35 + 85 mm lens set for FF? Chances of a 35mm f/2.0 replacement?

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>I have the 85mm f/1.4, the 80-200 f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/4 and a D700. I would like to have a set of two or three (preferably 2) primes as a lightweight, compact, easy to carry set-up. The 35mm focal length seems to complement the 85 well on FX and has been my first option.<br /> I would like to hear comments on 2 or 3 prime setup. What i like to do the most is street photography & portraits.<br /> Combinations could be 35+85, 28+85 28+35/50+85. For the very wide angle I have the 16-35.<br /> While many don't find the 35 f/2 bad, I am not sure how good it is. Does anyone "know" if Nikon has planned a replacement? Also very interested in hearing your comments on the f/2.0D.<br /> Thanks,<br /> S.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think Nikon will gradually replace all the AF Nikkor primes without focus motors with AF-S versions and change the optics on the way. The 35/2 AF D edges on FX and 35mm film are quite soft until stopped down to about f/4. On DX it is good already at f/2.8. I got the 35/1.4 AF-S and it's excellent in every way.</p>

<p>I would imagine since Nikon just brought out the 50/1.8 AF-S that they would now work their way through the "slow" prime lineup and the 35mm is certainly among the more important ones. However, they will probably wait until the 35/1.4 has been on the market for a couple of years so that it pays for its development before offering a less expensive, but still modern AF-S 35/2. </p>

<p><em>Does anyone "know" if Nikon has planned a replacement? </em></p>

<p>No one who can speak about it without breaking their agreements with Nikon <strong>knows </strong>anything about products that Nikon has not announced. Those who know are obliged not to speak about them. Everyone else is just making guesses, some more educated than others.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It indeed looks like Nikon is gradually replacing some of the older AF-D lenses with AF-S, but given how popular zoom lenses are today compared to the way it was 20, 30 years, when zoom lenses were a lot poorer in terms of optical quality, I wouldn't expect Nikon to re-introduce everything in AF-S. Moreover, the majority of DSLRs today are DX. Focal lenghts mainly for 35mm film/FX are far less important today.</p>

<p>Given that Nikon added the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S for popular DX-sensor DSLRs two years ago and last year they intrduced the 35mm/f1.4 AF-S, they already have the high and low ends covered. I kind of doubt that you'll see a 3rd new 35mm lens any time soon.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Ilkka,</p>

<p>thanks for your reply. How would you compare the AF 28 vs the AF 35, both qualitywise and as a complement for the 85 in street and portrait photography?<br /> The 35 f/1.4 is out of the question for me, I want "small and lightweight" -- no doubt it is a great lens.<br /> And how much better is the 28mm MF to the AF? Not really sure I want another MF lens thou...</p>

<p>Thanks<br /> S.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Buy a d7000 and throw the 20mm AF on it...the d700 itself isn't exactly lightweight anyway.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you are a FX user and want to shoot with primes, nikon wants you to plunk down lotsa cash for the 24/1.4G or the 35/1.4 G. i doubt there will be a replacement for the 35/2, since in addition to the 35G, nikon has the 35/1.8 for DX users. so your options are to live with the 35/2's mediocre open aperture performance on FX or upgrade to the newer lens. don't own a 28/2.8 but the buzz on it is that it's not that great on FX unless stopped down to 5.6-8, which kind of ruins the point of having a small fast prime IMO.</p>

<p>in general, though, 35+85 is a good combo for street on FX.</p>

 

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Sebastian,<br>

After waiting for several years a 35mm AF-S for FX... when finally the 35/1.4 G come on the market I tested it briefly in a shop and I decided that at least for now I do not want to spend so much $$$ for it. Then I went for the old 35/2 AF-D. To my surprise it is a very capable lens, of course with some limitations. But it is small, has a fast AF, quite good IQ wide open and very good stopped down a little bit, a capable lens for shooting people on street, event or documentary photography. The only drawback for me is the noise common to all screwdriver lenses... but I can live with it. Other people may comment on soft corners and things like this but for the kind of use I have for it does not matter.<br>

If you want a lens with a better IQ trading AF for MF... Zeiss 35/2 is the only one available on the market at a quite small size and moderate budget. Samyang / Rokinon 35/1.4 has a great optic but is very bulky and the new Zeiss 35/1.4 costs an arm and a leg, is heavy and quite bulky too.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Leslie,<br /> what I want is a lightweight lens set. I love the 85 f/1.4 and it is a bit too long on DX for me.</p>

<p>Shun and Eric<br>

Sad Nikon wants is to pay an arm and a leg for the 1.4 and carry the beast.<br>

The AF 28 seems to do well on photozone tests < 5.6.</p>

<p>Mihai,</p>

<p>that's good news, and its seems you type of photography is similar to mine.</p>

