Best 30-35mm prime for D300

<p>Hi all, if your like me and you follow this forum on a semi-regular basis, the "what-lens-should-I-buy" questions can become a bit tedious. In light of that, I'll try and make my query as focused as possible. I just recently took shipment of a D300 and I am trying to decide on a 35mm prime. Like many, I currently owne the 50mm f/1.8, and although it is indeed a great lens, I often find the focal length too long for landscapes and chasing around my toddlers. I have researched my options ad-nauseum and I have to admit I am experienceing a bit of "option paralysis". The candidates thus far are the well-regarded Sigma 30mm 1.4, or the Nikkor 35mm f/2 or the more updated Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G--but being an "old school" film guy (whose first SLR was a Fujica ST-605), I am not ruling out a quest for for the manual focus AIS 35mm f/1.4. That being said, I am interested in hearing from others of similar "vintage" who have gone through the process of choosing a lens of this focal length for advanced amateur DX use. Cheers!</p>

<p>I'm a started-in-the-1970's Nikon SLR guy, who exposed untold miles of film with a 50/1.8 (manual, and then early AF along the way). I like that feel well enough to have wrestled with the same thing when re-inventing my shooting with DX-format DSLRs. Looking at Nikon's 35/2 and the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM (this was before the 35/1.8 G was made), it was a quick no-brainer. The extra 5mm wider is really noticeable and - for me - desireable, and the qualitative look of the 30/1.4, its focus speed, and its build made it a no brainer. I've since tested the 35/1.8, and wouldn't go that way, given the choice. I don't like the bokeh, mostly, and I don't like how it behaves wide open or nearly so. <br /><br />It's a perfectly servicable lens, and it's half the price of the 30/1.4. But it's not for me. <br /><br />As for manual focus ... are you planning on changing the focus screen in the camera? That would be a must, for me, to even consider it if shooting anything out-and-about and on the fly. I don't miss my all-manual-focus-all-the-time days, actually. AF on a normal lens is nice, especially when you're dealing with really shallow DoF.</p>

<p>I have the manual focus Nikon 35mm f2 AI lens, which is a great lens. But the new Nikon 35mm f1.8 G is better for DX format in my experience. I like the lens, the price was right, and it's on the camera quite often when I want to go light. </p>

<p>The Sigma has pro build, less CA, f1.4. I use one on my D300 and think it's great. I found a used one on E bay for $280.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>If you actually like manual focus, and if you expect you might like to use the lens on film or FX sometime, don't forget the Zeiss ZF 35/2. It's stunning, and good wide open to the corners of FX.</p>

<p>My eyes aren't good enough to focus using a DX viewfinder.<br>

The Sigma is better if you plan to shoot wide open. The Nikon is better if you plan to stop down a little. There's not a heck of a lot of difference between them, so if money is tight, go with the cheapest and you'll be happy with either.</p>

<p>+1 for Sigma. I would recommend Zeiss only if you plan to go FX at any time in future.</p>

<p>i've compared both the 35/1.8 and the 30/1.4, at 1.4-2.8, the sigma was a clear winner. not just sharpness but color rendition was better. didnt try them stopped down, because i dont get a fast lens to shoot it at f/8. that said, if you're not comparing the two directly, the nikon is a very good lens.</p>

<p>Hi Craig...<br />Suffering the same problem here, with a small difference. I own the AF 35 f/2D, and I believe that is NOT the best for sure. Wide open it's not all that great, and I want better performance at f/2 (from ~f/2.8 on, the lens is fine). Since I love the ~35mm length on the D300, I've been looking around for the same thing.<br>

<br />My 'hotlist' consists of the 2 manual focus options (note, I do not mind MF for primes, and find the D300 focussing screen adequate). I strongly believe the Zeiss is the best one can buy right now. It's not exactly cheap, though. The AiS 35 f/1.4, for all I've seen, it's a seriously good and highly desirable lens. I tried several times on eBay but the prices are all quite high at the moment, so it may be me, but it looks hard to find one at a decent price. Both these MF options will cost considerably more than the Sigma, and certainly the Nikon AF lenses.</p>

