35mm lens - which one?

[kira_greene]

<p>Fellow photographers - I need your help.

 

I am looking into wide angle lenses. I want a 35mm lens. I have a photoshoot coming up and I really want the effects this lens can deliver. At least, I think I want the 35mm.

 

I have read reviews on both the 35mm f/2, and the 35mm f/1.4 DX. Now, I am initially pulled to the faster lens (my 50mm is a 1.4 and I absolutely love it) BUT the 1.4 in the 35mm is a DX lens, and eventually I am going to move to FF. However, I have read (on this forum) that the f/2 has sort of a clunky feel to it, and doesn't handle as well as you'd expect it to, that the DX is better.

 

I shoot with a Nikon D80 - so the DX lens isn't a problem, neither are regular lenses (for metering - the D80 is fully compatible. I know I am not getting true focal length on my non-DXlenses, but that doesn't bother me so much), but like I said, I am going to move up to full frame soon, so I don't want a lot of DX lenses. You can use the 1.4 DX on a FF camera body, BUT it has to be in DX mode, unless if you want vignetting.

 

UGH!

 

What would you do?

 

Oh, I looked into Zeiss, and at 1K for the 35 mm there is almost NO way I'll ever own that lens, as fabulous as it sounds. I have not looked into Sigma or Tokina - if you have experience or info on them, I'm all ears. :) I can spend about $400, tops.

</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kira, on your D80, a 35mm lens is not a wide angle lens.</p>

<p>So do you want a 35mm or do you want a wide angle lens?</p>

<P>There are many existing threads on comparing various 35mm lenses, e.g.: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VVo1

</P>

[bmm]

<p>I thought the Nikon DX was a 1.8 not 1.4... so the difference is not so large.</p>

<p>I can't speak for the DX but I use the 35/2 on my D80 all the time and it is anything but 'clunky'. It is a small, light, highly flexible lens that gives great colour and contrast and is a total joy to use. It is my default lens on my D80 when I am travelling (remembering on a DX body it turns into a normal lens not a wide). And of course its additional advantage is that you can still use it if you ever make the switch to an FX body. Definitely one of my very favourite lenses.</p>

<p>You're going to hear this many times so I might as well start it off, but the closest third party alternative is a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - while I have not used it I know many people here are fans of it and certainly some of the images posted have showed it to be a great contender as well. (Again though, 30mm on DX = equivalent 45mm, which is not wide at all).</p>

<p>Anyway bottom line is if you want to go FF and you want to spend around $400 you will not go wrong with the 35/2. The only issue is that you should revisit what you really mean by 'wide' because, until you go to FF, a 35mm won't be that wide at all. If it really is wide you want and you still only have that budget etc then you may have to have a look at the 24/2.8 or something like that.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>There is a Sigma 28mm/f1.8 which is a FX lens and fits in your budget. I have it's wider sister (24mm/f1.8) and I'm happy with it. But as I know so far, Nikon 35mm/f2 is a decent lens...</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>With any lens it's always a case of "horses for courses", meaning that a lens that's ideal for one situation won't necessarily be suitable in another situation. Same goes for personal preference.</p>

<p>My own favourite 35mm lens is an old 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor, but then I don't like to see my buildings leaning over backwards and, yes, I know that PhotoShop can correct verticals perfectly well. I also own a manual focus 35mm f/2 which gives great image quality. I rarely use it wide-open, but I just like the bright viewfinder image and the snappy focus. All this is on a D700 by the way, and I actually prefer to use the old MF Nikkors I've had for years over many of the newer AF versions.</p>

<p>The 35mm f/1.4 is a highly praised lens, but personally I could not warrant the extra cost over the f/2 because I know I would hardly ever use it at maximum aperture. What's the point of paying a premium for something you'll never use?</p>

<p>There's also the much-maligned Russian 35mm f/2 MIR 24-N, that can sometimes be picked up for next-to-nothing. IMHO it's a good lens, capable of results almost identical to the MF Nikkor version.</p>

[Two23]

