Wide angle lens for f100

My fault. I was thinking the F100 was the Euro N-90 and of course it isn't. I do have the 24-120G and you're right, it is not a light lens but is giving me very good results on the D4 and D800. With the G lenses it got so confusing as to what works in what mode with what camera body that I just quit bothering. My most recent film bodies are the F4S and N90S. I'm happy with them and don't see a need to get newer though I'd love to get an F6 for some odd reason.

Rick H.

My fault. I was thinking the F100 was the Euro N-90

The Euro N90(s) is the F90.

For whatever reason, Nikon used "F" worldwide on the F100. I suspect it was to reinforce its status as the "baby F5"-something which it really is in a lot of ways.

I too would like to have an F6. Even worse, I'd like to buy a new one...

I have a 35-70mm F2.8 non D for my case. To me the FL the 35mm is a bit limiting. I prefer something a bit wider and also this lens flares easier.

Not sure what to say between a smartphone and 35mm film. I don't have a high end phone. 35mm film does have grain and look different to a dSLR. Maybe to me it is the film look with 35mm and that's the way it is ... although a lot of the time now I prefer to shoot medium format film. I might look into doing a A4 1 to 1 comparison between 35mm film and a phone.

Not sure what to say between a smartphone and 35mm film. I don't have a high end phone. 35mm film does have grain and look different to a dSLR. Maybe to me it is the film look with 35mm and that's the way it is ... although a lot of the time now I prefer to shoot medium format film. I might look into doing a A4 1 to 1 comparison between 35mm film and a phone.

400 ASA print film vs. my iPhone 6 is no contest. 35mm wins every time-the iPhone photo starts to fall apart with any degree of enlargement.

One thing to keep in mind is that the iPhone lens is always wide open at around f/2.4. The camera adjusts exposure by varying the shutter speed and sensitivity. In low light, it starts cranking the ISO way up which has a big effect on the teeny tiny sensor.

Even outdoors in good light, though, I can see more detail in an otherwise equivalent 400 ASA negative from 35mm than I can from an iPhone camera.

Us a slower film and the difference is even more pronounced.

Also, I think that the rear-facing lens on the iPhone and most other smart phones is about a 24mm or 35mm equivalent. If you can't get close, things REALLY fall apart as you start cropping.

Of course, the camera you have with you is better than the camera that you don't. For me and many other folks, my phone is always with my-and a camera not so much so.

the rear-facing lens on the iPhone and most other smart phones is about a 24mm or 35mm equivalent

Split the difference. iPhone's is about 28mm equivalent.

Split the difference. iPhone's is about 28mm equivalent.

For whatever reason, I was thinking 28mm but typed 24mm. Thanks for the correction, though. I think 24mm would be uncomfortably wide for most folks.

If I recall, "portrait mode" on the newer cameras uses both a 28mm and 50mm equivalent. If I understand it correctly in an OVERLY simplified way, the camera basically takes an in-focus photo with the 50mm lens, an OOF photo with the 28mm, and then overlays them and uses some computer magic to determine what's the subject and what's background.

Hi everyone. One more question. I was looking at 35mm lenses. The 35mm f/1.8G ED FX will not work on the F100 correct b/c the F100 is AF?

So are my choices the 35mm f/1.8G DX or the f/2? any thoughts on these two?

Hi everyone. One more question. Will the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G as well as the 35mm f/1.8G ED both work on the f100? I see the 1.8G is a DX and the 1.8G ED is an FX lens. Also how do these compare (if they both will work on the f100). Big price difference. I was looking at the 35 mm f/2D but I keep reading the pictures come out of focus a lot and its soft. Hence me looking at the f/1.8G DX and FX ones. thanks!

Hi darya_a. Both of the 35mm 1.8 lenses will work on your F100, but the DX one will produce (to me) unacceptable levels of vignetting at larger apertures. I would strongly recommend the FX one, which is truly excellent.

