Replacing my AF-Nikkor 35mm f/2 D with ???

Have both 24-85 and 24-120. Both very satisfactory but as mentioned, not cheap. What you might consider is one of the older D series short zooms - both very good and cheap. Try Used Autofocus Lenses from Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, & More - Nikon - have bought quite a few lenses from them - all in better condition than described. Good people to do business with.

Just in case Sandy and I are at cross-purposes, my impression, not having tried the older lenses, is that the older 28-xx AF-D lenses were optically inferior to the 28-80, if you don't mind the latter being plastic held together with sticky tape. The 24-85 AF-D is supposed to be decent, though - and I'm mildly tempted myself.

My reasoning was more that the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G (FX) also isn't cheap. In fact, often more expensive than the 24-85VR.

 

While I'm happy with my 24-120, if the 24-85VR had already been widely available when I got that lens, I would probably have opted for the 24-85 instead.

I have the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G, and it's not a great lens. Not even on a D700. Ugly colour rendering, most of all. But as a temporary stop-gap, it's a thought indeed - can be found utterly cheap in abundance.

I have never had a "bad" Nikon lens, and I have owned dozens - even the much reviled 43-86 (at least the copy I have) was a perfectly good lens for a "family" camera. The stated usage is the key, As the usage and skill evolve there are always other lenses. A zoom would be fun /flexible, a 35 or 50 would fit the planned usage as well, and possibly produce more "perfect" images. Dealer's choice!

I appreciate the discussion of zooms and what would be best for a novice coming from a smartphone, but the major question is what to get for myself of the lenses mentioned. They are:

Sigma Art 35/1.4

Tamron 35/1.8 VC

Nikon 28/1.8 G AF-S

Nikon 35/1.8 G

That I am giving her the d700 could be considered irrelevant to my major question. Throwing in the 35/2 is lagnaippe because, if replaced, it will be redundant for me. So, I'd give it to her. She does not know it (the lens) is coming. I do not want to go the used route. I I've had mixed results with that and I do not want to deal with it.

 

I am looking for something wide to replace my 35/2 D, something that is nearly as "portable" as the 35/2 D on a D810, something of a smaller profile than the 16-35 and the 24-70, and something that is a prime and that can be used as a walk-around lens for some closer, not distant, shots of people, street scenes in a crowded city. I want something that focuses quickly, and without issue. I do not think the 35 and the 50 are the "same" format wise. The 28mm format being slightly wider, intrigues, but I am not willing to sacrifice IQ or build quality for 28 over 35.

 

The Sigma is physically the biggest of the lot, I believe, and that could be a drawback, even though the consensus is that it has the very best IQ-but it is not weather sealed; so, a plus/minus. The Nikon 35/1.8 has the smallest "footprint" so that is attractive, but compared to the Tamron and the Sigma it may have a lesser IQ, though still better than the 35/2. The 28 is wider than the 35 so that may be a plus(?), but many complain about its plastic body, plastic filter ring, and mention a flimsy feel to it. So, they all have pluses and minuses.

I will likely not challenge the weather tolerance of the Sigma, but I do not want to carry a big lens. If size were not an issue, I'd carry the 16-35 or the 24-70. The Tamron appears attractive for IQ and weather sealing and VC, but it too is bigger. Still, I think at this hour--and I change my mind frequently--it may be the front-runner. If the Sigma doesn't feel huge, that could be the one, and I have never been disappointed by a Nikon lens. This is probably a good problem, right?, ie trying to decide among these, and I have not heard, I believe, anyone thus far say anything bad about any of the 4.

 

I mentioned earlier about just keeping the 35/2 and buying her another lens, like the 50 1.8G. I've decided against that. I looked at similar magnifications from the 35/2 and my 16-35 at around 28mm. The IQ from the 16-35 is MUCH better, the 35/2 appearing blocky and smudged compared to the 16-35. And the 35/2 were tripod shots of still subjects while the zoom's were moving children.

 

yes, Sandy, dealer's choice

I would be surprised if the Nikon 28/1.8G AF-S is any different in build than the Nikon 35/1.8G AF-S. I read reports that the 28 suffers from field curvature and - more troubling - focus shift; the latter being much less for the 35. Optically, I don't think one can go wrong with either of the three 35mm lenses from John's list. FWIW, I have the Sigma and am happy with it - but it is the largest and heaviest of the bunch (not significantly heavier than the Nikon 35/1.4 AF-S though). If money is no object, why not consider the Nikon 28/1.4E AF-S? Size and weight are about the same as for the Sigma 35/1.4 Art (not sure when the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art will become available).

Thanks, Dieter, ahhhh would that money were no object!

It is.

