

Cognoscenti used fixed, or prime lense mounted, RF cameras to get some degree of enlargability from a "compact" camera.

Olympus invented Micro 4/3rds as a mirrorless 4/3rds evolution. They haven't released a comercial camera yet, but that's probably what Eugene meant.

[PB PM]

Yes, could be just the reason Olympus made the 4/3 sensor, but right now only Panasonic and Leica make cameras with that idea in mind. Those cameras are great for people who want the better optical quality that interchangeable lenses offer and in the long term I can see such cameras replacing super zoom, and mid-range P&S. There is also the advantage of lower weight. I could see the low end consumer DSLRs (D40/D60, Rebel XS, E-420, Sony A300) being replaced by 4/3 mirror-less cameras, but not semi/professional DSLRs (D90, D300, D700, D3/x, 50D, 5D Mk III, A350, A700, A900 etc), at least not for some time to come. Speed is an issue with 4/3s, its still a stop or two slower than DX, and 4-5 stops slower than an FX sensor. You also don't have as much control over depth of field with smaller sensors.

As for the sensor size, that is the big issue, physical space, hight and width of the sensor. You could get one in a D90/50D size body without too much trouble, but a D40 size, not so sure.

I agree about those old 35mm P&S, I had one and yes it could take decent shots, better than most P&S Digital cameras, but they were limited and really only good on nice days.