Wide angle lens for f100

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by darya_a|1, Apr 19, 2018.

  1. hello. I have an f100 and currently shoot with a 50 1.4. But it’s not working well with getting quick shots of my kids. I think I need a wider angle lens. Any recommendations of a lens I can keep on the camera to have around the house for quick shooting?
  2. I like the AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D for this kind of duty. It is compact, is fairly quick to focus, has decent optical quality (certainly in the central part of the frame, if not so much at the edges), and provides a good, versatile angle of view for indoor shooting.

    The newer AF-S 35mm f/1.8G has significantly better optics, but is physically longer and more expensive. It's very good, but I sold my copy and bought an f/2D because I just like the smaller size of the "D" primes, and their IQ is good enough for my modest uses. The 35mm one, by the way, unlike some D lenses, has very nice focus feel if you like to focus manually now and then.
    darya_a|1 likes this.
  3. Here's a couple of kid pics taken with the 35mm f/2D on a D800.


    darya_a|1 likes this.
  4. erik_christensen|3

    erik_christensen|3 Self-employed

    I used 17-35mm f/2.8 for indoor and landscape on my F90X and still use it with D700 and D810 - excellent lens
    darya_a|1 likes this.
  5. Instead of a "pure" wide angle lens, I'd consider something more versatile. The (current) 24-85 f/3.5-4.5VR should work just fine on your F100, and is reasonably priced and optically fine.
  6. This is the lens on my D800 probably 80% of the time.

    If I wanted to travel with my F100+1 lens this is probably what I would use(although admittedly my F100 mostly sees primes).

    The F100 was introduced nearly 20 years ago, and there have been tremendous improvements in zoom lenses since then. It's a new enough camera that all but the very latest lenses(E aperture, AF-P) work perfectly on it.
  7. When my wife got her F100 some years ago she got it with the 28-105D zoom. That''s a pretty nice range, and the lens, though a bit on the slow side, is nice and sharp throughout, and it also does a creditable 1:2 closeup. I've used it occasionally on DX digital, where the range is somewhat less useful, and it's still a very decent lens. I like it for chasing bugs and the like. Of course there are some newer ones that may be better, but that one might be a pretty good match still, and if you can find a good used one, it seems to be going for about $150.
    darya_a|1 likes this.
  8. SCL


    The 50 should work fine for close in shots, but a 35 will do a better job of capturing them in action. Depending on your shooting conditions and issues you encounter in capturing your kids, you might think of using flash to reduce blur and capture them better in low light. I always used a bounce flash which worked well without creating hot spots or redeye.
    darya_a|1 likes this.
  9. If we're talking "around the house" and weight isn't a huge issue, could I make the out-of-the-box suggestion of the Sigma 24-35 f/2? For sprightly children you might find both the aperture and zoom ability useful. If they hold still, the 24-85 (or Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, which is tiny compared with the Nikkor) would be more flexible, but if you're after wide and you're trying to get a moving subject indoors on film (where just going to ISO6400 isn't so trivial), the Sigma offers an unusual zoom/aperture trade off.

    Just a thought.
  10. Thank you all very helpful! I should have clarified around the house I really meant outside. my kids are outside 75% of the time and thats where I would be shooting them, not indoors. So great light in CA.

    I have a Nikon 24-70 that I physically cannot use anymore because it’s just too heavy. I normally used it on my digital and not on any film camera. And I don’t shoot anymore digital. I think I am going to just sell that one it has barely gotten any use.

    I think I want to get a 35mm. The ones mentioned above sound great. But I also would get a zoom as well since I will be selling the 24-70 and I like the versatility of a zoom.

    Of the zoom lenses mentioned above or even ones not mentioned above, which one would be light enough to not break my wrist like the 24-70 but still have comparable picture quality? I don’t mind some weight just not as much as the 24-70. I appreciate the help. Thank you.
  11. The 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR is fairly light and plasticy. I'd call its build quality probably "high end consumer." It's a LOT lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8.

    Its image quality falls short of the 24-70 f/2.8(I'm guessing you have an older one, as the F100 can't control the aperture on the current model), but not enough to be noticeable on ASA 400 print film. If you were shooting Provia on a tripod, you could probably see its shortcomings, but I'm guessing that you're not doing that with your kids.

