35/2.0D or 50/1.4D on DX

[rjpierrard]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I've read through a thread already about the advantages/disadvantages for each of these lenses for portraiture, but I'm not as interested in doing portraits as I am low-light and as a walk-around lens.</p>

<p>I've been designing my setup with the minimum number of (exceptional) lenses to do everything, so I have planned:<br>

the Tokina 12-24/4.0 (61-99* FOV on DX) - for general wide angle<br>

either the Nikon 35/2.0 or 50/1.4 (32* or 44* on DX) - walk-around/low light<br>

and the Nikon 300/4.0 IF-ED (5.4* on DX) - for general telephoto (a weighty lens that won't be taken all the time).</p>

<p>I do prefer the FOV of the 35/2.0 over the 50mm on a DX body, and they're the same price, but the 35 is a rather noticeable stop slower. The 50mm is also better situated between the wide and telephoto, but if I'm going to be using it a lot, I'd rather have a 'more suitable' FOV, and aperture range at my disposal.<br>

Even though the 35/1.8G is actually cheaper, I'd rather get a D-series for the variable aperture (also, the G-series lenses just look bloated).<br>

Unfortunately, I don't see any other autofocus fast primes of the same calibre and price range, unless someone could suggest one.</p>

<p>Thanks for any suggestions and comments!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 35/1.8 DX is a better quality lens for shooting at a wide aperture than the 35/2D.</p>

<p>The 85/1.8D is also a nice lens that is not too expensive.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>agree with ilkka, forget the 35/2. it's just not sharp enough wide open. go for the 35/1.8 or sigma 30/1.4 instead if you need sub-2.8 aperture. if you can get by with 2.8, the sharpest of all of those lenses in that range is the tokina 35 macro.</p>

<p>with your planned set up, you would have a ginormous gap between 35 or 50 and 300. is that really what you want?</p>

 

[rjpierrard]

<p>@Ilkka: I don't doubt that the 85/1.8 would be nice, but the FOV is just too narrow as a walk-around lens in my opinion, and especially so on a DX.<br>

@Eric: I'd much prefer the faster apertures: If I have to go beyond f/1.8, I may as well just get the $100 50/1.8D, instead of spending five times that on something else.<br>

The Sigma 30/1.4 seems like a good candidate, but unless 'DC' is the same as 'DX' then it would end up being about a 32* FOV like the other 50mm lenses. And it is $150-200 more expensive.<br>

Regarding the gap between 35/50 and 300, if I Really needed to, I've got some older manual focus lenses that could do the trick: a 200/3.5, and a 85-210/3.8. I just doubt that that range would be incredibly essential, and I really don't want to add another (several hundred dollar) lens just to fill a gap I doubt I'll use.<br>

I suppose I could replace the midrange lens with a 28-105 or so, but the aperture availability is horrible, in comparison. And any faster lenses are $500 or more.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Respectfully disagree about the 1.8 vs. 2.0. Yes, the 1.8 is a touch sharper in the corners wide open. But, the 2.0 has significantly lower geometric distortion, less vignetting, and less chromatic aberrations. Of course, the 1.8 is G lens, which is a must on consumer grade DX bodies. On balance, I'd say the 2.0 is worth the extra $$$.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>Why would you say a G lens is better on a DX body?<br>

Personally I would prefer being able to set the aperture, even if the overall quality is a bit better.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Why would you say a G lens is better on a DX body?</em></p>

<p>Because it is a more modern design, designed specifically for DX. The 35/2 is very weak wide open though it's quite good stopped down a bit.<br>

<br /><em>Personally I would prefer being able to set the aperture, even if the overall quality is a bit better.</em></p>

<p>With a G lens you set the aperture on the sub-command dial on the camera body. I wouldn't say the overall quality of the 35/1.8 is better (they both have advantages and disadvantages), just that for low light it's better when you need to shoot at or near the maximum aperture.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>For me personally, 50mm is too narrow for use as a walk-around lens on DX. It's much more suited to portrait work.</p>

