Found the Ryda deal online, which I got priced to $219 at jbhifi, after $25 cash back from Nikon works out to be $194 with two years Australian warranty.
2nd hand lens are fetching $150+ on ebay.
Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8g Lens $193.85 after $25 Cash Back @ Ryda
340
Related Stores
closed Comments
Cambuy has it for $205 before cash back.. Even I got mine for about $170 after cash back a few months ago so not sure why u so excited about the $193 price.
From where did you get it?
Thanks, waited for a good price - ordered one. The shipping is $9.95 or $13.95$ but there is also a promo code FP10M199 = $10 off for purchases over $199 (this popped up for me on their website), so effectively the shipping is free or if you are local and if you can pick up in Sydney, the price would go down to $183.85.
At Kogan they sell it for $179 (plus $22.99 shipping) but no local warranty (and no cash back).
oh thats so dodgy. its $189 now with free shipping at Kogan.
Raise prices a little and offer free shipping
Recommend DX owners to start collecting FX lens instead, one day you will upgrade to FX camera it will be worth it.
I recommend DX users get a few cheap but good DX lenses like this one so they can shoot now rather than wait 5+ years before they can afford a new FX body and FX lenses that can be very expensive.
You can get a 50mm f1.8 in FX cheap but it has the same viewing angle as 75mm in DX, so too long for indoor party/group shots, where the 35mm dx really shines.
There is no point having a DX camera and not having the appropriate lenses and not taking photos because you are saving up for maybe one day when you can afford it.
you do realise a 50MM lens is a 50mm lens regardless of DX or FX right? they both "kind of" have the same FOV regardless of which camera you put them on - the DX is just cropped. (they are identical when you put them on a DX sensor)
so if you put a 50mm FX lens on a DX sensor you get closer to 75ish (35mm equivalent), if you put a 50mm DX lens on a DX sensor you still get a 75mm ish (35mm equivalent) focal point, The only difference is that the DX on the FX body automatically crops the image.+1 on your comment for the five year comment
but it seems like you are suggesting that a DX and FX lens have different focal points. -1Yes I do realise, which is why I said it had the same viewing angle, not the same focal length as a 75mm lens. I know this is confusing for some people which is why I described t in simple terms.
Regardless of how you describe it, a cheap FX lens on a dx camera will result in a different photo to a cheap DX lens on a dx camera if they have the same focal length.
The 30-35mm focal length on a DX camera is a good one for indoor shots in particular, and a fixed lens f1.8 lets you get some good indoor party shots with natural light, as well as experimenting with depth of field compared to a 18-50mm kit lens.
If I had a kit lens the 35mm f1.8 would be my first suggested lens purchase unless you were really into birds/sport or landscapes.
Not sure there is a cheapish FX lens that gives you that wide an angle with that much aperture.
I have a DX camera and a 50mm f1.4, and a 30mm DX f1.4, and the 30mm would take 10x as many shots as the 50mm, so I say get the 35mm if you are in the market to add a fixed aperture lens to your kit.
Sighs, the age old argument of DX vs. FX.
Nobody needs FX. In fact, the reason why FX is even a thing is because people who originally shot film wanted to keep their lenses without crop factor for using on digital. That's essentially it. Nobody needed FX and nobody needs FX now.
There are benefits to using FX, no doubt about that. You get a narrower DOF, you can use lenses without having to worry about crop factors…etc. But again, there are downsides as well. You might prefer having a cropped image (e.g. if you do wildlife or sports).
My suggestion is this. The price difference between DX and FX is smaller than ever. Yes, there is a price difference but a Nikon D610 is $1,400 and a Nikon D7100 is around $850, that's only a $550 price difference. Not much in camera terms. Figure out whether you want FX. If you're the type of shooter who just cares about getting good images and that's the end of it, you won't need FX. If you really need good high ISO performance and you're the type of person who will be bugged about not having FX, then go for FX. Make up your mind now and stick through with it.
In terms of FX lenses vs. DX lenses. There are a few issues. Firstly, you can use FX lenses on DX bodies, but the crop factor makes them less useful then they ought to be. A 50mm f/1.8 prime which is an FX lens, when used on a DX body gives around about a 75mm perspective. (Yes, this is controversial. You don't actually get what you would get with a 75mm lens on an FX body, your subject is as big as a 75mm lens on an FX body would make it.) Now, 75mm is already a short telephoto. It's not a good enough standard lens to be shooting with.
Get the right lenses for what you want to do. If you shoot DX, get a DX lens such as the 35mm f/1.8G here and be happy with it. If you ever want to move to FX, you can sell the lens for around $40 less than what you bought it for, especially now with this promotion going on. You buy it for $190, you take several thousand shots and you sell it for $150 a few years later. Again, if you want to get a 17-55mm f/2.8, then just get that. Don't get the 24-70mm f/2.8 for FX and then use it awkwardly on a DX camera. You'll get less than ideal shots because your focal range has moved more telephoto as opposed to a balance between wide and tele and you're not getting anything from having the FX lens on a DX body.
