DA 35ltd Macro (K20D) vs. Nikon 35 1.8 G (d90)

-=JoN=- · 04-15-2009, 05:23 AM

j, your nikon 35, is it a dx or fx lens

(i'd do a quick search but im at work...cant surf much)

RBellavance · 04-15-2009, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by -=JoN=-

j, your nikon 35, is it a dx or fx lens

(i'd do a quick search but im at work...cant surf much)

I'm obviously not Jay, but I can answer this anyway: the Nikkor 35/1.8 is a DX lens. Nikon also makes a 35/2 that is FX (but not AF-S).

brucestrange · 04-15-2009, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

No, the lens is performing optimally, as far as I can tell - I only have one sample of the lens, of course, but my output is matching or better than other full-sized image samples I've been able to download from dpreview and elsewhere.

Jay, I didn't really think the lens was a dog. Of course, I don't think all things were equal. I would venture to say that if they were, people would have a difficult time telling the difference between the two. That shot of the Carcassonne text seems to really paint the lens as a dog. That's why I don't believe all was equal. Very nice shots by the way.

Originally posted by axl

It's always easier to retrieve detail from darker shot than get back burnt highlights.BR

Mostly true. But it depends on how over or underexposed you are. You really have to drag the highlights back in ACR from a D90 image to believe just how much detail it preserves. It really does perform very well. Of course, if you are consistently over or underexposing your images to your dislike, you really need to learn more about photography. And the crazy thing is, you don't have to learn that much. I really don't understand why people keep pointing to this. Before I got my K20D, I read everywhere about how people were annoyed (some overjoyed) that it underexposed by about 2/3 of a stop. I thought, that's no big deal AT ALL. All of these enthusiast level cameras have the ability to set the EV to plus/minus whatever the photographer feels like. If you don't like the underexposure of the K20D (and it is to an extent a matter of taste) you just adjust the EV setting. The D90 is no different. It is so easy to set it. There's an EV button right next to the top display. You push it and adjust it to taste. If people are overexposing and getting ticked about it, they simply need to check out their camera's basic abilities. I really feel like this is a silly argument for or against these cameras. You can get very good exposure results from both, and it's a matter of a VERY SIMPLE adjustment. And quit knocking the D90's blown highlights until you pull them back yourself in ACR. You'll poop your pants. After adjusting many images in ACR taken with a K110D, K200D, and K20D, and then adjusting images from a D90, I was pretty blown away by the D90's preserved highlight details. It performs very well. They didn't make a dud of a camera by any means.

jsherman999 · 04-15-2009, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by brucestrange

Mostly true. But it depends on how over or underexposed you are. You really have to drag the highlights back in ACR from a D90 image to believe just how much detail it preserves. It really does perform very well. Of course, if you are consistently over or underexposing your images to your dislike, you really need to learn more about photography. And the crazy thing is, you don't have to learn that much. I really don't understand why people keep pointing to this. Before I got my K20D, I read everywhere about how people were annoyed (some overjoyed) that it underexposed by about 2/3 of a stop. I thought, that's no big deal AT ALL. All of these enthusiast level cameras have the ability to set the EV to plus/minus whatever the photographer feels like. If you don't like the underexposure of the K20D (and it is to an extent a matter of taste) you just adjust the EV setting. The D90 is no different. It is so easy to set it. There's an EV button right next to the top display. You push it and adjust it to taste. If people are overexposing and getting ticked about it, they simply need to check out their camera's basic abilities. I really feel like this is a silly argument for or against these cameras. You can get very good exposure results from both, and it's a matter of a VERY SIMPLE adjustment. And quit knocking the D90's blown highlights until you pull them back yourself in ACR. You'll poop your pants. After adjusting many images in ACR taken with a K110D, K200D, and K20D, and then adjusting images from a D90, I was pretty blown away by the D90's preserved highlight details. It performs very well. They didn't make a dud of a camera by any means.

No, it's by no means a dud of a camera, and the highlight details can mostly be pulled back with ACR - it's more of an annoyance with me than anything, because to get the most out of the D90 I have to shoot RAW now and work to recover highlights. With the K20D, not so - I can shoot jpeg all day long and do minimal PP to get the look I like.