I've had no problems with my f/2D whatsoever. AF accuracy is consistently excellent, and central sharpness is very good. Corner sharpness is good by f/5.6. For landscape and architectural work, you will want to stop down to f/8 or avoid this lens. The IQ is more than good enough for less exacting applications, like kid pix.

thanks chulkim. How would I have known about the vignetting, is it because its a DX lens?

the two picture you posted above on your f/2D, what aperture did you shoot those at? they are sharp.

thanks chulkim. How would I have known about the vignetting, is it because its a DX lens?

 

the two picture you posted above on your f/2D, what aperture did you shoot those at? they are sharp.

Check this page for example photos with the 1.8G DX on an FX camera: Using Nikon DX Lenses on FX Cameras - Photography Life

Those kid photos were taken at f/8 and f/5 respectively, but check out these recent photos taken at f/2 (top) and f/2.8 (bottom) using the same lens. They're sharp, too.

thanks chulkim. How would I have known about the vignetting, is it because its a DX lens?

Nikon "DX" lenses are designed to be used with crop sensor digital SLRs. These are more formally called "APS-C" DSLRs, and a typical sensor size is 16mm x 24mm(compared to 24x36mm for 35mm film or full frame digital).

DX lenses are great if you are using DX DSLR as they tend to be smaller and lighter than full format lenses of a comparable focal length range. It's worth mentioning that the 35mm 1.8 is the only DX prime that Nikon has made.

Some DX lenses, when used on a film or an FX camera(what Nikon calls full frame digital) will vignette to the point that the edges are completely dark. Others will completely cover the frame, at least at some zoom settings, but tend to perform poorly at the edge of the frame. Aside from vignetting, you tend to get poor sharpness and in some cases terrible distortion. I have the 12-24mm f/4 DX that I still use occasionally on DX cameras, and although it will cover an FX frame at 14mm the edge distortion is comical.

Although some lenses-like the 35mm f/1.8-can be satisfactory at smaller apertures you are-in general-better off with lenses designed to cover a 35mm film frame.

It's worth mentioning that the 35mm 1.8 is the only DX prime that Nikon has made.

Probably not very important to the OP, but this statement isn't correct: the 10,5mm Fisheye, 40mm macro and 85mm macro are all DX lenses.

More on-topic, I have had some issues with my 35mm f/2D - outer AF points on a D300 were never quite able to get a lock for AF; it's the only lens with which I've seen this, and as it turns out, the lens was also simply performing poorly at those areas in the image at wide open aperture. Performance at f/2.8 isn't great either, and it tends to excel at f/5.6 and f/8 as a landscape lens. But at those apertures, nearly all lenses perform well, so to me it means it gives me no advantage as a prime, and it means more versatile options are available (and I mainly shoot primes, actually, and can accept lesser resolution or distortion, vignetting etc if the lens pulls off good rendering, but the 35 f/2D bores, has no great OoF rendering and when performing less, it doesn't look appealing).

I seriously cannot recommend the 35 f/2D at the prices it's still selling for; even if I feel the FX f/1.8 lens would really need to be cheaper to be a good alternative.

I seriously cannot recommend the 35 f/2D at the prices it's still selling for

Don't forget the weight consideration. The 35mm f/2D is flyweight and good enough for the application. Maybe not good enough for your kids pics, though.

Whether it's good enough for OP's application is up to the OP, not to any of us. I just gave my honest view on this lens, and while it's obvious you think about this lens otherwise, it doesn't invalidate a single word I wrote.

Ultimately, the OP has to decide how to spend the money, and having multiple views on the subject is only a positive to make a well-considered choice.

Don't even think about a DX lens for film - get the FX 1.8 if you want a 35mm prime, or the AF-D if you want something cheaper and lighter. I used the 28-105 a lot on the F100 (at one point it was even sold as a kit with this camera). It's not very heavy, has low distortion and a reasonably fast aperture across a very useful zoom range, and a nice semi-macro setting. I've kept it as a lightweight alternative to the 24-70 on the D800. No VR or AF-S, but it focuses pretty quickly. There are Flickr pools for all three lenses and others mentioned above which will give you an idea of how they perform:

Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ED FX

Nikkor 35mm F2D

Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D