TL;DR, just buy the DX lens. Whichever one you want. Take thousands of pics with it. When it comes to sell it, you can just accept the 20% loss and move on.
Seriously, people who shot film would have paid much, much more than the $40 for however thousands of shots you'll take with your 35mm f/1.8 on DX. If anybody here shot slide film, you'd be paying even more than the $40 for those thousands of shots.
Lenses keep their value extremely well compared with any other capital asset. Camera bodies, computers, cars, they all depreciate like crazy. With lenses, you can buy a lens new, use it for a few years, take thousands of shots and sell it for 20% less. If you're a cheapskate like me, you can just buy lenses second hand, use them for a while, then sell them for how much you bought them for. I rarely keep my lenses for too long apart from the ones I genuinely love.
@paulsterio: I agree with you there, but its not just about sensor size, Fullframe is almost always better featured the APS-C camera, eg Dual memory slots, Programable Buttons, Interval and Timelapse, faster image processing, on camera raw processing just to name a few. If they make 2 camera with same feature but only sensor size different most people would get the cheaper and the manufacturers know this so they add a lot of "desirable" features to their full frame to sell.
@huu: Not really.
Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D610. They have the same features, the same menus, the same everything. They're even built in the same chassis, the only difference is the sensor size. Apart from that, they are identical. I used to own the D7000, now own a D600, definitely very, very similar.
So your argument isn't really true.
@skyva:
"Regardless of how you describe it, a cheap FX lens on a dx camera will result in a different photo to a cheap DX lens on a dx camera if they have the same focal length."no it wont, it will pretty much be the same photo, unless you mean that some lens get a bit blury around the edges and as your using the middle of the FX lens (rather than to the edge of the DX) the shot may be a little clearer.
regardless they will both have the same "amount" of area in them or FOV on a DX sensor.
Affordability is one factor when choosing between FX and DX but most people don't really need a full frame.. Not sure why a full frame is always seen as the next step for DX users..
Not sure why you're getting downvoted - advising most people to buy FX lenses is basically advising them to waste their money.
And you are right about the 'viewing angle', it may effectively be a crop (although this ignores the different capabilities of the sensors) but from a user's perspective it does alter the functionality of the lens.
I disagree…the 35 f1.8 for FX is $500+. I'd rather get the DX at this price, and maybe if I upgrade to full frame down the track sell off the lens and probably purchase the f1.4
I bought this lens for my D90. Excellent lens! Highly recommended.
Also, i have used this lens on my d600 (full frame camera) a couple of times and it's fine, slight vignetting but hey, still capture great quality photo. Bear in mind that most newer full frame allows you to switch from fullframe to crop, in the menu/settings.I have the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, which I use a fair bit. Would this lens be worth it. I really only have the 50 and the kit lens that is like a 18-55 I think.
It depends on what you shoot and whether you feel as if this is a necessary buy.
If you're happy shooting with your kit lens and pulling out your 50mm f/1.8G when there's low light, then that's good enough. Your kit lens is already a great lens. The reason to buy a 35mm f/1.8G prime like this is for better low light performance (much better in fact) as well as more sharpness and better DOF. You've already covered the low light performance and better DOF with the 50mm (you get even better shallow DOF with the 50mm, longer focal length).
So the question is really about you and what you shoot. Do you use your kit lens at 35mm enough to warrant this lens? Do you feel that your kit lens is too slow in the situations you use it for (i.e. you need to keep the shutter open too long). Do you feel your images are suffering from you having to up your ISO…etc. If you answer yes, then yeah, this would be a good buy and will complement your set well.
Otherwise, I would seriously recommend something along the lines of a 24mm or 28mm, simply because it'll make a better combo with your 50mm than this 35mm which is quite close to the 50mm already.
Thanks, I plan on getting into photographing architecture. Interiors and exteriors. Looking into it it probably is better to go for something more along the lines of a 24mm.
Sell your kit lens and get a sigma/tamron 17-50 f2.8.. If you need an ultra wide lens for interior, get the tokina 11-16 f2.8
Yeah, I'd suggest a wide-angle for interiors as well, because they give the illusion of space. Telephotos tend to compress space, wide-angles expand space, so you'll get much nicer shots.
I think the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a great option. That said, 17mm is already pretty wide. But if you're really taking interiors seriously, e.g. for real estate, then your best bet is to get something like the Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 10-24mm or the Nikon 10-24mm or 12-24mm. The Tokina 11-16mm is also a good buy, but you might find 16mm is not long enough.
Of those lenses, the 12-24mm f/4 from Nikon is the professional lens, also the most expensive. If you can find that second hand for less than $500, I'd say that's the way to go. It'll perform better than any of the other lenses new. If not, I'd say it's not worth getting the 10-24mm Nikon over the 10-24mm Tamron or 10-20mm Sigma, so go for one of them for around $500 if you really, really must have brand new.
As far as I know, this lens doesn't have VR/IS.