I can and do adjust EV with the D90, also, but that sometimes causes matrix metering to underexpose too much depending on the lighting, in which case I have to drop it into center-weighted, which defeats the purpose of having matrix.

Again, not too much of a problem if I'm shooting RAW.

So, no show-stoppers, just annoyances that cramp my personal shooting style.

(and other's, judging by all the negative comments on dpreview re matrix metering.)

.

jsherman999 · 04-15-2009, 06:41 PM

.

One crocus, actually, from 4 very different lenses. Just for the heck of it.

(traditionally the 1st flower that pops up in my yard, so it gets shot a million times
before the rabbits eat it.)

Nikon 35 1.8 G at f/2.8:

Sigma 100-300 f/4 at 300mm wide-open minimum distance:

next 3 - DA 35 2.8 at f/2.8:

Cosina 55 1.2 wide-open (yes, I bought another)

RBellavance · 04-15-2009, 06:57 PM

Yikes ! I thought the Nikkor's bokeh was ugly until I got to the photos made with the Cosina

jsherman999 · 04-15-2009, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by RBellavance

Yikes ! I thought the Nikkor's bokeh was ugly until I got to the photos made with the Cosina

UGLY!? It's beautiful!

.

brucestrange · 04-15-2009, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

No, it's by no means a dud of a camera, and the highlight details can mostly be pulled back with ACR - it's more of an annoyance with me than anything, because to get the most out of the D90 I have to shoot RAW now and work to recover highlights. With the K20D, not so - I can shoot jpeg all day long and do minimal PP to get the look I like.

I can and do adjust EV with the D90, also, but that sometimes causes matrix metering to underexpose too much depending on the lighting, in which case I have to drop it into center-weighted, which defeats the purpose of having matrix.

Again, not too much of a problem if I'm shooting RAW.

So, no show-stoppers, just annoyances that cramp my personal shooting style.

(and other's, judging by all the negative comments on dpreview re matrix metering.)

To each his or her own, I guess. I shoot exclusively in RAW and manual mode, and I actually really enjoy PP in ACR. It's part of the fun for me. Rarely is a photo done after I've pushed the shutter button. I like pushing and pulling various aspects of the photo to my liking.

EricT · 04-16-2009, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

UGLY!? It's beautiful!

.

I agree! A very "painteresque" effect to it.

-=JoN=- · 04-16-2009, 07:53 PM

the cosina's bokeh is....mesmerizing....

ILoveVerdi · 04-16-2009, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by RBellavance

Yikes ! I thought the Nikkor's bokeh was ugly until I got to the photos made with the Cosina

Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying.

jsherman999 · 04-16-2009, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by ILoveVerdi

Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying.

ROFL.

Here's a few more from the Gaping Eye of Hell taken this evening. Avert
your eyes and say a couple Hail Mary's.

**rparmar** · 04-17-2009, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by ILoveVerdi

Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying.

Ha! That's quite funny!

Though not true. I have the Cosina and hate the bokeh. I also have the K50/1.2 and love the bokeh. They are night and day. The Cosina can be quite sharp, however, and is good value.

But bokeh is definitely in the eye of the beholder. All the Russian lenses and the Cosina with the dancing swirling effects at the "gaping eye of hell" -- those I can do without.

RBellavance · 04-17-2009, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by ILoveVerdi

Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying.

To each his own, I guess. That bokeh is so busy it almost makes me dizzy

I'm more into the smooth, buttery kind.

04-15-2009, 07:36 AM	#32
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by -=JoN=- j, your nikon 35, is it a dx or fx lens (i'd do a quick search but im at work...cant surf much) I'm obviously not Jay, but I can answer this anyway: the Nikkor 35/1.8 is a DX lens. Nikon also makes a 35/2 that is FX (but not AF-S). Last edited by RBellavance; 04-15-2009 at 09:51 AM.