<p>And, I think Dan was referring to the fact that the 35/1.8 is AF-S, which is required for AF on consumer level bodies. G or non-G doesn't matter with newer bodies. Non-G lenses should be set at minimum and controlled from the wheel anyway, unless you're shooting in manual mode.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>With regard to the AF vs AF-S: I'm planning on getting the D90, which I believe allows for autofocus on non-AF-S lenses as well.</p>

<p>@Ilkka: Well that's a relief - at least the aperture can still be set; I would just prefer the aperture ring in an ideal world.</p>

<p>Also, looking at the blur indexes on slrgear, the 50/1.4D is better at almost all apertures compared to the 35/1.8G. Unfortunately, other similar lenses haven't been tested.</p>

[tony_correa1]

<p>For a walk about prime lens on DX, I'd go with the 35mm. Had mine about 20 years, still going strong. Last Fall participated in a photo walk with Jason Odell from Nikonians.org using a 35/2 AF on a D90 for about half of my images. http://tonycorrea.com/blog/2010/10/photowalk-with-jason-odell/<br>

Although the 35/1.8 DX gets good reviews and is a great bang-for-the-buck lens, for myself, the lack of a distance scale kills it as a street lens. </p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma 30/1.4 seems like a good candidate, but unless 'DC' is the same as 'DX' then it would end up being about a 32* FOV like the other 50mm lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not the case. 30mm is 30mm, period. That 30/1.4 is 5mm wider than the 35/2 you've been contemplating (and a very nice walk-around focal length, I might add - and that Sigma just plain looks terrific, though of course we're into somewhat subjective territory there). It costs the same (close enough) to the 50/1.4 you're thinking about, so that's not an issue either.</p>

[acbeddoe]

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma 30/1.4 seems like a good candidate, but unless 'DC' is the same as 'DX' then it would end up being about a 32* FOV like the other 50mm lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? 30mm is 30mm.</p>

<p>Edit: Matt beat me to the return key by seconds (with a more complete answer).</p>

[acbeddoe]

<blockquote>

<p>Well that's a relief - at least the aperture can still be set; I would just prefer the aperture ring in an ideal world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't really use the aperture ring - it has to be locked to minimum aperture to allow the camera to operate it, so there's no operational difference between G and D lenses.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>Because I'll be using a crop sensor, 35mm (normally 62* FOV) will be 44*; the Sigma 30/1.4 is listed as 45*, but unless I see 'designed for DX' then I assume the FOV will be cropped down; sorry for the misunderstanding.</p>

<p>@Charles: thanks for the clarification on the D vs. G lenses.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>DX only means that the lens casts an image circle smaller than that of an FX lens, since it's designed to be used with smaller sensors. I personally find it an advantage to use FX lenses on DX since you are only using the center of the larger image circle, which is where lenses tend to perform their best.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Matt and Charles + 1 (does that actually mean +2?? <g>)</p>

<p>For years I carried my FE around with a Nikkor 50/1.4 AI mounted. At times, the 50 was just a tad long. I didn't always have it at 1.4, but it was available. Now that I have a DX (D300) the only alternative is the Sigma 30/1.4. So far it has proved to be an excellent lens.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Because I'll be using a crop sensor, 35mm (normally 62* FOV) will be 44*; the Sigma 30/1.4 is listed as 45*, but unless I see 'designed for DX' then I assume the FOV will be cropped down; sorry for the misunderstanding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert, a 35mm f2 D "full frame" lens and a 35mm f1.8 G "DX" lens have the same exact field of view. (I think you know that, but I'm not positive.) The 1.8 doesn't have as big an image circle. Only difference really. focal length is focal length is focal length.</p>

<p>ANY 35mm lens is going to make a reasonable "normal" lens (like 50mm used to be on film) on FX. ANY 50mm lens will be a short telephoto (decent for portraits by the way) on DX. My 35mm f1.8 is FANTASTIC on my D90.</p>