<p>The very best ~35mm lens for DX cameras that I've tried and know about is the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It beats all of the Nikons anyway. The Sigma 28mm f1.8 is decent, I owned one. I would not use one on a D700 etc. though. I want the very best lenses, period. I won't cut corners on lenses. I own the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and use it when the light level is too low for my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. I'm not aware of any modern design 35mm lens for Nikon FX other than the Zeiss 35mm f2. The Nikon 35mm you are talking about is the 35mm f1.8G, which is a DX lens. I tried it--the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a better lens in every way except price.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Kira - As Shun succinctly pointed out, the crop factor on APS bodies makes a 35 mm act more like a 50 mm lens on a full frame body, ie, it has the field of view of a normal lens. However, even if you plan only to use the lens you purchase on a DX body (at least for the present time), there substantial performance differences between the older Nikon 35/f2 AFD (FX), the recently introduced Nikon 35/f1.8 (DX). Specifically, when wide open, the 35/2 AFD turns points of light in the corners of the frame into blobs of light elongated as if you were twisting the camera around its axis during the exposure. This is called loss of sagittal resolution. This is not a small effect. You can easily see it on 4x6 and even smaller prints when wide open. In the interest of fairness, I should comment that this problem does clean up nicely when you close the aperture by a stop or two, but why buy a fast lens if it isn't all that useful when wide open?</p>

<p>You can see the substantial difference between these two lenses by looking at the graphs at the bottom of the following two Nikon pages:<br /> http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/wideangle/af_35mmf_2d/index.htm , and<br /> http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_35mmf_18g/index.htm .</p>

<p>So as to "compare apples to apples" be sure to read the 35/f2 chart only out to about 14 mm on the horizontal axis, ie, the end of the horizontal scale on the 35/1.8 chart.</p>

<p>I have owned the Nikon 35/f2 for many years, and for applications where you might appreciate a bit of blurriness in the corners when wide open (eg, portraits), it is a wonderful lens and I love it for the shots it has given me in the past. Just don't try to shoot Xmas lights or stars with it wide open. ;-)</p>

<p>I've never tried the newer 35/1.8, but from everything I hear, and from the quantitative data on the Nikon website, it sounds considerably better than the 35/f2. OTOH, it is a "DX, G" lens, so it doesn't have an aperture ring, and is DX format, so it is guaranteed to be essentially completely useless on old film cameras and partially useless on FX bodies. ;-)</p>

<p>My personal recommendation is for you not to worry about an eventual transition to an FX body, but rather, purchase the best DX lens in this focal length range. You can always sell it when you move up to FX, or, if you are like me, keep your DX body (and its lenses) as a "backup" system (which I rarely use).</p>

<p>If you stay with DX lenses, I urge you to strongly consider the Sigma 30/f1.4 (DX). I own it and it absolutely blows the Nikon 35/f2 AFD out of the water, even when comparing it at f/1.4 and the latter at f/2. There are many reviews and comments on the Sigma lens and it has received an overwhelming vote of confidence from users.</p>

<p>The best of luck in your decision.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>"I am looking into wide angle lenses. I want a 35mm lens. I have a photoshoot coming up and I really want the effects this lens can deliver."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>whoa, slow down, there.</p>

<p>(exhale.)</p>

<p>ok., here we go.</p>

<p>wide angle is generally 28mm (FF) or under. 35mm is "normal" on DX. if you want a wide fast prime, you're looking at the sigma 20/24/28 1.8s or the nikkor 20/24/28 2.8s.</p>

<p>what "effects" are you referring to, anyway? bokeh? low-light ability? shallow DoF? the only thing a 35mm lens can do that your 50/1.4 can't do is shoot from a wider angle of view. and neither the 35/2 or 35/1.8 have as nice bokeh as the 50/1.4 AF-S (or the sigma 30/1.4).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>UGH! What would you do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, i wouldnt spend $1k on a Zeiss prime unless i was really really comfortable with manual focusing. (and even then, i might go for the voigtlander 20/3.5 or the 40/2 instead). lots of people like the 35/2--at least the folks who got the later ones without the sticky aperture blades--and if your FF move is imminent, meaning, like, next week or the week after, it makes sense to get that over a DX lens. the downside is, it's more susceptible to flare and ghosting being an older, film-era lens.</p>

