35mm f/2 v. 24mm f/2.8 - opinions?

<p>I currently use the 50mm f/1.4 as my prime on a D80. As you can imagine this is a little tight for every day shooting on a digital format. I like the ability to shoot with "available light."</p>

<p>To go a little wider I am considering the 35mm f/2D OR the 24mm f/2.8D.</p>

<p>I hear go things about the 35mm (pretty good wide open) but not too much about is said about the 24mm. And what is said is that it isn't so great on digital.</p>

<p>Does anyone have experience with these on DX?</p>

<p>Which would you put on a D80 as your prime?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>r</p>

<p>I like my 35. It is really good but I am not too picky. the negative side, which is only my opinion, the angle of view is too simple. Basically it is what would be called a normal lens on FX. If you wanna capture things the way you see them with your own eyes it is really good. </p>

<p>I like the 35mm f2 AI lens when used with FX format. It really captures a natural view when I look at the photos. However, on DX format it is still a little too limiting. I found the 28mm f2.8 AIS a nice walkaround lens with my D300. For the D80 you might want to take a look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4.</p>

<p>" it is what would be called a normal lens on FX" - perhaps Rene means 35 mm is normal lens on DX format?<br>

and ...</p>

<p> "the negative side, which is only my opinion, the angle of view is too simple" - yeah, you need to make it more complicated... otherwise it is a good lens. Negative is that it should be less expensive.</p>

<p>Sorry Frank! You are right! i meant 35 is normal on DX!<br>

About "simple" Uhmm! I didn't wanna say boring! Maybe simple was the wrong word so if it bothered you I am sorry!<br>

About the price... Uhmm! expensive, cheap, it doesn't matter as long as the lens is being used!</p>

<p>I prefer the 35mm f/2 over the 24mmf/2.8 - this is based upon my experience with these on DX format. The 24mm is a tad too wide and getting fine composition in the frame of a 24mm is more difficult. The 35mm length to me is very much a more natural and easy going length to get my desired composition 'just so'.</p>

<p>I have the AF-D 35mm f/2 lens and an AiS 24mm f2.8 lens - both were equally a pleasure to operate on D200 / D300 bodies.</p>

<p>I have been using the 24/2.8AFD on my FX cameras, and was happy with it. It`s matter of preferences 24 or 35... perhaps the 24mm is a middle point between wide and normal focal lenght. The 24mm is not the sharpest lens but good enough to my needs and the focal lenght is useful to me. If you don`t look for a wider option the 35 is one stop faster and a better performer overall, especially wide open.</p>

<p>I used both for digital and film.<br>

35/2 D: Very very good optical quality, sharp in the center even wide open, minimun focusing distance is impressively short, does not flare easily, though not a very useful focal length in DX format.<br>

24/2.8 D: Optical quality not as good esp wide open, has very high tendency to flare, I would expect better from a 2.8 prime. That said I would get the 24 for DX format because of the wider focal length. You might also consider the 20/2.8 AF-D.</p>

<p>I use the 35mm f/2 AF D as a "normal lense" on my DX digital bodies. Actually, it is my most used lense on them. (D200/D60)<br>

I tried the 24mm f/2.8 AF, but do not use it on digital. As stated above, it not a sharp lense.<br>

My 24mm performs better on film bodies. Conversly, that 35mm never impressed me on a film body. Go figure.</p>

<p>To me a 24mm and a 50mm is a very flexible combo on DX, similar to the classic 35/85mm on film.<br /> I use the 24/2 AIS, 24/2.8 AI, 24/2.8 AF and I think they are all fine but I am not looking for maximum image quality either in these primes and I shoot mostly handheld. For shots into the sun I use my 20/3.5 AIS and for a higher quality 24mm I would bring my 12-24/4 and shoot it at f/8 on a tripod.</p>

<p>If you want the 35mm focal length have a look at the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM as well.</p>

<p>On a d80, 35 is about normal, 24 slightly wide. A 28 is a nice compromise. The 24 will double the the picture length and width compared to a 50, ie 4x the area. A 35 is about 1.5 the length and width of a 50.</p>

<p>Looked at another way. The long side of a 50 is the same as the short side of a 35.<br>