04-15-2009, 06:41 PM	#35
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	A tale of 4 crocuses . One crocus, actually, from 4 very different lenses. Just for the heck of it. (traditionally the 1st flower that pops up in my yard, so it gets shot a million times before the rabbits eat it.) Nikon 35 1.8 G at f/2.8: Sigma 100-300 f/4 at 300mm wide-open minimum distance: next 3 - DA 35 2.8 at f/2.8: Cosina 55 1.2 wide-open (yes, I bought another)

04-15-2009, 07:06 PM	#37
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	eye of the beholder Originally posted by RBellavance Yikes ! I thought the Nikkor's bokeh was ugly until I got to the photos made with the Cosina UGLY!? It's beautiful! .

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do I need Pentax K-x, if I have Nikon D90?	Jaleel	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	12-26-2009 07:04 AM
K20D vs Canon 50D & Nikon D90	Art Vandelay II	Pentax DSLR Discussion	139	01-30-2009 08:54 AM
For Sale - Sold: K20d, 50-135*, 16-45, 43ltd, 35ltd macro, Voigtlander 58/1.4, maybe 77ltd	nostatic	Sold Items	8	01-24-2009 10:07 AM
Tempted by Nikon D90	hinman	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	29	10-06-2008 06:11 PM
new nikon D90 ?? HD movie mode	txsbluesguy	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	12	08-28-2008 12:38 PM

04-15-2009, 05:23 AM	#31
-=JoN=- Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 999	j, your nikon 35, is it a dx or fx lens (i'd do a quick search but im at work...cant surf much)

04-15-2009, 09:07 AM	#33
brucestrange Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 51	Originally posted by jsherman999 No, the lens is performing optimally, as far as I can tell - I only have one sample of the lens, of course, but my output is matching or better than other full-sized image samples I've been able to download from dpreview and elsewhere. Jay, I didn't really think the lens was a dog. Of course, I don't think all things were equal. I would venture to say that if they were, people would have a difficult time telling the difference between the two. That shot of the Carcassonne text seems to really paint the lens as a dog. That's why I don't believe all was equal. Very nice shots by the way. Originally posted by axl It's always easier to retrieve detail from darker shot than get back burnt highlights.BR Mostly true. But it depends on how over or underexposed you are. You really have to drag the highlights back in ACR from a D90 image to believe just how much detail it preserves. It really does perform very well. Of course, if you are consistently over or underexposing your images to your dislike, you really need to learn more about photography. And the crazy thing is, you don't have to learn that much. I really don't understand why people keep pointing to this. Before I got my K20D, I read everywhere about how people were annoyed (some overjoyed) that it underexposed by about 2/3 of a stop. I thought, that's no big deal AT ALL. All of these enthusiast level cameras have the ability to set the EV to plus/minus whatever the photographer feels like. If you don't like the underexposure of the K20D (and it is to an extent a matter of taste) you just adjust the EV setting. The D90 is no different. It is so easy to set it. There's an EV button right next to the top display. You push it and adjust it to taste. If people are overexposing and getting ticked about it, they simply need to check out their camera's basic abilities. I really feel like this is a silly argument for or against these cameras. You can get very good exposure results from both, and it's a matter of a VERY SIMPLE adjustment. And quit knocking the D90's blown highlights until you pull them back yourself in ACR. You'll poop your pants. After adjusting many images in ACR taken with a K110D, K200D, and K20D, and then adjusting images from a D90, I was pretty blown away by the D90's preserved highlight details. It performs very well. They didn't make a dud of a camera by any means.