<p>if your switch to DX is sometime farther away, i'd go for the sigma 30/1.4. its wider, faster, has better bokeh and better construction than the 35/1.8. sharpness is comparable, but the 35's bokeh is kinda "eh" . the only reason to pick the 35/1.8 over the 30/1.4 are size and budget. if your budget allows for $400, get the sigma. if your budget only allows for $200, or you want something small for travel, get the nikkor. either way, you can sell them for not much less than you paid for them if and when you actually do switch to FF.</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>Thank you all!</p>

<p>I didn't realize that the 35mm would be just like a 50mm on FF or film...but, I try to think long term on lenses and wasn't sure if investing in the DX was worth it. My move to FF isn't as close as I'd like it to be, but I know eventually I'll get there. :) So, when I do get there, I want a great little lens collection all ready to go.<br /> I am going to be going to a working ranch and I wanted to be able to get the types of photos that show the place - kind of like <a href="http://audreyhannahphoto.com/oldblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/33.jpg">this photo</a>. I think she used a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU">28mm</a> for that shot. <br /> I especially appreciate the information on the Sigma lens; I'm never sure about third party equipment. Now to compare the 35mm f/2 to the sigma 30mm f/1.4. :) If I play my cards right, I might be able to get a lens baby too! Now, wouldn't that be fun? :)</p>

<p>Thank you again - it was good to read that the 35 f/2 was not a clunky lens, because that was my original choice...which I might stick with. A trip to the camera store is in the very near future! :)</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>You also might consider the Nikon 20/2.8 AF-D.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kira, I have pointed this out many times in this forum. Buy the lens that meets your current needs, not something you might need a few years down the road. If you want wide angle, get the appropirate DX wide angle for your D80.</p>

<p>The DX format will be around for a long time. Should you not use it any more in a couple of years, there will be a very large used market to sell it to.</p>

[fernando_scherer]

<p>not sure you know what that this is the lens you want.. in fx its just like a normal lens... no wow into it, just a good low light one. if you mean what 35mm does on film, may be a 24mm is better for you.. well anyway, i like my 35 nikkor f1.8 dx, its light, sharp and <em>kind</em> <em>of</em> a good bokeh.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I am going to be going to a working ranch and I wanted to be able to get the types of photos that show the place - kind of like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://audreyhannahphoto.com/oldblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/33.jpg" target="_blank">this photo</a> . I think she used a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU" target="_blank">28mm</a> for that shot.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>kira, i have to ask: are you dead-set on a prime? if so, i would think a little bit wider, like the nikon 20/2.8, would be a good choice. however, in that shot you linked, there's nothing there that couldnt be done with an 18-55 kit lens stopped down. if you are fortunate to be in a place with really wide vistas, why not get an ultrawide? the sigma 10-20, for instance, would give you a really w-i-d-e perspective and be close to your $400 budget. i wouldn't get a 1.4 lens unless i planned on doing a lot of shallow DoF or low-light stuff, and, besides, you already have one.</p>

 

[tom_mann1]

<p>In my earlier post in this thread, I mentioned that the Nikon 35/f2 AFD produces very easy-to-see optical problems when run at f/2 with point sources of light. Attached is a snap of xmas lights that I took a couple of weeks ago that displays spherical aberration and loss of sagital resolution when run wide open that is clearly very easy to see, even in small image sizes.</p>

<p>Enjoy,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[john_morris4]

<blockquote>

<p>... kind of like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://audreyhannahphoto.com/oldblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/33.jpg" target="_blank">this photo</a>. I think she used a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU" target="_blank">28mm</a> for that shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, that photo looks like it was not taken with wide lens at all. The field of view is pretty narrow -- on a DX camera, you might get that coverage with a 35mm lens, but I'm thinking it's more like between 50 and 85.</p>

<p>The 35mm Zeiss is indeed a fabulous lens. It's a shame that Cosina/Zeiss just raised the price by $200. Optically, there is very nearly nothing to complain about -- it's sharp across the whole (FX) frame at f/2 (at least, as sharp as a D700 can discern), the corner light falloff is mild wide open and gone at f/2.8, it handles backlighting extremely well, out-of-focus backgrounds are almost always inoffensive, and pictures from it look very clean and sparkly. It is pretty big and heavy for a fixed 35mm lens, though, and would probaby feel even bigger and heavier on a D80. On a D700 it's pretty nice, but it's still conspicuously large and heavy compared to Nikon lenses of a similar focal lengh (28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, even 85/1.8).</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>You need to decide on focal length and how important are all the electronic functions (e.g. AF) for you. If you have a DX body and a kit zoom, then that will go a long way. Wide-angles on DX lack a good middle ground; there are either kit zooms, superwides or more expensive and esoteric options. Take the Zeiss 21/2.8: a superb lens that costs a bunch and is manual focus. The Voigtländer 20/3.5 is manual focus, but has electronic functions, is actually wide on DX and is excellent value (at least with European prices).<br>

