david_achille Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Hi all, I currently have a Nikon system with a D300 togehter with 2 film bodies(N80 and F65) with 4 Tamrons(17-50mm,28-75,90mm DI Macro, 70-300mm DI LD, 1 Tokina DX(12-24 F/4) and a Nikon 55-200mm VR. i would like your advice on the choice of a good prime for all purpose use (light and easy to handle) and I going for the Nikkor 35mm F/2.0D. I do not want to buy a DX lense due to the uncertainty of the DX future. Thanks David Beau Bassin Mauritius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiro Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 "a good prime for all purpose use (light and easy to handle) and I going for the Nikkor 35mm F/2.0D." Great choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 "the uncertainty of the DX future." ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The 35mm f/2 AF-D is a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I don't think the DX future is uncertain. Nikon will produce DX cameras for entry and mid- level cameras for a long time. Eventually FF sensors may get cheap enough to push DX sensor down to entry-level cameras only. But that appears to be a number of years away. Also note that Nikon supports DX lenses on the D3, though I doubt that many people would choose to use DX lenses on a D3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_margolis Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 David, I also have a D300 and a few of your current lenses. Funny, I was looking at the 35mm f/2 just yesterday. I used to have the 50mm f/1.8, a great lens but the focal length is just a bit too long for me shooting digital. The 35mm fits in with my kind of photography much better. I am sure I will get one of the 35's, maybe the f/2 or possibly the older f/1.4 AIS. IMO it is an outstanding prime, perfect for digital. And I echo the others about DX. There is no uncertainty about its future. DX will be around long after I am gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tri-x1 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I suspect as the sensors become more refined it is more likely new FX lens production will cease. Once noise issues are addressed (and they will be) there will be no need for what we know as "full frame". That is an arbitrary size established when 35mm cameras were introduced. I believe Nikon introduced the D3 only because it were receiving a certain amount of heat because Canon had one and it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j1 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Canon has had full-frame for year and still produce 1.3 and 1.6 crops sensors. Why would you think Nikon wouldn't follow suit and keep a variety? That being said, I have the 35mm f/2 and a D300 and I think it's an excellent combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I doubt your prediction, Wayne. Landscape photographers will always want more resolution. Manufacturers will pack sensors with more photo sites as they get better at dealing with noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I prefer the slightly wider 28mm f2.8 AIS prime on my D300 as a walkaround lens. And I believe it is known as one of the highest-performing primes Nikon ever made, it should outperform the 35mm f2 AF-D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_margolis Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Dave, I considered the 28mm f/2.8 AIS. Bjorn rates it a 5 on the D2X, as good as it gets. However, he also gave a 5 rating to the 35mm f/2 AIS, adding that "the corner quality isn't outstanding" on the newer D version. I figure I can almost always take a couple steps back when using the 35mm lens but I can't make the 28mm lens any faster. Bottom line, both are great lenses. No losers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeux tortu Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 This lens is superb on D300. Light weight, and the lens is sharp and contrasty even wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_manning1 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The 35mm f2 with a full frame (Nikon F6) was my favorite film rig. It's a great lens, light, and fast. I wouldn't worry about corner softness on any of the primes with a DX sensor like the D300...it won't see it. FWIW, when I got a D300 to replace my F6 combo, I bought a Nikkor 24mm f2.8, and I'm enjoying the same field of view. The half-stop of speed difference seems to be a wash with the 800 ISO of the D300. Happy shooting. David Manning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_achille Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 I thought of the 24mm f/2.8 but I would prefer to get the same FOV of the old faithful 50mm on film, also to make me more disciplined when it comes to framing and taking the shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Years ago, I had the 35mm f/2.0 AF for my introduction to AF. That lens failed when the aperture blades became gummed up, so I went back to my manual focus version, the f/1.4 AIS. I now have a D40, and while I have every manual focus AI / AIS Nikkor from 20mm to 300mm, I need an auto-focus lens for metering with my camera. I dug out the 35mm f/2.0, mounted it and shot a whole series at f/2.0 (the only f-stop that would work). The results were so good that I went out and bought a brand new one. This lens has been on my camera for thousands of photos now, and it makes for a nice compact body / lens combo that delivers great images. This lens offers good sharpness and contrast, even wide open. It allows selective focus or deep focus when needed. The lens focuses quickly, and for me of the D40, manual focus via the electonic rangefinder is fast and sure. This is one more vote, based on experience for the 35mm f/2.0 AF as a nice prime lens for a digital Nikon.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 ... And a street type shot at a more moderate aperture.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_achille Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 Nice colours Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Please allow me to post just one more example from the 35mm f/2.0 AF Nikkor. I just shot this about two hours ago, while eating lunch. I have my DSLR with me as often as I can, and the small 35mm lens makes it a size that I can tolerate. In this mexican restaurant, I liked the colorful wall paintings, but even more so the terrific waitress that had served me. After paying the bill, I asked if I could shoot her portrait, and she agreed. This is at f/2.0 and 1/20th of a second with only the light of the front facing window 30 feet away. An aperture of f/2.8 or slower would not have worked. flash would have ruined the mood. A darker lens would have made manual focus impossible. A faster lens, such as a 50mm f/1.4 may have worked, but with less DOF, it would make the environmental elelments less distinct. In other words, the 35mm f/2.0 AF Nikkor was the perfect lens for me in this situation.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_achille Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 At what ISO was this photo taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 <I>At what ISO was this photo taken?</I><P> It was at ISO 200, the lowest for my camera. I just made up some 8 X 10 inch prints (this is but one of many shots) for the waitress, and they look very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now