<p>The Sigma is tempting, for sure. Most cases, I would recommend the 35 f/1.8, because it is a very reasonably priced lens, small and light, and the Sigma is on average twice the price and seems quite a bit larger. I can only follow the guidance here of the already given answer of people who tested both, though. Given photos I've seen, I think both are better than the 35 f/2D.<br /><br />I'm not much helping, but all I can say: strike the 35 f/2D from the list. In the meanwhile, I keep contemplating the Zeiss.</p>

<p>hrm... i love my 35 f/2, and believe it is perfectly sharp at f/2. lols</p>

<p>I'll give another plus for the Sigma 30 f1.4. Mr. Kent Staubus recommended it to me about a year or so back and I am very happy to have it. Once putting it on my D90 I didn't want to take it off I liked it so much I found uses for it. <br>

The Bokeh is so beautiful.<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>It depends on what you plan to do with this lens. If you plan to stick with a DX camera for awhile, and shoot hand-held and/or in low-light, then the Sigma 30 mm f1.4 sounds like your best option. If planning to move to FX sometime in the near future then the 35 mm Nikkor f1.4 might be a better choice. If you shoot slowly with the camera on a tripod and/or contemplate moving to a much higher resolution camera in the future, then the Zeiss 35 mm f2 is probably the one to buy.</p>

<p>After reading here and on Bjorn's site I choose the Nikkor 28mm f2 AIS and 35mm f2 AIS when I had DX. My top choices today would between the Zeiss 35mm f2, Nikkor 35mm f1.4 or Sigma 30mm f1.4 depending on needs then price. You may want to read what Bjorn has to say about the Nikkors: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a></p>

<p>If you have film or FX in your future and you don't mind manual focus then the Zeiss 35mm ZF is your best bet by a country mile - I am sorry to say it makes any other 35mm on FX look shabby including exotica like the 35mm f1.4 AIS. But there is a price for that performance.<br />If you are happy to stick to DX then the Nikon 35mm f2 AFD is fine as the bad bits are cut off and the AIS are equally fine too.</p>

I thought "country mile" was an American thing to say. James is right about the 35mm ZF, though: it's astonishingly good. If you intend to chase toddlers, though, you might prefer AF. Also, if you want a 35mm non-zoom lens because it should be small and light, then the Zeiss will be surprisingly large and heavy.

 

To help with your option paralysis, I'll also offer that you might enjoy a 24mm lens as a small, fast, slightly wide option, and the 24mm Nikkors aren't too expensive.

 

I'll admit to being of similar vintage to you, with a history of using film and manual focus cameras. I avoided your problem, though, by starting with a D700, which works nicely with the lenses I already had. The thing that kept me from a D300 was that I knew I wanted small, light, fast lenses in the 24mm to 35mm range, and that I couldn't get those equivalents on DX.

<p>"I thought "country mile" was an American thing to say." Consider me globalised!</p>

<p>And globalized, too.</p>

<p>Thanks to all who responded to my original post. Especially those who have tried and tested the candidate lenses I listed and provided anecdotal feedback. After more contemplation I think my infatuation with a MF lens was more nostalgic than practical. The Sigma f/1.4 seems to be the front runner at the moment. It appears it would serve me well for those candid, quick--grab the camera family snapshots in natural, available light...and also have the decent quality bokeh for artistic, fine art shooting--which is also a passion of mine. I also own the Sigma 70-200 HSM II f/2.8, and have achieved quite satisfying and sometimes surprising results---including snagging some very strong images hand-held on a whale watch boat on Stellwagen Bank off of Cape Cod, MA last summer with my ole D50. Cheers, Craig</p>

<p>Not as globalised as globalized though - still somewhat British! I've got to draw the line somewhere.</p>

<p>Good luck with your Sigma Craig - I am sure it will serve you well. Although I am a Zeiss ZF aficionado these days when it comes to photographing my two little daughters out comes the Nikon 50mm f1.4 G and as if by magic almost everything is in focus. Manual focus is great provided you have the time to do it...</p>

<p>Surprised at the anti 35/2 sentiment here. It is my most used lens (on DX) and I love it - good colour, contrast and a nice fast aperture plus small size and weight.... also it still works if you ever go FX.</p>

<p>Obviously this is not a comparative post and I'm sure the newer Nikon G lens and Sigma are also lovely. But by no means is the AF-D Nikon a dog... in fact after my 85/1.4 it is my second most loved lens.</p>