35mm f2 & 24mm f2.8 or 20-35mm f2.8

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by alvin_lim|5, Jul 17, 2008.

  1. Been looking at the above three lenses and am wondering if it is worth getting the 20-35mm f2.8 over the 35mm f2
    and 24mm f2.8; the price difference is $100+. I have been quite keen in the three lenses as I like to shoot
    rather wide and would prefer to move closer to my subject (where possible) than to zoom in.

    What I understand is that the 20-35mm f2.8 is a brilliant lens but is rather heavy. The 35mm f2 is a pretty good
    lens too but if buying a used copy, will have to avoid the older copies due to the oil issue. The 24mm f2.8 seems
    to have people rather divided as some swear by it while others hate it.

    I would love to get the 17-35mm f2.8, but that is out of my budget. I am not really considering DX lenses too
    because I would prefer to buy a lens that I can use on my D70s and F3HP.

    Would really appreciate if anyone can give me some advice on the above lenses; especially those who had used them
    before. Thanks!
     
  2. Im a prime kind of guy, so i would say buy the two primes.
    The 24 is a great lens, it has Nikon's amazing CRC, which keeps things sharp especially when they are close.
    You gain some speed with the 35's one stop advantage over the 20-35, and if you buy from KEH, you can ask them about a specific lens and get the serial.

    http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#35

    I cant speak for or against the zoom, since I don't really use expensive zooms, but Ken seems to be a fan. Although ive never really seen anything that he didn't like so...
     
  3. Take a look at Bjorn's site. After studing a bit I decided to get a 20mmf2.8 paired with a 28mm f2 because I don't like the weigth, size and price of the 17-35mm f2.8. I use a D200 only.
     
  4. If I had the cash today, I'd buy the 17-35 2.8, but I have the 20-35 and it is a fantastic lens in its own right. I also have the 35 2.0 and I am amazed with the quality. If you buy the 35, get a new one. It isn't that expensive for a good lens and you won't have to worry about any unseen issues.

    If you can find a 20-35 at a good price, you won't be disappointed with image quality or ease of use. Heavy? I don't find it heavy. Compared to the 17-35 or 28-70 it's lightweight. :)

    Lou
     
  5. bmm

    bmm

    Hey can any of you guys comment on the edge/corner performance of the 35/2 on FX? I have it and love it on DX, and am so looking forward to using it on FX when I make the jump to D700 or its successor. But will removing the DX crop / centre 'sweet spot' effect reveal any weaknesses? I've not found any definitive commentary on this in my quick searches.
     
  6. Alvin,

    You mention your preference for moving physically closer to your subject and also mention the significant weight of some zoom lenses - I think you may have answered your own question in part. I have both the 35mm f/2 and the 24 f/2.8 both are a delight on a DX format camera - the 35mm length in particular I find most valuable and as you know both are of negligable weight. I purchased a 2nd hand 24mm AF- D and a new 35mm AF-D my only regret is not enough time to use them all!
     
  7. I love my 24/2.8 AF-D (currently, my favorite lens), generally I prefer to use primes (also have the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 in my bag), another idea would be to do what I've done and go for the 35-70/2.8 (rather than the 35mm prime) which is lightweight and will provide excellent images
     
  8. Thanks guys for the replies! Appreciate it!
     

Share This Page

1111