AFD 35mm/f2 vs 17-35AFS/f2.8

[ray_shade2]

I own a 17-35 afs/f2.8 which performs admirably 1/2 stop down from wide open.

Though i enjoy the lens there are times i wish it was wider on the f stop.

I am wondering if adding a 35mm prime would be wise since the 35mm afd is a tad

faster? I enjoy shooting with available light. Sharpness wise i am not sure how

the afd 35mm/f2 measures against the zoom that i already own. Thanks for sharing.

[walterh]

Ray the 35mm f2.0 AFD has a high reputation but in terms of "sharpness" you will not gain anything except if you compare both lenses at f2.8. - beyond that expect no difference. If the extra f-stop will give you advantage only you can tell. The zoom is also excellent in adverse light condition - contrary to what one expects from a wide angle zoom. Perhaps if you use a very tight lens shade for use on a digital body (say for 50mm angle of view on film) you might get an edge shooting against the sun.

 

You might think about the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens. It is really faster but a big lens. It appears soft and has a small f-stop range of excellent sharpness but its images have a special look that many like. I like it a lot at f2.0-2.8, especially for available light portraits. Many complain that it is not contrasty enough. Try and see if you like the characteristics.

 

You might consider a used 28mm f2.0 AIS Nikkor in case you do not need AF or a chipped lens. Needs little room in the bag, pretty fast, excellent resolution (from close to infinity) and also carries a special "signature" but not so soft as the Sigma. Superior for adverse light conditions, you can get good shots with the sun included in the image. Seems perfect to me but a lot is personal taste because all the lenses mentioned are excellent.

[hugo_vincent]

Walter, I have a Simga 30mm f1.4, and have found it to be one of my sharpest lenses, at least in the center (even at f1.4), with good contrast, and fairly good resistance to flare. It seems there is quite some variation between individual samples of this lens, and many people report trying several samples before finding a really sharp one. It certainly does have a unique look.

 

Look at this review:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm

 

They note that the center is sharp right across the aperture range (in their "excellent" range from f1.4-f8), but the border sharpness is less that stellar. This may be partially attributed to the lenses focusing plane curvature (i.e. it's not a flat field design, which is to be expected; all it's a fast normal lens, not a macro lens), and it appears their testing method would severely punish non-flat-field focusing as far as border sharpness is concerned.

 

I strongly recommend this lens, it is one of my favourites!

[ray_shade2]

Thanks for the views with the Sigma. If i am not mistaken, it is a DX lens right? I wonder what are the views towards the overdue rumour on the full frame coming from Nikon. That isn't a big deal for me though the biggest wish is the improvement on the noise department comparable to Canon. The physical size of the sensor affects the noise too as i was told.

 

I will check out the 30mm Sigma. I found some CA on the copy which i sampled while the 35mm/f2 was not available. Thank you for all who contributed.

 

On a side note I tried the 12-24 Sigma as well, it was terrible at 12mm. It vignetts significantly. At 17mm at f16 on both, the corners didnt quite match Nikon's 17-35mm/f2.8 at 16, it was not even close.

[walterh]

"I wonder what are the views towards the overdue rumour on the full frame coming from Nikon. "

 

We all wonder but no one knows. My personal view is that once FF sensors become cheap Nikon will have a body out - there is no reason not to do so. Could be soon or in few years - many thousand images down the road.

[erik_loza]

I'm more or less with Walter on this. Just my 2-cents, but there isn't that much of a performance difference between this 35mm prime and the zoom. I have never used the Sigma, but that seems like a more logical solution. Good luck in your search.

[fred_bonnett2]

Ray - When you tried the Sigma 12-24 something went terribly wrong - that lens shows no vinetting at 12mm with Nikon sensors and almost none with FF film. Did you have a thick filter or a misplaced sunshade in place? Perhaps you just took off the 72mm lens cap instead of removing the entire slide-on lens cap.

 

For speedy lenses I like both the 35mm 2.0 and the 50 1.8. Both are critically sharp wide open and are light, well built optics.

[savagesax]

Stay with the 17-35, a remarkable lens for sure.

[ray_shade2]

Hi Fred, I tested the 12-24 thinking to purchasing it. I mounted it on tripod didn't had any mistakes made as you mentioned. It vignetts quite badly. (see below) The shop recommended the Tokina 12-24 instead.

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6024709-sm.jpg

[ray_shade2]

http://www.photo.net/photo/6024709 I meant this.

[akira]

Ray,

 

FWIW, you can compare the reviews of 17-35/2.8, 35/2.0 (and Sigma 30/1.4 on Canon Digital Rebel) here:

 

http://www.photozone.de/active/news/index.jsp

 

Click the "Reviews" tab at the top and then click the names of lenses you are interested in. According to these reviews, you have to stop down by one stop more if you want the same quality image from 17/35 set at 35mm as you will get one from 35/2.0.

 

I've never used 17-35 personaly, but I just loved what 35/2.0 offered to me.