How does it affect IQ? Does it cause blurry image more often compared to lenses with VR/IS?
I want this lens but still not sure due to lack of VR/IS.
Thanks.Do you shoot low motion shots in low light? That's what VR is good for. But most people use VR with lenses that are more than 2 stops slower than this. If you shoot VR with your f/4 lens, then this is more than 2 stops faster (f/4 to f/2.8 is one stop, f/2.8 to f/2 is another stop), so you actually get 2 and 1/3 stop improvement with a fast lens like this. (In non-photographic speak, that means you can capture more than 4 times the amount of light with this lens). VR is for slow lenses to compensate. This lens is fast enough that you'll almost always be shooting at faster than 1/50s, so you'll be fine.
But with the high ISO of digital, the really big aperture of this f/1.8 lens, you won't really need VR. To be honest, VR is something for lenses which aren't as fast. If you're buying an f/1.8 lens, you don't need VR and VR is just something else that adds more elements, increasing weight, cost, points of failure…etc. for no real gain.
Thanks for the reply.
That's what I thought too. This lens is fast enough that it doesn't need VR.
Glad you confirm it :)
Use this at f/1.8 and a reasonably fast ISO speed (say 800) and you will be able to get good shots even if fairly low light conditions shooting hand held.
Great lens and great price. Quick AF and great bokeh lens.
All that technical camera enthusiast language…I only understand half of it..
Anyway we purchased one of these a while back when there was another offer on ebay posted here. Spent a lot of time thinking about which lens to get during that time we played around with the 50mm 1.4 FX lens and found that we always had to stand quite a fair distance away to get an ideal shot (is this focal length?). After our experience with the 50mm, we decided a 35mm would be much more appropriate for indoor short distance photography. Im not as educated in photography as the above, but this 35mm DX F1.8 is a very handy, versatile lens. We dont regret buying it new.
35mm is on the wide-angle side of things where as the 50mm isn't which is why it's the minimum 'portrait' lens. If you take photos indoors, it's likely it's of people, and 50mm will not stretch (fatten) people from distortions. But yes it's as you say, 35mm is easier frame.
Also like to point out that whilst Nikon lists the Nikkor DX and FX as f1.8 or f1.4 respectively, the actual rated light transmission is f2.0 and f1.6 respectively, so if you want a sub f2.0 lens only the FX is far better.
Essentially, the problem with suggestions is that people are never really clear about what they're suggesting for. 50mm is great for FX, not so much for DX. In simpler language, Nikon has two different camera lines, DX and FX. The DX camera line are the D3XXX, 5XXX and 7XXX series whereas the FX camera line are the D6XX, 7XX, 8XX and the professional D3, D4 and variants.
Traditionally, before digital, everyone shot 35mm film. You probably would have shot 35mm film if you were using cameras before the digital age. It's the film you would have gotten from your supermarket for a few dollars per roll. Standard film everyone shot was 35mm. For 35mm film, what people considered standard was a focal length of 50mm. Standard has different definitions, but more or less, it's similar to the view you get with your eyes. That's why 50mm is often used for street, it has a very 'realistic' feeling compared to wide or tele lenses.
All of a sudden, digital came out. It was extremely difficult and expensive, at the time, to make a digital sensor the size of 35mm film, thus, they made a smaller 24mm DX sensor in digital cameras. Of course 35mm is 1.5 times bigger than 24mm (approximately), thus, all lens focal lengths had to be multiplied by 1.5x to get a similar perspective. Thus, your standard 50mm lens on 35mm film is now a 75mm lens on DX digital (it's not that simple, but for the sake of explantion, this is basically how it works in simple terms).
That's why for DX digital, we recommend 35mm lenses, because when you multiply that by 1.5, you get, approximately, 50mm. Standard on DX is 35mm, standard on film and FX is 50mm.
So where does FX even come in? Pretty much after years of complaining, people wanted a 35mm digital sensor so they can just use their lenses from the film days without having to worry about crop factors and all of that other stuff, so Nikon made the D3, the first 'full-frame' FX camera which has a sensor exactly the same size as 35mm film, so all the pros were happy they can keep their wide-angle lenses and not have them become pretty normal.
TL;DR, the summary is this:
For FX digital and 35mm film, 50mm is standard, 35mm is slightly wide (for group shots), 85mm is short telephoto (for single person shots).
For DX digital, 35mm is normal, 24mm is slightly wide (for group shots), 50mm is short telephoto (for single person shots).
List of Authorised Nikon resellers: https://mynikonlife.com.au/buy/nikon-australia-authorised-re…
By coincidence I was scanning through the list last night looking for exactly this lens and I found it for $199 before the cashback. If you find it before I do post!Great lense.
Have used this for a couple of years now & it is well worth the price listed.
so which one is the best for value for rewaard?
Examples of
Reward OptionsHOYTS $25
rebel $25
the iconic $25
iSUBSCRiBE $25
EFT? cash?
what are your thoughts?
Cash is always the best?
good price for good lens