From what I can tell that Sigma 28 ART (yes, it caught my eye, too) looks like it will be in the 1500+ USD range---out of budget, as would the 28/1.4E ($1700 used). I will see the lenses in the next couple of days. I am in NY now with the 35/2, so when I go shopping I will have it to compare.

I saw those reports about focus shift on the 28/1.8G and yes, troubling, but the reports I saw were years old, maybe the latest 2015? Recent reports have been glowing, 4 and 5 stars, so maybe Nikon addressed the problem? Although plastic, the advantage is lightness, and many have said that. The Sigma is a full pound heavier than the 35/2, the other 3 not as heavy. But, I will see in the next few days.

Jeanloup Sieff - the reason I will always have / use a 24!

don't understand, looking at his pics-the portraits in particular, they don't look like they were shot close-in and wide? Maybe shot with a wide angle then cropped?

Quite a few Sieff's photos using a 24 were featured in J.D. Cooper's Nikon Nikkormat Handbook published by Amphoto in EPOI days. Was impressed by the photos. That was pre internet, so not much else of his was readily available. Obviously, back in that day, his raunchier stuff was not featured. Got hold of a 24, and have had one ever since. I still find that I use the focal length quite a bit with my various zooms. I still have my old prime, and on occasion put it on the DF and use it for a day. If you go through his photos, IMO you can still see substantial creative use of wide angle lenses. Long answer to a short query! ;)

so, a trip to B&H is set this morning. Walking around yesterday with the 35, I found that I "think" I would like something a bit wider. Maybe the 28 FOV is more similar to my eyes' FOV??

I examined my 35/2 also--hey, it's got a plastic filter ring. I've never used a filter on it, just didn't notice. I could tell it didn't feel like a tank, as my zooms do, but it has been very "good enough" in the build quality dept. Also, I have been in contact with a Nikon rep there, and he (of course) speaks highly of the 28/1.8 and tells me a number of his customers have it and like it. But, as said, I will look at them all, but right now pre-visit, I think the 28 leads the pack...of course that can turn on a dime.

An interesting exercise that can be done in Windows is to bring up your photos with Windows Explorer and sort images by focal length. Your FL choices will be dependent on subject matter, but some unexpected usage preferences may pop out which could help in making a good choice for a new lens.

Edit - Most useful if you use zooms quite a bit.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

I saw those reports about focus shift on the 28/1.8G and yes, troubling, but the reports I saw were years old, maybe the latest 2015? Recent reports have been glowing, 4 and 5 stars, so maybe Nikon addressed the problem?

 

Don't bet on it. Nikon is not known for fixing fundamental design flaws in that manner: if this issue ever does get addressed, it will be in the form of a completely new lens ten years from now. The current f/1.8 AFS series of lenses is excellent overall, despite the blatantly, almost obnoxiously 110% plastic feel they have. But while sharp, the 28mm remains problematic for many users with its field curvature and focus shift issues. Depending on your primary type of photography, it can be a non-issue, easily worked around, or a total dealbreaker. If you thought the edge performance of your 35mm f/2 AFD wasn't great on your D810, you might be disappointed to discover the 28mm f/1.8 AFS not much better: getting the best edge to edge results from it can require some planning (and memorization of its quirks). For grab-n-go shooting, you'd be surprised how often the old slow 28-70 AFD and 28-105 AFD zooms remain competitive with it.

 

If you opt for the 28mm f/1.8 AFS, be sure to buy it from a dealer with no questions asked return policy: you'll either love it or hate it. It is the odd man out in f/1.8 AFS range: the 20mm, 24mm, 35mm and 85mm are significantly less peculiar.

Edited December 10, 2018 by orsetto

An interesting exercise that can be done in Windows is to bring up your photos with Windows Explorer and sort images by focal length. Your FL choices will be dependent on subject matter, but some unexpected usage preferences may pop out which could help in making a good choice for a new lens.

Edit - Most useful if you use zooms quite a bit.

One issue that may creep up in that kind of exercise is that one often gets spikes at the focal lengths of the two ends of the zoom(s) being used - they don't necessarily indicate a "favorite" focal length but merely reflect that nothing longer or shorter was available at the time. It is true, however, that such an exercise can reveal unexpected usage preferences. In my case, I was surprised how many shots I actually took around 50mm - a focal length I always had considered as quite useless to me.

 

I am currently attempting (again) to restrict my use of zooms in favor of fixed-focal-length lenses - and confirm that outside of the realm of long-lens use, I seem to be able to get away with a rather widely-spaced set of primes: 15, 20, 35 (and/or 50). I arrived at a similar result some time ago (adapted M-mount lenses on a Sony A7: 15, 21, 40). I didn't know that preference back when I purchased the Sigma 24/1.4 - and it turned out that I didn't use that lens all that much (except for some indoor event shoots). Also, a 28mm doesn't appear to be necessary in that setup - it's more of a special occasion lens for me (street, museums). My findings seem to point in the direction of being able to replace the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 Art lenses with the new 40/1.4 Art lens - if it wasn't for its bulk and excessive weight (dwarfing even the already huge 50/1.4 Art).