The short side of a 24 is the same as the long side of 35. Can`t erase the d. </p>

<p>I had a AF 24mm f2.8 with my D70 and D200. I like the FoV of a 35mm full frame focal length. I was very pleased with the lens. I have recently moved to a D700 and have replaced the 24 with a 35mm f2 AIS. I also have a 28mm f2 AIS which is sharp and fast.</p>

<p>I really liked the 35F2 on DX. I liked the Sigma 30 1.4 even more.<br>

I prefer the perspective of the 24mm to go with a 50mm but prefer the aperture speed even more.</p>

<p>A 35mm lens on a DX camera is the same as 50mm on a film camera. A 24mm lens on DX is the same as a 35m lens on FX. I almost always ued a 35 mm lens as my "normal" lens during my film years. Hardly ever shot 50mm. That's probably why the only prime lens I use much on my D300 is the 24mm f2.8 nikkor.<br>

I think designating the 50mm lens as "normal" for 35mm film was a rather aribtrary decision by whoever made it.</p>

<p>I find myself at 24mm (on DX) with my zoom a LOT! But when I shot film I was a 50mm guy, so I'm thinking of getting a 35mm f2 next myself.</p>

<p>On film my 24mm f 2.8 was my most used lens for general shooting (not portraits). Even on DX format it seems reasonably wide. F 2.8 is not quite as handy as f 2 or less when shooting available light. I recently documented the family Christmas party in available light using a D80 (typical living room lighting at night). Shutter was about 1/30 sec and iso 1600. I used the 35mm f 2 wide open a lot, as well as the 24mm f2.8 and the 50mm 1.4. I found I could stop down the 50mm to f2. I also used the 50mm f 1.8 AF wide open. I've heard good things about the Sigma 30mm f 1.4 lens. That would be very handy. What we really need is a 17-50mm f 1.4 zoom! That would be a monster! Rhys, email me if you want to see some jpgs. I don't want to bore people here!</p>

<p>OK here's a close up using available light with the 35mm f 2.0 AF Nikkor at f 2.0. You can see the really soft bokeh in the background.</p><div></div>

<p>In addition to my zooms I have the 50mm 1.8 which is wonderful but, as mentioned above, a little too long for many situations. I picked up a nikon 28mm 2.8D as a "normal" lens on my D70 bodies and it works just fine for this purpose. It's just a tad wider than "normal" -- it's a little like the 70mm leaf shutter lens I used to use on my Mamiya 645 equipment. <br>

The 28mm is cheaper and easier to find than either the 35mm f/2 or the 24mm f/2.8. Also I've found f/2.8 to be adequate for most situations -- especially since you can easily bump up ISO when needed on a digital camera.</p>

<p>A 24mm lens on the D80 would cover the field of a 32mm lens, the center section of the image circle is all that would be used because of the 1.5x cropping factor. In many cases this makes barrel distortion, vignetting at edges less visable and improves the image.<br>

I like the 31mm Pentax FF lens images I have seen taken on FF film. I think that the 32mm view would be a great focal length for street and group portraits.<br>

If you want to go wide on a DX camera the 24mm is a much better choice because its still pretty wide on DX.</p>

<p >Thanks everyone for your answers so far. The occasional image also helps see how these lenses perform in our hands versus Nikon employees! So thanks for that too.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Umit and Jay, thanks for clarification regarding quality of these lenses on DX format. It’s unfortunate that Nikon hasn’t updated their product line with a better 24mm to compliment their DX camera line.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, here's what I took away from your answers thus far, 35mm is a better lens for sharpness and overall quality of images on DX. The 24mm however, can be a more "creative" focal length.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >After thinking about it, it comes down to this: Do I want higher quality images that may take more work to compose, or a more impactful composition that isn't as sharp and even somewhat distorted at the edges?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I'm thinking I'd rather have quality since I can adjust my eye (and feet) to get more creative results from a 35mm (50mm on DX).</p>

<p >tx,<br>

r</p>

<p>I like my 24mm for getting the sun to look like a multi-point star. It's a good, all around lens. The 35mm is really nice for a "normal" view on my D200. You can get amazingly close with this lens.</p>