04-15-2009, 10:09 AM	#34
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by brucestrange Mostly true. But it depends on how over or underexposed you are. You really have to drag the highlights back in ACR from a D90 image to believe just how much detail it preserves. It really does perform very well. Of course, if you are consistently over or underexposing your images to your dislike, you really need to learn more about photography. And the crazy thing is, you don't have to learn that much. I really don't understand why people keep pointing to this. Before I got my K20D, I read everywhere about how people were annoyed (some overjoyed) that it underexposed by about 2/3 of a stop. I thought, that's no big deal AT ALL. All of these enthusiast level cameras have the ability to set the EV to plus/minus whatever the photographer feels like. If you don't like the underexposure of the K20D (and it is to an extent a matter of taste) you just adjust the EV setting. The D90 is no different. It is so easy to set it. There's an EV button right next to the top display. You push it and adjust it to taste. If people are overexposing and getting ticked about it, they simply need to check out their camera's basic abilities. I really feel like this is a silly argument for or against these cameras. You can get very good exposure results from both, and it's a matter of a VERY SIMPLE adjustment. And quit knocking the D90's blown highlights until you pull them back yourself in ACR. You'll poop your pants. After adjusting many images in ACR taken with a K110D, K200D, and K20D, and then adjusting images from a D90, I was pretty blown away by the D90's preserved highlight details. It performs very well. They didn't make a dud of a camera by any means. No, it's by no means a dud of a camera, and the highlight details can mostly be pulled back with ACR - it's more of an annoyance with me than anything, because to get the most out of the D90 I have to shoot RAW now and work to recover highlights. With the K20D, not so - I can shoot jpeg all day long and do minimal PP to get the look I like. I can and do adjust EV with the D90, also, but that sometimes causes matrix metering to underexpose too much depending on the lighting, in which case I have to drop it into center-weighted, which defeats the purpose of having matrix. Again, not too much of a problem if I'm shooting RAW. So, no show-stoppers, just annoyances that cramp my personal shooting style. (and other's, judging by all the negative comments on dpreview re matrix metering.) .

04-15-2009, 06:57 PM	#36
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Yikes ! I thought the Nikkor's bokeh was ugly until I got to the photos made with the Cosina

04-15-2009, 09:34 PM	#38
brucestrange Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 51	Originally posted by jsherman999 No, it's by no means a dud of a camera, and the highlight details can mostly be pulled back with ACR - it's more of an annoyance with me than anything, because to get the most out of the D90 I have to shoot RAW now and work to recover highlights. With the K20D, not so - I can shoot jpeg all day long and do minimal PP to get the look I like. I can and do adjust EV with the D90, also, but that sometimes causes matrix metering to underexpose too much depending on the lighting, in which case I have to drop it into center-weighted, which defeats the purpose of having matrix. Again, not too much of a problem if I'm shooting RAW. So, no show-stoppers, just annoyances that cramp my personal shooting style. (and other's, judging by all the negative comments on dpreview re matrix metering.) To each his or her own, I guess. I shoot exclusively in RAW and manual mode, and I actually really enjoy PP in ACR. It's part of the fun for me. Rarely is a photo done after I've pushed the shutter button. I like pushing and pulling various aspects of the photo to my liking.

04-16-2009, 06:01 PM	#39
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by jsherman999 UGLY!? It's beautiful! . I agree! A very "painteresque" effect to it.

04-16-2009, 07:53 PM	#40
-=JoN=- Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 999	the cosina's bokeh is....mesmerizing....

04-16-2009, 08:38 PM	#41
ILoveVerdi Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Grand Rapids, MI. USA. Earth. Posts: 139	Originally posted by RBellavance Yikes ! I thought the Nikkor's bokeh was ugly until I got to the photos made with the Cosina Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying.

04-16-2009, 09:11 PM	#42
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by ILoveVerdi Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying. ROFL. Here's a few more from the Gaping Eye of Hell taken this evening. Avert your eyes and say a couple Hail Mary's.

04-17-2009, 04:49 AM	#43
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by ILoveVerdi Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying. Ha! That's quite funny! Though not true. I have the Cosina and hate the bokeh. I also have the K50/1.2 and love the bokeh. They are night and day. The Cosina can be quite sharp, however, and is good value. But bokeh is definitely in the eye of the beholder. All the Russian lenses and the Cosina with the dancing swirling effects at the "gaping eye of hell" -- those I can do without.

04-17-2009, 05:32 AM	#44
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by ILoveVerdi Dude, it's 1.2, practically the gaping eye of hell. If you're not into extreme bokeh, nothing at that aperture is going to be satisfying. To each his own, I guess. That bokeh is so busy it almost makes me dizzy I'm more into the smooth, buttery kind.