Normal Lens for D70

[emre_imamoglu]

<p>After switching to D70, my 50 f/1.8 is no more what we call normal.

On the other hand I really love what it has become for portrait work.</p>

<p>The problem is; I need a fast prime to use as a normal lens. Some

people consider the 35 f/2 as a normal (on full frame), not sure but I

may be one of them. Actually it's not really required to be exact 35

or 50 equivalent. But I prefer it to be within the 35-50 mm range.

There are 3 options (tight budget) 24 or 28 f/2.8 or the 35 f/2. You

can say that the 24 and 28 are not that fast but f/1.4 versions are

out of the budget. Also I'm not sure if I will really like the cropped

wide-ish perspective of the 24. You see, I'm confused.</p>

<p>Any comments are welcome.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Have you actually tried the 35mm f/2D? I'm not sure what you are asking beyond saying

you have a personal preference for one focal length over the others and if that is the case

what difference does it make what anyone else thinks?

[eric friedemann]

O.k., you liked a 50mm f/1.8 on film cameras. On a Nikon DSLR, a 35mm f/2.0 would become a 52.5mm f/2.0, which is pretty close to what you had. Also, the 35mm f/2.0 is reasonably-priced.

 

 

I love my 28mm f/1.4 AFD, which becomes a 42mm f/1.4 on my D100s. However, as you note, the price is steep.<div></div>

[mats_hellman]

I've been thinking of something similar.

 

with film i have (had) 24, 50, 80-200. I felt all sorted and I had everything i needed.

 

Now I have a d70 which is great. I don't like the cropped wide angle view of my much-loved nikkor 24 mm. It's sitting on my film camera waiting...

 

I too want my 50 mm film vieuw "back". you put my thinking about a 35 mm...

 

I now have a tamron **bla bla** 17-35, which is ok. I use it either jammed to 17 or ot 35. which brings me back to my 24 and 50, talking of field of vieuw.

 

I'm not all happy about my 'sollution' yet, as I'd rather use primes, but hey, maybe I just need to change myself a bit and maybe theres not such a problem...?

 

Ok well perhaps this helps,

 

cheers,

 

mats

[emre_imamoglu]

<p>No I have not. </p><p>

Ellis, it makes a lot differences. I have been reading PN for about a year and all of my decisions of photography were made by the help of messages posted by you or others that I respect their experience and knowledge. For now I'm quite satisfied for what I have done and what the PN members recommended. As for trying the lenses. It's not quite possible to do that in Turkey. You try what you buy.</p>

 

<p>Sorry if I wasn't explanatory enough. I want a sharp prime to use as an alltime carry-on lens. This will me lightweight kit with the D70. Street photography and casual indoors will be the main asset. </p>

<p>

Also, beside the focal length, Sharpness, contrast, AF, distortion etc. are important for a nice lens (if I'm not mistaken) So I'd like to hear your comments about these too.

</p>

<p>I hope I have expressed myself correctly. Sorry for the crappy English.</p>

<p>

Kindest Regards.<br>

Emre</p>

[bwcombs]

I keep the Nikon 35mm f/2 AF on my D70 most of the time, and I

really like it with that camera. It mimics the "normal" lens

characteristics on that DSLR. It's fast, and very sharp. And it's

affordable (my opionion). I bought it with a rebate from Nikon

that's still going on, I believe.

 

The kit lens is fine for what it is, but it is slow in low light, and a

bit distorted on the wide end.

 

My F2 still has the 50mm f/1.4 Nikon lens and it is superb. So I

share your affection for normal lenses.

 

Good luck!

[fourfa]

How about the Sigma 24 or 28 1.8? Reasonable prices, though I can't comment on the performance.

 

28 seems like the perfect normal length on a DSLR to me.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Then I, myself, would choose the 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor if I had to choose a single focal

length lens. Actually, because of the way i tend to see I'd either go with an 85mm f/1.8D

or

an 18mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor. More ideally I'd choose a 17-35mm f/2.8D and a 35-70mm f/

2.8D. But that is just

me.

[chmoss]

Avoid the Sigma 28mm F1.8. I have one. Mine is awful. I use the 35mm F/2 or the 24mm f/2.8

[uli_theune]

Maybe a solution would be to sell the D70?<br> Otherwise ... if you liked the perspective of the 50 on film, the closest would probably the 35 mm lens. It shouldn't matter what <i>other</i> consider as normal but what <i>you</i> consider as your normal lens. <br> The 35/f2 is a decent lens (my favourite - for film), light, sharp, ... Don't know much about the 28 or cropped 24 ...

[gary_loo]

<p>Emre, I second the 35mm 2.0D. It is fast, very sharp, has very little distortion and

very good bokeh.  <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3072152-md.jpg"><b>Here</b></a>

is a low light, hand held shot made with the 35mm 2.0D using a Nikon D2H. 

I actually prefer the 30mm angle of view (using my 20mm 2.8D) but the 35mm 2.0D

has such beautiful background blur that I find myself using it it a lot. 

You really can't find anything bad about the 35mm 2.0D and a few people actually

think it is comparable to the 28mm 1.4D at 1/5 the price.</p>

[emre_imamoglu]

Thanks to all for the contribution. I think I'll try to get one of these 35s. I think it is the sharpest of my options and possibly the least distortioned one.

[eric friedemann]

"You really can't find anything bad about the 35mm 2.0D and a few people actually think it is comparable to the 28mm 1.4D at 1/5 the price."

 

 

I used the 35mm f/2.0 AFD for years and had the 35mm f/2.0 AF before that. They were great and compared quite favorably to a 35mm f/2.0 pre-ASPH M lens I had. Unfortunately, both of the 35mm f/2.0 AFD's I had developed oily aperture blades; but I think Nikon has solved the problem.

 

 

IMHO, behind the 50mm f/1.8 AFD, the 35mm f/2.0 AFD is the best bargain in Nikkor lenses. In low light, I like the 28mm f/1.4 AFD a little better at f/1.4-4.0; but for geometrically less $$$, the 35mm f/2.0 is a contender.