michael_bradigan Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Hi all...I have a nikkor 24-120 zoom which I am considering selling, or at least shelving in favour of a few primes due to its weight and SLOOOOOOW speed. I've got the 20mm F2.8 and the 105 micro, and I'm looking to put a small,fast, and lightweight "normal" lens in between as a small travel kit. I've done a lot of reading about the AF 35/2 and the AF 50/1.4D and I'm just curious to know which of these views you all prefer. I know it's an individual thing, and I'm certainly going to check my local viewfinder before purchasing, but just thought I would check out the prevailing opinion here first. I've heard that many complain of the "made in China" construction of the 50, but that isn't much of a deterrent to me. I have also heard of the oil problems among the 35/2. I'm, of course, interested to know which of these you guys think is a "better" lens in terms of build quality, sharpness, contrast, etc...but I'm also curious which one of these views you consider more important to your style of photography and why. Or, do you have another lens suggestion to fill my gap? Just in case you want to know, I shoot mostly landscapes, city scapes, and the occasional "travel"-style people pics, mostly with Velvia and Provia, on a F100 and F80, mostly from a tripod, but not when I'm travelling (another reason to shelve that 24-120) Thanks guys, ahead of time. You're a constant source of information. My thanks to all. Michael D. Bradigan, Okayama, Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 They're both quite good. I wouldn't use the 50/1.4 for nature photography; the large front element may cause flare and in general it's lower contrast than the 50/1.8. However, for the city and people pics, the 50/1.4 is an excellent choice. If you want a 50 mm for nature, I would get the 50/1.8 as it's a better lens for that application, or the 60 mm f/2.8, which gives you a 2nd macro lens which is good for plants, mushrooms etc. (and puts the 105 to shame in optical performance up close). Flare protection is important in landscape photography. If I were in your position, I would buy the 35/2 (as it's a more useful nature lens and the gap between 20 mm and 50 mm is too large) and the 50/1.8 (since it's cheap, excellent and fits your intended uses very well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bradigan Posted January 5, 2003 Author Share Posted January 5, 2003 Thank you for your candid advice Ilkka! I appreciate the help. I found a used 35/2 the other day...now perhaps I'll give it some thought. Ah...the money pit that is photography! I love it!!! MDB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Michael, major lens manufacturers have been making 50mm and 35mm lenses for years. Those are not particularly hard to made (I mean, unlike your 17-35mm zooms, for example) and the quality should be fine; the main issue is focal length. Since you already have a 24-120 zoom, you should be familiar with how useful 35 and 50mm are in your type of photography; nobody else is better qualified than yourself to answer this question for you. Peraonslly, I consider the 50mm the least useful focal length. At one point I bought a 35mm/f1.4 as my "standard" lens because I prefer the wider coverage. But that is merely my preference; your mileage may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 50 or 35 for landscapes and travel? Sounds about right. Go with a 50 or 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jersey_emt Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 My perfect setup for primes in that range would be a 24mm, 35mm, and a 50mm. Or if I couldn't afford all 3, the 24 and the 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir_artmann Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I have 24, 35, 50 and 85 primes. After I bought the 24/2.8 prime I seldom use 35/2.0. I was travelling light to Barcelona last fall, and used 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 together with an FM-2. Didn't miss 35 mm prime. Regards Casi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 If you're going to buy the 35 f/2 AF Nikkor, I would suggest buying it new. That way you're likely to avoid the famous oily aperture problem. I have used two 35 f/2 AF Nikkors (one D and one plain) since 1994 and they haven't had the problem but if you run into the oily aperture problem, please give me an e-mail and I will explain the procedure of fixing the leak (cleaning by itself doesn't solve the problem permanently). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 The 35 f/2 is a nice, and versatile lens for travel. It focusses very closely and is lightweight. I like it particularly for nighttime street scenes and interiors. Otherwise, my favorite "universal" travel lens is a 24-50 Nikkor zoom generally used at, or near, the widest setting. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stemked Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 For years I used only the 50mm and thought it was the only lens I NEEDED to own. Especially for working indoors at museums, etc where speed is a must. I'd say since you already have a 20mm and a 105 the 50mm may be a little more useful for you. But that's a big gap from 50 to 20... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Your own style is going to be a factor in what you choose. There isn't a "best" focal length. Personally I think the 20 is too wide for general travel use and my wide lens is a 24. The 35 and 50 are good companions for this one, and together they make a good threesome. This is probably not a lot of help... it would involve you in buying 3 new lenses! Another possible is to substitute a 28mm for the 24 + 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian deichert Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 The differences in all of the above posts should tell you that this is an issue of personal choice. Personally, at the wider end, I have a 16/2.8 fisheye, a 20/2.8, a 24/2.8, a 28/3.5, a 35/1.8, a 35/2.8 shift, and a 58/1.2, and I use 'em all. Which one? Depends on the particular shot I'm taking at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guytal Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Michael,<br> In all honesty I think you're making a mistake trading in the extremely versatile 24-120. As a travel lens it will provide you with a lot more flexibility than any of the primes you're looking at. <br><br> Landscape images on Velvia and no tripod? There's your real problem. <br><br> I'll take the opportunity to provide a plug for my friend <a href="http://www.tonysgallery.com">Tony Kuyper's Site</a>. Most images on it were taken with the 24-120 and Velvia. I'm sure it will give you something to think about.<br> Don't buy into the hype - new gear is not always the solution. <br><br> Guy <br> <a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_thurston Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 On my last trip to Europe, I shot about half my good pictures with a 35 f/2.0 lens. I liked having a lens that's a bit wide, a bit fast, and still small and light. About half of the remaining shots were with my 50 f/2.5 macro (still small and light, and hand-holdable for macro stuff with ISO 400 film). The remaining stuff was mostly with a 70-200 zoom, with a few shots with a 24 f/2.8. The 35mm lens is a mighty nice lens for just wandering around and shooting what looks interesting. But I suspect that's just because of the way I see things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodus Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 35mm is the way to go. Also, I would keep the 24-120mm until you're sure you don't want it before selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_t Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Both are quite good. Oddly I prefer the 50mm on my Nikon system, but the 35mm on my Leica. I've done lots of travel photography with my Nikon 50/1.4 and it has always impressed me with its sharpness and handling. The relatively inexpensive price is also very nice. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulo bizarro Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Michael,Last week I went on a field trip to one of the most widest places on Earth: the Musandam Peninsula, in Arabia. We were trekkink lots of km per day (I am a geologist), so I had to carry a light photographic equipment. I chose my EOS 300V and my EF 50 f/1.4 lens, with E100VS film. One light camera, one light lens, good film. Came back with great images. One of my fellow companions was carrying a 6x6 camera, one lens only (80mm) and Velvia, plus one small tripod. In normal circusntances, I would have carried my EOS 1V and 16-35 zoom lens, but for this sort of trekking, nothing beats a lighter combination. I can tell you from my experience that either the 50 or 35mm lenses will be suitable. 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