28 or 35 to go with my 50mm? FX.

Hi all, I have a D600 I have been thinking about a wider prime for some time. I have a 50mm, so a 28mm or a 35mm?

 

The 35mm is maybe more of a classic? Some might also argue the 35mm is similar to the 50mm. This is for walking around say on travel in the more day time. Generally speaking I use a 18-35 and a 50 when I travel and that covers my scapes low light etc when I am doing more specific shots. The prime is a faster aperture and physically smaller and when I am just walking around in the day time.

 

I have also been thinking of a used MILC but maybe just adding a prime lens with my Nikon would be a lot cheaper and tidier. Also I need to remember to not overload that bag no matter how accommodating the others might be prior to departing (!).

 

 

Cheers.

I'm not a huge fan of either FL , but I'd lean more toward a 28mm.

 

A 35mm lens-to me-bordering on "substitute for 50mm" and not dramatically different. In fact, I've been known to walk around with nothing but a 50mm Distagon on my Hasselblad(more or less a 35mm equivalent). The lens that came on my Speed Graphic, and the only LF lens I had for a while, was a 135mm, which again is roughly in 35mm equivalent range.

How do you imagine the walking in the day time? - Single lensed? Don't you have a Ricoh, to substitute the 28mm for Nikon?

primes kit planning routine:

1. 50
   
2. 35 & 85/90(/105?)
   
3. 28 50 135
   
4. 24/(21?) 35 85 180
   

And of course in- (or "overly") complete sub variants.

If I wanted something else for Nikon, I'd look at the stabilized Tamron 35/1.8.

IDK why, but in the days of fixed lens P&S cameras flipping through 3 bags of prints from a 35mm sporting one drove me nuts; I missed something. have you tried sweeping and stitching handheld panoramas? - They might be an alternative to a wider lens.

 

Anyhow: You have a zoom, use it and EXIFs of your previous work, to figure out which focal length you might like more.

You could just set your 18-35 to either focal length and walk around for a day - should give you a fairly good idea which one suits you more.

 

Or you could analyze the images you took with the 18-35 so far to find out which focal lengths are used the most (Jochen already suggested that). With a zoom, results likely will be skewed a bit in favor of the zoom's focal length end points though.

 

I don't have a real preference between 28 and 35 but if limited to only one would likely choose the 28 to go along with the 50. But particularly in walk-around scenarios, I rather have a mid-range zoom (like 24-85 or even 24-120) for convenience.

 

In addition to the sets Jochen mentioned, there's of course the (x2) one:

 

24 (actually 25), 50, 100.

 

Everyone has different preferences and even those often change with the particular shooting scenario.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

How do you imagine the walking in the day time? - Single lensed? Don't you have a Ricoh, to substitute the 28mm for Nikon?

 

I do have a Ricoh GR. I like it. I could just use the 50mm with the Nikon with the Ricoh. Could be OK but it is juggling between 2 cameras?

 

I took 8975 images with my D600 (Adobe Lightroom).

18mm - 600 images

28mm 157

35mm - 1250

50mm - 795

70mm - 1037

200mm - 829.

 

I haven't really taken much lenses on overseas travel longer than 50mm. Those 70mm and 200mm were at home like shooting portraits or aeroplanes.

If you're planning a kit comprising Prime Lenses, and you have to choose between two similar Focal Length W/A lenses, as which to buy first (or which to buy only), then UNLESS there is some over-riding 'other' factor (for example huge price difference; Several Stops Max Aperture difference; huge optical quality difference etc) then the better choice is always to buy the slightly wider lens.

 

The rational is simple: you can always crop in Post Production/Darkroom Printing the image from the wider lens to provide the FoV of the slightly longer lens; secondly if you are using the W/A Lens indoors or in a tight outdoor situation, you have the option to back up a step or so further, to get the Framing, if so required.

 

Given all other factors are approximately equal, there is no 'choice' involved, IMO, it is a simple decision to buy the 28mm Lens.

