Lens choice

[BratNikotin]

<p>Hello, please help me decide:</p>

<p>I want to buy a 35mm lens for Nikon D7000<br>

So, I am in between:</p>

<h1 >Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens</h1>

<p>and </p>

<h1 >Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED Lens</h1>

<p>The difference is $400 and later is a full frame, while first is D formatted.<br>

Supposedly, I can shed $600 for 2nd lens. Will I experience a tripled benefit from it? <br />I shoot everything - street, portraits, concerts, landscapes. (I know I won't find this lens suitable for absolutely everything, but I plan to keep it in a bag and always find a use for it)<br>

</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you have a DX nikon body, stick with the less-expensive 35mm lens. it's not perfect, but it's pretty sharp optically.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 35 on DX is just amazing.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Bodies come and go, but lenses last a decade, or longer. <br>

For this reason, I would buy the FX lens, so that it will function on possible future body upgrades.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Unless you have plans to upgrade to FX in the near future, e.g. in the next few months, it rarely pays to buy lenses for the future.</p>

<p>I'll give you an example, back in 2006/2007, some people decided to buy the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S for their DX body, as Nikon only had DX DSLRs at that time, as that FX lens was supposed to be "future proof." Sure enough, Nikon introduced their first FX body, the D3, in August 2007, but at the same time Nikon also updated the 28-70 to 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. All of a sudden that person is stuck with an old lens that he/she was never able to take full advantage of, and it lost a lot of value as people upgraded to the new 24-70.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S is well known for its chromatic aberration issues. If you are ok with that, IMO you are better off using the $400 on other accessories.</p>

<p>Should you upgrade to FX some day, you can always sell the 35mm/f1.8 DX. It is a $200 lens to begin with. You can't possibly lose a lot of money selling it. :-)</p>

[SCL]

<p>Unless you also plan to shoot film or to get a full frame body in the near future, I'd go with the DX lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I had my DX 35 for a number of years, and sold it for really close to what I paid for it. so, it was almost free.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What Shun said about buying lenses for the future; it's all "if if if", and it pays no dividends today. I've had the 35mm f/1.8DX, and as Peter sold it with very little loss. Great little, light lens. Yes, it has chromatic aberrations (purple fringes), but they clean up very easily in nearly all editing software, so'it's never been a big issue in practical use.<br>

The $400 difference surely can be used for something nicer :-)</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have the 35 AFS DX that I use all of the time on my d7100 and it is superb. I agree with Shun completely.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Two23]

<p>The Sigma 35mm f1.4 is considered the best. However, for me, I went with the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's a bit wider, a bit lighter, and is excellent on my D7100. They are available used on ebay for a good price. I went for the latest, a version 2. Great lens and fast.</p>

<p>The Sigma outscores the Nikon f1.8 on DxO very handily:<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-30mm-F14-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7000-versus-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35-mm-f-1.8G-on-Nikon-D300___1099_680_313_440</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Personally, if the lenses are of a reasonable image quality, I`d choose the smallest&lightest. I see the main benefit of a standard lens in the comfort it provides when looking for the minimalist amount of equipment. And agree with those above... if you`re into DX, buy DX (unless the FX option were 1) smaller&lighter and 2) a noticeable better performer).</p>

[BratNikotin]

<p>OK, Thank you very much. So, I take it like majority of you agree that a $200 will be the choice to go.<br>

Given that, and supposedly I go with this choice, would you advise differently if I told you that I currently own Sigma 17-50/f2.8 lens? Will I find the DX version of 35mm Nikor usable and have a room to use it? Also, how is it's auto-focusing speed ? </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>would you advise differently if I told you that I currently own Sigma 17-50/f2.8 lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you already have 35mm covered, at f2.8, do you really need 35mm at f1.8 or f2?</p>

[BratNikotin]

<p>Shun, I would imagine not. Unless this Nikor 35mm is sooo much superior to what I have that it would be worth it. So is it ? or is it Not? <br>

Question is for both DX and FX formats.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>IMO, you are better off getting something with a different focal length.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<. Unless this Nikor 35mm is sooo much superior to what I have that it would be worth it. So is it ? or is it Not? >></p>

<p>From my own experience, the difference in image quality between good lenses (which both the 30mm f1.4 and 17-50mm Sigmas clearly are) are so close, unless you are shooting them from a tripod I highly doubt you or anyone looking at your photos will see a difference. If you don't regularly use a tripod, consider that the 17-50mm has OS (image stabilization) and the other lenses you mentioned do not. I would actually expect the OS lens to be sharper when handheld between shutter speeds of 1/10s and 1/500s.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[BratNikotin]

<p>Thanks, all<br>

I think you reassured me in not considering the 35mm size. I will think about the other focal lenth</p>