<p>Have you tried the AF 28? Or that focal length prime for your photography?</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The AF 28/2.8 and the D version (which is better than the pre-D) is ok stopped down but it's not among Nikon's best lenses; the Ai-S versions are certainly better than either of the AF. (The 28/1.4 is another matter of course, but ...)</p>

<p>The 35/1.4 isn't that big; it's clearly smaller than your 85 for example. I don't think anyone would notice it as a "big lens".</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p><br />Leslie,<br />what I want is a lightweight lens set. I love the 85 f/1.4 and it is a bit too long on DX for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I didn't say use the 85mm on the d7000. Use the 20 or 24 on d7000 and 85 on the d700...You ought to have two bodies anyway. Likewise, when using the zooms...put the wide on d700 (FX) and tele on d7000 (DX).</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Or, at times...put the 16-35mm on the d7000 and it becomes a standard zoom.</p>

 

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Leslie, I am looking for a 2 (max 3) prime setup for the D700 which should include my 85mm.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>The 28 f2.8 and 35mm f2 are not great wide open. Spend the $$$ on the F1.4 if you want. I was just offering you <strong>a practical solution</strong> (in part, as a street shooter). The 20mm on d7000 will give you 30mm FOV and it's better than either 28 or the 35 on the d700...</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>For street photography i used ( on film) to have a set up of 24mm 50mm 85mm covering most I would ever need , so i'd say : ( xpensive version) 24mm 1.4 , 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 ..<br /> CHeaper version 24mm 2.8 ... same for the rest of it... , but thats just my "golden Trio" for the street scene... ( especialy in the evening, when the city comes to life ...).</p>

<p> And I wood leave the zoom at home then..</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>FWIW, just get the f2 35mm and be done with it. It isn't very good near wide open but good street photography isn't about IQ anyway. I only mentioned the 20mm on d7000 because it makes more sense IQ wise (and you seemed to be after IQ).</p>

<p>There's no perfect solution though there are quite a few different routes one can take. And I tried many of them...</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Sad Nikon wants is to pay an arm and a leg for the 1.4 and carry the beast.<br /> The AF 28 seems to do well on photozone tests < 5.6.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>right, but street shooting and 5.6 don't always go together. i think the 28AF-D is fine for landscape shooters, but with modern digitals, we need something better at open apertures. i've heard the sigma 28/1.8 is a good lens, but have no experience with it. i've actually been considering the sigma 20/1.8, but have been put off by reports of softness unless stopped down, though that seems to depend on sample to some degree. i could definitely use an affordable wide prime for FX cameras; for now i have the sigma 50/1.4 which is quite good on FX, especially at f/2-2.8. my next lens will probably be an 85 for the times when the 70-200 is too much. a 24/50/85 combo would be my druthers for primes on FX.</p>

<p> </p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Eric,<br /> I meant the 28 f/2.8d seems to do well on apertures below (in number) f/5.6.<br /> Look at the link http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/550-nikkorafd2828ff?start=1<br /> It does better than the 35 f/2 (pretty close together on center, but better on borders) except above f/8 http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/444-nikkor_afd_35_20_ff?start=2<br /> Anyways, I don't take those tests as a final word, and tend to give more importance to my own tests or photographers opinions that have used both. Photozone does not measure contrast and as far as I understand focuses near infinity on all tests. I do find strange their result contradicts many opinions on the web. Their test was made for both tests on a FF camera.<br /> The Af 16-35, which I own, does better in resolution than the 28mm according to photozone (and also better than the 20mm and 24mm), but is behind the 35mm below f/5.6. Except on the 35mm extreme, which is its weakest focal length, the 16-35 does better in resolution as the primes, ableit being limited to f/4. It is 400g (i.e. 3 times) grams heavier than the primes too, and much bigger.<br /> The 28mm is also about $100 less than the 35mm <br /> The Sigma 28 seems to be well regarded, but does not fulfill the need of being small and light. As for the 85, I can only praise the f/1.4. No experience with the f/1.8.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sebastian, you're right: the IQ does seem to hold up in PZ's MTF lab, which shows a classic arc, i.e. performance peaking in the middle apertures, with the corners sharpening up at f/11. what sigma has tended to do with its recent 1.4 primes is tweak them for sharper open aperture performance, at the expense of corners. fine with me since i dont do a lot of landscapes while hiking and mainly use fast primes for low-light or subject isolation shots.</p>

<p>if you really want a 28/2.8 AF-D, go for it. i myself would prefer a faster aperture. for street shooting specifically, i find myself beginning to lust after the X100 and EP-3+12/2. sadly, one cannot have it all so pick your poison.</p>