 

WW

 

Addendum - as a practical example:

 

Taking your stats - you could have made all the 1250 images with a 28mm prime as well as the 157. But you could NOT have made the 157 images with a 35mm Prime.

Thanks William.

 

That makes sense. Think commercially. I'll spend time with my Ricoh GR and my Nikon 50mm together and see how this plans out. Yes, the 28mm sounds a better commercial decision than the 35mm.

That's what I did D700 went and purchased a 28mm it will go well with a 50mm, the 35mm is to close to a 50mm.

Just go get the Sigma 24-35mm f2. It really is 3 primes in one. My copy is that good.

Do you plan to buy a fast, heavy, expensive prime or a less-fast, light, less-expensive one? Auto or manual focus? Here are some matchups to consider:

 

28/1.4E vs 35/1.4G

28/1.8G vs 35/1.8G

28/2.8D vs 35/2D

28/2.8 AIS vs 35/2 AIS

28/2 AIS vs 35/1.4 AIS

 

The first pair have the greatest difference in price between them.

 

The third pair (D lenses) have, I think, the greatest difference in IQ, going by the commonplace opinions I have read, with the 35 being rated much higher than the 28.

 

By contrary, between the slower AIS lenses, many would rate the 28 far over the 35, but some of this may be due to the large degree of sample variation in the 35.

 

The members of the 2nd pair (1.8G) are the most evenly matched in both price and image quality.

My "prime" lens kit for my Nikon film cameras back in the day was

 

Nikkor 20mm f/4 for wide, my favorite wide angle and if it is shot carefully pretty rectilinear

PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 for perspective control and much normal shooting

Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 (and 50mm f/2, also) the first for available dark shooting.

 

For longer focal length I used zooms.

 

I still use these frequently today, sometimes with an adapter on Canon EOS, and other times on film Nikon cameras

Your stats show: "zooms get shot at their ends" - It would be easier to materialize a shopping decision out of a trip with a 24-70...

Could be OK but it is juggling between 2 cameras?

Both are yours, so you should have the muscle memory etc. to shoot them. - Juggling cameras is IMHO much faster than juggling lenses and I didn't even try to figure sensor cleaning time in. - Just find a way to wear both on straps.

Since you use Lightroom making camera specific profiles, to blend images from both sources into your look and synchronizing the 2 sources should be easy. AFAIK you can even tweak camera clock offsets in LR and don't need to check the clocks before every event or similar.

For a wide angle prime, I'd go with a 24mm. Over the years, I grew into the 24mm. The 35mm is only a few degrees wider than the 43mm diagonal coverage, so the 28mm is truly a wide angle prime. I have a 28mm f/2.8 in my bag, but I seldom use it except with film. Wider than 24mm, especially at 20mm, distortion starts to creep in, especially if the subject is not perpendicular to the film/sensor plane. I own both the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D and the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D, neither of which is the latest glass, but I've had them for years, trust them, and love the results they yield. They work fine on my D750, F5, and F4.

Your stats show: "zooms get shot at their ends" - It would be easier to materialize a shopping decision out of a trip with a 24-70...

 

Both are yours, so you should have the muscle memory etc. to shoot them. - J

 

Yes, esp as a walkabout lens questioning it's importance of a 28/35 prime now. My own photography would be with a tripod and zoom at golden / blue hour. Really like the Ricoh as a walkabout camera by itself.

 

The 24-70mm is too large.

 

Do you plan to buy a fast, heavy, expensive prime or a less-fast, light, less-expensive one? Auto or manual focus? Here are some matchups to consider:

 

28/1.8G vs 35/1.8G

 

Prob the modern 28mm F1.8 version vs the 35mm F1.8 version. Something that is the sweet spot, modern, good IQ. The F1.8 is more than enough.

 

For a wide angle prime, I'd go with a 24mm. .