I don't recommend going with a superwide; those are a bit specialized tools and take a while to master. The image you linked to is not shot with a particularly wide lens, in FX terminology it would reasonable close to 50.</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>Eric, <br>

no, I am not dead set on a prime, the 35 was listed on nikons page as wide angle and it was in my price range. I'm pretty interested in that sigma you mentioned, and will definitely be looking into it.</p>

<p>Tom, oh wow - you weren't kidding around about distortion...I might take some heat for this, but I actually kind of like that picture - it looks like an effect you can use in GIMP called wave or swirl or something like that. </p>

<p>To everyone who responded, thank you! I appreciate the insight and advice offered here. Armed with the information and ideas presented here always makes for an easier time at the store. :)</p>

[keith_b1]

<blockquote>

<p>"... kind of like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://audreyhannahphoto.com/oldblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/33.jpg" target="_blank">this photo</a>. I think she used a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU" target="_blank">28mm</a> for that shot."<br>

Just so that we're all 'on the same page' here, that photo, if shot with full frame(FX), was shot <em>at least</em> a 100mm, if not 135mm or even 200mm. It is not a wide angle shot. The nicest image quality on a budget is going to be with the independents like Sigma, Tokina, etc. 24mm will give you a moderate wide angle effect on your DX, and a very strong wide angle on your[future]FX. If you are going buy only for DX, then go wider than 24--20mm, 18mm etc.</p>

</blockquote>

[tom_mann1]

<p>[<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4456979">Kira]</a> <em>"... Tom, oh wow - you weren't kidding around about distortion...I might take some heat for this, but I actually kind of like that picture - it looks like an effect you can use in GIMP called wave or swirl or something like that...."</em></p>

<p>Yup, there's also a similar filter in PS called, "radial blur / spin", but I'll swear on a stack of bibles that I neither used it, nor rapidly spun the camera around the optical axis of the lens, nor did anything else intentional or out of the ordinary to get this effect.</p>

<p>Fortunately, if your picture doesn't contain prominent point sources of light, or if you stop down a bit, or if you crop out just the center of the image, the sagittal blur effect becomes almost invisible. As I said, the 35/f2 really is quite a nice lens, but like all optics, one needs to be aware of its limitations.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

[albert_chan]

<p>I have a similar scenario. My cam is D700 FF, and I have nikkor 35/2, sigma 20/1.8 and sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6. I love the focal length of 35/2 but I want a higher grade lens. The pricey manual focus lens is out of my budget. I have considered sigma 28/1.8 but it seems overlap with my 20/1.8. Is there any other alternatives? Thankyou.</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>Albert, how about the Voigtlander (Cosina) 40mm f/2? It's manual focus, but chipped (not as important with a D700), and tiny.</p>

[fred_mackintosh]

<p>The Voigtlander (Cosina) 40mm f/2 is excellent, and super compact. It may well replace 35mm for me, but on full-frame. For wide angle on DX, I have found the 24/2.8AIS (should be same as the current AFD version) to be very good---better than the highly regarded 12-24/4 zoom. By comparison, I did NOT have good experiences with the 20/2.8AIS on DX. The 24/2.8 is also compact and reasonably priced. It will be equivalent to a 35 on full-frame. It may not be very fast at 2.8, but given the effective speed advantage of current digital sensors, it is a very practical (effective) 35mm prime lens on DX.</p>

<p>My experience with the 35/2.0AFD on DX is that it is excellent from about f/2.8 on. </p>

<p>24/2.8, 35/2.0 and CV40/2.0 are all in the same (reasonable) price range. </p>

[albert_chan]

<p>Thankyou everybody for your valuable opinions. Finally, I bought a used discontinued Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8 AF from e-bay :-)</p>