<p> </p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Eric, yes. I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 DX from my older DX system, could be a little soft on borders open according to tests, but I have not even noticed that and I don't care about either for my type of photography. I have been very satisfied with that lens, sadly not FF.<br /> Not that I 'really" want the 28, I'am deciding between the 28 and the 35. Other than the negative/mixed comments floating around, I fear it could be a bit too wide.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Here is a test where one can compare the 28 to the 35 and others. The 35mm is the better one there and has higher contrast. It does quite well already by f/2.8 center, and 5,6 corners. Not bad at all when compared to the 50mm f/1.8!!<br>

Go to the digital picture dot com and select the lens, not allowed to link, don't know why...</p>

[Two23]

<p>I highly doubt Nikon will ever come out with an f2 35mm. They have a 35mm f1.4, and a DX 35mm f1.8. What would be the point of an f2? They so far haven't upgraded much more popular lenses such as 80-400mm VR or 300mm f4. Fast zooms are great for "street" photography as they are more versatile, and with today's cameras you rarely need anything faster than f2.8. FWIW I once owned the Sigma 28mm f1.8 and would advise skipping it on a modern digital camera. It was only fair when used on an F100.<br>

<br />Kent in SD</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>I too wanted light primes for my D700, although for landscape. Eventaully got a 35/2 AFD and am more pleased with it than I expected to be from various reviews - it's pretty good across the frame at f8-11. The new Nikon FX primes seem to be fast and heavy - not what<em> </em>I need, or want for lugging up hills. My longer light prime is the 100/2.8 E, very light and pretty sharp - but no AF so may well not be suitable for your uses.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW I once owned the Sigma 28mm f1.8 and would advise skipping it on a modern digital camera. It was only fair when used on an F100.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What version? From what I gathered, the general consensus is good to great but maybe it flares a bit much. It maybe sample variation as well. The EX Macro version usually get great reviews as with the 24mm. Remember these are priced like 1/5 to 1/10 of the new $$$ nikon F1.4.</p>

<p> </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<blockquote>

<p>Mihai,<br>

that's good news, and its seems you type of photography is similar to mine.<br>

Have you tried the AF 28? Or that focal length prime for your photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably yes! I love street, documentary and all kind of people photography. Also I love to shoot with primes, what I am doing in at least 75% of situations.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I have no experience on 28mm. If I have to guess this is the single major focal length in the range of 20 - 300mm that I have not (yet) covered with a prime lens. I was hunting for a 28/2 AI-S but costs more than I am willing to pay for it so I wait, maybe Nikon will bring to life a 28mm f/2 AF-S G... :) because here we do not have many choices.</p>

<p>One more thing... I know that Sigma f1.8 primes does not receives enough appreciation... but I personally own a 24/1.8 which I used several years before to buy 24/1.4. Maybe I have a good copy - I dunno - but I was happy with it and it still gets sometimes a place in my bag, especially in street photography. These primes are not the first pick for landscapes and maybe nor for architecture, but for shooting people on streets and all kind of events are very good. At least my copy performs acceptable well wide open and really great at f2.8, definitely better at f2.8 than Nikon 24/2.8 AF-D wide open. Also, even though it is bigger (as you can expect from a f1.8 prime) it is not too big or heavy for street and balance perfectly on D700. I love to use it on street without the hood and goes very well. Also believe me that in the dark is very sweet to have a 24mm lens able to open more than 2.8 on D700. These "field" practical observations are not presented in any technical review.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>I highly doubt Nikon will ever come out with an f2 35mm. They have a 35mm f1.4, and a DX 35mm f1.8. What would be the point of

an f2? They so far haven't upgraded much more popular lenses such as 80-400mm VR or 300mm f4. Fast zooms are great for

"street" photography as they are more versatile, and with today's cameras you rarely need anything faster than f2.8. </i>

<p>

I take the liberty of disagreeing with everything above. ;-)

<p>

The 35 DX is not a wide angle, but a normal lens. The 35/1,4 is a spectacularly expensive item. An FX 35/2 would be 80% less expensive and it would outsell the 1,4 by a factor of 10-20 in terms of units sold, easily. The 80-400 is not more popular than the 35/2. The 300/4 even less so, though if they put VR on it, it could become quite popular. As it is, I prefer to use the 70-200 VR II with DX rather than 300/4 on FX though which is better depends on what you value in terms of quality and features.

<p>

With regards to the fast zooms, I mostly use them for landscape, travel, and events with a lot of people around preventing my free movement. For normal street photography I prefer primes since they are typically smaller or comparable in size with consumer zooms, thus one avoids being looked at or assumed to be a professional photojournalist. This is immensely valuable to me when doing street photography, allowing me to do my thing. Also, the fast apertures are helpful when evening falls and/or when the street extends indoors. Without flash, f/2,8 is pretty useless indoors IMO. And street photography and flash don't fit in the same sentence if the aim is not to attract a lot of attention.

<p>

However, I think Nikon is surrendering this market to Olympus and Panasonic with their superb and small primes for micro four thirds. That's where I would look if the Nikon 35/1,4 is too expensive.