    BTW, if your 24-70 is the screwdriver version, you will be pleasantly surprised at how fast the 24-85 AF-S focuses.
  12. Get a 35mm.
  13. I would guess a nice 35 will be the most satisfying thing to get, and the 28-105D I mentioned above may be a little heavy, but in the "out of box" class, if weight is a factor, one might consider the famously cheap and plasticky 28-80 / 3.3-5.6G lens which was standard on some low end film cameras contemporary with the F100. It's light as can be, dreadfully cheaply made (screwdriver focus, G aperture, front element turns with focus, plastic mount), but surprisingly decent in sharpness, and not a bad range for the purpose. I got one of these for almost nothing complete with an N65 which I've never bothered to use, and it's really not that bad. Even from KEH where you get a warranty and the like, you can pick one of these up for between 50 and 80 bucks. For myself I think I'd rather get a good 35, but as a walking-around and not worrying about it sort of thing, that has its virtues.
    darya_a|1 likes this.
  14. I don't think there was a screwdriver 24-70, Ben!

    If you're after "light", that probably rules out the 24-35 (and the 35mm Art). Samyang/Rokinon make a good 35mm f/1.4, but I suspect it's a bit chubby for your needs, and it's manual focus.

    The 24-70 Tamron is much smaller and about 75g lighter than even the old Nikkor version if you miss the capabilities, but that may not be enough lighter. The 24-120 f/4 isn't much better.

    I'm a bit worried at the idea of shooting children outdoors with a 35mm prime. Kids tend to move, and they'll be quite small in a 35mm frame. Light permitting, the zooms seem wiser.

    I have the 28-80. It's certainly light. It doesn't show all that much sharpness on a 35mm sensor, but it could be worse; I keep it for occasional video shooting. The 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G is heavier, but still very manageable - I kept it on my D700 as a body cap in case I needed a shot in a hurry. It's not at all bad, especially at f/8 if you don't use a 36MP sensor! The 24-85 is optically better, but bigger.

    Good luck, whatever you choose. I kind of wish Nikon would revamp the optics on the 28-200 without making it heavier - while I don't mind the weight of I want aperture and quality, it would be nice to have a slower, lighter option. The nearest to those are the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-300 lenses (which are probably still too big for you, but would be good "chasing kids in the sun" lenses).
  15. Thank you all so much. I really appreciate the advice. I think I will get the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. I print a lot of film max size 8x10. Will the quality be good with this lens?

    Also will the Nikkor 35mm f/2D give me good prints?

    Finally where should I sell my 24-70 any recommendations would be great!
  16. If I'm not mistaken the F100 won't run a G lens correctly. If you are going to be shooting outside I'd find an 80-200 and add a 35 to that. Another option would be a 24-120 which gives quite good results and gives you a nice wide angle wide side and a decent short telephoto. I also have a very good Tamron 28-75/2.8 that gets a lot of work.

    Rick H.
  17. All the "two dial" cameras are fine with G lenses. The F5, F100, and N80 can all handle G, AF-S, and VR without any limitations. E and AF-P are off limits with any film camera(E will work if you stay at maximum aperture, and AF-P if you're okay with staying at infinity).

    You can even go back to the F4 with and some other cameras from that era(N8008) with G lenses-you just lose manual mode and aperture priority. The F4 is fine with AF-S, although it won't activate VR.

    The kit lens with my Pronia 6s is a G lens, although it predates that designation. It too will work fine with G and AF-S, although VR drains the battery without actually working.
  18. Need to be careful on the 24-120. While not as heavy as the 24-70 f/2.8, it is not a light lens.
    And you need to pick the version that will work with your camera. I do not know if the latest version will work on your camera or not.
  19. The latest 24-120 is "G" (no aperture ring) but not "E" (electronic aperture) or AF-P (stepper motor?)

    I'm reasonably sure it would be fine on an F100 (I could check an F5 if it helps, though my 14-24 AF-S G is certainly okay), but it's definitely not small. The variable aperture version is over 100g lighter, but famous for being optically worse than you'd expect for a recent lens. It's also "G".

    I suspect the 24-85 is a very good choice. It's not quite state of the art optically, but better lenses are bigger and more restrictive. You should be fine with a 10x8 unless you put a loupe on it - most recent complaints about lens quality assume peeping at tiny pixels. Watch out for things like distortion, which you'll see at a distance, but you can fix that digitally if you're going via a scan - did you intend to print optically?
  20. Both the current 24-120 and 24-85 work 100% perfectly on an F100.

    As I said, I'm happy with my 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR on my D800 as a walk-around lens. It's a nice combo, and the D800 is something of the 2012 version of the F100 both in terms of body size and in where it sits in the line-up. In fact, one of my "go to" bags is a Lowepro Nova 4 with my D800 and F100 in it, and then the 14-24 f/2.8 on one body, 24-85 on the other, and then a 50mm 1.4 and some sort of longer lens(often the 105 Micro f/2.8D Micro) in the center. That's not a light bag, but covers me for both film and digital over focal lengths I'm likely to use(I might like something longer than the 105 Micro, but compromise since I like having a true macro lens).

Share This Page