<p>You basically have to set the aperture from the camera, leaving the aperture ring at it's smallest setting and engaging the lock, so the aperture ring is no advantage, unless the lens is being shared with an older film SLR.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY reason to prefer the 35mm f2 lens over the 35mm f1.8 is if you also shoot film or FX, in which case, the f2 is CLEARLY the lenst to buy.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>robert, DC = DX. IMO the sigma is better than the 35/1.8 because its bokeh is so very creamy. it also has better build and IMO is sharper at common apertures, at least up to 2.8. the nikon has better corners stopped down, but if the primary use is low-light, the sigma is better. (ditto for the sigma 50 vs. either of the nikon 50 1.4s.) i also found, in comparison, that the colors are also more natural (which is not always the case with sigma glass).</p>

<p>if you're on a budget and dont care about somewhat harsh bokeh, though, you could pick up the 50 and the 35 1.8s for less than the sigma alone.</p>

<p>also, with a D lens on nikon DSLRSs, the aperture is only set by the aperture ring in manual focus mode. in any other mode, it needs to be set to the maximum aperture. so its really only an option you need if you shoot in manual a lot or switch between film and digital.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Robert, the key question is what width lens do you want for walk-around low light?</p>

<p>I use both these lenses on my D300 (a DX body). The 50mm f/1.4D on DX works as a short telephoto. I regularly shoot low light portraits (head and maybe shoulders) with the 50 f/1.4 and I like this a lot. Works well in restaurant lighting for head shots across the table. </p>

<p>The 35 f/2 is "normal" or actually little longer than the theoretical "normal" lens. If you like the 50mm equiv perspective, this will be pretty close. I use it, but would prefer something a little wider. I wish there was a 24mm f/2 for DX (35mm equiv). That would be a walk-around low light lens.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>My understanding is that a "normal" lens has a focal length equal to the film/sensor diagonal dimension. Thus, a 29mm lens is normal in DX and a 43mm lens is normal on FX.</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>The 35/1.8 DX is a better quality lens for shooting at a wide aperture than the 35/2D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, at wide apertures like f1.8-f2.8 it's quite a dramatic difference too. I was pretty amazed when I tested my 35 1.8 against my 35 f2 AI.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>@Peter Hamm: thanks for the clarification :)<br>

@Eric Arnold: thanks, I wasn't entirely sure on the 'DC' notation - I haven't looked nearly as much at Sigma lenses. Thanks for the comparison as well - it's great to hear first-hand :)<br>

@Richard Karash: I certainly would prefer the FOV of a 30/35mm; I do currently have some manual focus 28s, but they're not nearly as good for low-light.<br>

If you're looking for a low light 28mm, there is the 28/1.4D, but at $1400, you might as well go right to the Zeiss 28/2.0 Distagon - it's actually cheaper.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>I believe Robert asking:<br />"Why would you say a G lens is better on a DX body?"<br />he really means: Why would you say <strong>THE</strong> 35/1.8 G lens is better on (?) DX body? - and not necessarily why "<strong>a</strong>" G lens is better on <strong>a</strong> DX body?<br />Back to your original question:<br />Since you plan to get 12-24 Tokina, then I would rather get 50/1.4D lens instead of 35mm, assumming that your DX body can do autofocus via mechanical shaft, or get 50/1.4G lens otherwise.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Since you plan to get 12-24 Tokina, then I would rather get 50/1.4D lens instead of 35mm, assumming that your DX body can do autofocus via mechanical shaft, or get 50/1.4G lens otherwise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a tricky one. i have all three of those focal lengths. the 35 gets used more than the 50 on DX. but if my next-longest FL was 300, i would want something a little longer than 35.</p>

[luis_matias1]

<p>HI Robert</p>

<p>I agree with Ilkka Nissila. The 35mm f1.8G is a better lens.<br>

You should read (if you did not already) the following Thom Hogan reviews of:<br>

- 35mm f1.8G <a href="http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-DX-AFS-lensreview.htm">http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-DX-AFS-lensreview.htm</a><br>

- 35mm f2D <a href="http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-D-lensreview.htm">http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-D-lensreview.htm</a></p>