 

The 85mm focal length was another victim of such an analysis - though I decided to not give up on it fully but replaced the 85/1.8G with the Tamron 90/2.8 VC - adding both macro and vibration reduction to the quiver.

 

On the 28/1.8G - in hindsight I think it was fortuitous that the local store didn't have one in stock when I had decied to purchase one - I left the store with the Sigma 35/1.4 Art (a purchase I have not had any reason to regret).

I spent considerable and, more importantly, enough time at B&H today with the Nikon rep, Gerry Rooney. I had my 810 with me and I was able to test drive all 4 lenses, as well as compare them to my 35/2. I mostly looked at center sharpness. That parameter by far was the easiest to observe over edge sharpness and speed of focus, both important to be sure.

I really wanted the Nikon 28/1.8G to be the best, but it was not. It came in 4th.

I compared them all hand held and on the same subject, a price tag about 12 feet away, and at f4, ISO 1000, 1 stop under and at 1/15 second. Yes, the 1/15 was a bit on the slow side, but I was shooting with the Tamron's vibration control ON, so I wanted to put that into the mix. I examined the test shots zoomed in all the way on the 810's LCD. I felt I was doing a real world comparison.

The Sigma and the Tamron both had beautiful contrast, and the Nikon 35/1.8 was a very slight, very slight down in that measure, but still looking very good. The contrast with the 28 was good too. The Sigma is formidable in size and weight, especially weight, but it was the sharpest. Next was the Tamron and VERY close to the Tamron was the Nikon 35/1.8. In some shots the sharpness of the Nikon 35/1.8 was comparable/equal to the Tamron even though the Tamron had stability control turned on. I thought my 35/2 was sharper than the Nikon 28/1.8---a major disappointment, and a deal breaker for that lens. I also tested the focus of them all, though not as extensively as on the 28. What I found was that the focus on the Sigma, the Tamron and the Nikon 35/1.8 pretty much nailed it every time and I did not notice any real delay among any of them, the 28, not so much. I did not notice any focus shift with any of them.

As I was switching the lenses back and forth, every time I picked up the Sigma I said "ugh." Again, I wanted portability and did not want to have the feeling I was "lugging" a lens. I can lug my 16-35 or the 24-70 if that was no issue. Gerry Rooney told me that he has a few photo pro friends that use the Sigma, love its IQ and complain about its weight. So, at that point it was down to two lenses, the Tamron and the Nikon 35/1.8. I again compared center sharpness and again was impressed how close they were, in fact at one point we could not tell which was the Tamron and which was the Nikon.

The Tamron had a more substantial build quality, but I did not feel slighted by the feel of the Nikon. Some say they feel "cheap." I would say they feel "light" and that, to me is an important distinction.

The Tamron was a bit more expensive, but that did not enter into the equation. I chose the Nikon.

Of the 3 35s, they all had their strengths, they were all good. They were all physically bigger than my 35/2, but not oppressively so. For me the Sigma was just too heavy and did not offer substantially better IQ to justify the extra load. It is a beautiful lens though, as is the Tamron.

Images will be posted in the Nikon Wednesday section. Thanks to all for the interesting discussion and advice.

Yes! My pick won!

Nice 'hands-on' review. I guess depending on your type of shooting whether the 1/4, maybe 1/2?, second handheld shots possible with the Tamron VC would tip the balance?

 

...and Yes the Sigma is a bulky beast!

@mike_halliwell

If I shot at those speeds, m a y b e, but I just don't trust in 1/4 and 1/2 sec handheld. If I am shooting that slow, or even 1/8, I'd prefer a beanbag, or setting the camera on something firm and using the timer, or increasing the iso, IOW something to avoid hand-holding at slow speeds. Obv ymmv. But thanks for the compliment, Now it just has to perform.

I just don't trust in 1/4 and 1/2 sec handheld

I guess it's one of those 'try it and see', make it earn your trust...;)

 

I reckon the Tamron 35mm VC on a Z6 aught to be an awesome low light imager for places that don't allow flash or tripods.....:)

 

...or beanbags....:(

I have both the Tamron and the Nikon 35mm f/2. Despite some failings at the widest stops the Nikon keeps impressing me and is light enough to carry without feeling it at the end of a long day. I have also seen the Nikon 35mm E which is even lighter. The Tamron performs better than the Nikon at the edges at wider stops but you usually know beforehand what sort of photos you will be taking so can accommodate.

 

Nikon f/2 AF-D - Out and about, city views, landscape on a tripod

Tamron f/1.8 VC - Low light, museums, interior, weddings

 

Both have their place.