 

Yes the going from 24mm to a 50mm might be seen more substantial. Primes to me are more for a lightweight low light walkabout, maybe with others who might not be into photography or sightseeing. Evening after dinner, waterfronts, night markets etc. Would a 24mm be too wide for urban street scenes ... If I was doing specific photography I would probably use my 18-35 and my tripod.

IMHO, the 35 is too close to the 50, so I would go with the 28.

In my case I went with a 24. At the time, the widest lens that I could afford.

You started the question considering a choice between 28 and 35, already having a 50. My opinion/advice/rationale hasn't changed regarding THAT specific choice between those two primes, (and if you want to build a kit of Primes): however, I do really like the lateral thought by mike halliwell.

 

An F/2 short compass zoom is a killer suggestion to 'replace' three Primes (24 28 and 35), considering what? - that zoom would at the most be only 1 Stop slower than any of the Primes you're considering? Finances? - if you added the cost of buying a 24 and 28 and 35 the Sigma ART 24~35 F/2 might come in less expensive, but obviously more expensive than buying only one Prime.

 

Interesting thought.

 

WW

From your stats, if you want to carry a 2-lens prime kit; 35 + 85.

This is the old traditional 2-lens kit on the rangefinders.

Or 35 + 105.

In that range of primes, I've got a 24 and a 50. With FX and DX bodies.

Never found a use for the 35 so I sold it after a couple years of not using it.

IMHO, the 35 is too close to the 50, so I would go with the 28.

In my case I went with a 24. At the time, the widest lens that I could afford.

Exactly that. 28mm on 'FX' just doesn't feel wide enough. 24mm is sweet.. (used the old 24/2.8's a lot on film) .. and so is 20mm

You can crop a 28mm view or just get closer. OTOH, you can't add image area to a 35mm angle-of-view, nor always take a couple of steps back.

 

Having said that, I wouldn't necessarily jump to a 24mm. Each to their own vision, but for me a 24mm makes the subject too small in the frame at normal distances, without giving the exciting perspective you can get close-up with a 20mm or wider.

On the issue of 35 being "too close" to 50: cropping a 50mm FOV image out of a 35mm image throws away more than half the 35mm image - quite significant IMHO (though probably less so with today's high MP cameras). Cropping a 35mm FOV image out of a 28mm image looses "only" about 1/3. You need to change your distance to the subject by a factor of 1.43 to equalize the FOV between a 50 and a 35mm lens but only by a factor of 1.25 to do the same for a 28 and 35 (needless to say that you want get the same perspective - and hence not the same image - when changing your distance to the subject).

 

Your stats show: "zooms get shot at their ends"

What they don't show though is the percentage of those "shot at the end" that would have been taken with a longer or shorter focal length had it been available (or had the photographer actually changed lenses).

Although the following lenses are DX, you'll get the idea!

 

Sigma makes the 18-35mm 1.8 and the 50-100mm 1.8 and in use, as a pair, the 'gap' is occasionally quite annoying, although they are sharp enough to crop for a 'longer' lens, or if possible zoom-with-the feet!

 

I'd always hoped they'd make a 30-60mm 1.8 to bridge it. Mind you these short range, fast zooms, are big and relatively heavy and expensive, although they can be gotten 'grey' for a very good price.

Although the following lenses are DX, you'll get the idea!

 

Sigma makes the 18-35mm 1.8 and the 50-100mm 1.8 and in use, as a pair, the 'gap' is occasionally quite annoying, although they are sharp enough to crop for a 'longer' lens, or if possible zoom-with-the feet!

 

I'd always hoped they'd make a 30-60mm 1.8 to bridge it. Mind you these short range, fast zooms, are big and relatively heavy and expensive, although they can be gotten 'grey' for a very good price.

 

The gap is an acceptable gap. Back in the film days with prime lenses, we commonly worked with larger gaps; 50-105 or 50-135.

But that is only IF you are not working in the 30-60mm range. If you are working in the range of the gap, then it could become an issue. With the hassle of constantly switching between the two lenses, or having to crop into the shorter lens.