Nikon 28mm f/1.8g or Sigma 24mm f/1.4 art

[avi_l1]

<p>Hi<br>

i need advise regarding a decision of new lens to buy. <br />I'm using Nikon D750 ff camera. i decided to use only with 3 primes. <br>

type of photographs i like to take: street photography, people, building outside and inside, night photography, landscape <br /><br />currently i have 2 lenses: <br />1. Nikon 180mm f/2,8 afd<br />2. Nikon 85mm f1/8 afg<br /><br />i need to go wider. after doing my research i'm considering only one of the two options:<br />- Nikon 28mm f/1.8g or<br />- Sigma 24mm f/1.4 art <br /><br />What do you think i should buy to complete my kit? <br /><br />If you would have my current 2 lenses(180mm and 85mm), what focal length you would choose as third lens 24mm or 28mm? <br /><br /><br />Thanks for answering !</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Personally, I have always liked the 24 over a 28. The wider seems more useful indoors, to my taste. If I need to go longer, mostly outdoors, my next one is the 35. But you know this is a very personal choice.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Next to a 85 and 180, my choice wouldn't be a 28 nor a 24, but 35 instead (and I'd be missing a 50mm still too). In between the choice of 24 and 28 - you can really only tell yourself. To me, it's two distinct different focal lengths: 24mm is seriously wide, 28mm is wide, but not too much (and to my taste just not intimate enough either - hence my preference for a 35mm).<br>

Do you have experience with wider angles, or are the 85mm and 180mm the only lenses you have used so far? Is there a way you can borrow or rent a lens that will help you find which focal length fits you best? Renting a 24-70mm for a while could help as it covers all angles that could be of interest.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>With the landscape and buildings, I would go with the 24mm focal length</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>The ART 24 is another design with an extended image circle for improved response in the edges and corners. Stefan Steib (maker of the H-Cam Master shift-tilt adapter) reports that the ART 24 can shift up to 8mm without vignetting. I'd expect this, along with the other ART primes, to be a superb landscape lens. Some have reported difficulties in flatness of field using the Nikon 28/1.8g at distance.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma ART 1,4/50mm landscape vertical shift 15mm /f11 no vignetting<br />Sigma ART 1,4/35mm landscape vertical shift 12mm /f11 no vignetting<br />Sigma ART 1,4/24mm landscape vertical shift 7-8mm /f11 no vignetting</p>

</blockquote>

[avi_l1]

<p>Hi. thanks for your advise<br>

regarding my experience, well i have a zoom heavy lenses (Tamron 15-30 and 24-70 and 70-200) <br>

but i decided to go with primes only, because of weight and i love faster lenses (for bokeh etc). <br>

why do i choose this kit? well, i chose 180mm f2.8 afd shooting from distance.<br>

then i choose 85mm f1.8 afg for portrait and people.<br>

and i have only one place for lens at my bag for taking photos of people at street, and landscape. i do not want to carry more than 3 lenses. <br>

i considered to buy 35mm f1.4 prime but i think i need wider lens. i love the effect of shooting close at f1.8. but i saw photos of 24mm f1.4 and i love :<br>

<p>But i'm afraid that focal length of 24mm f1.4 would be too wide for me, with consideration to my kit and limitation.<br>

so the question is what to pick. i tend to go with the Nikon also because of less weight. but i'm not sure. i love Sigma art serious (i do not have it but watch over the web). shooting wide at f1.4 sound good to create special effects</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I like 20+35+85+200 as a set of primes that I can use to cover events and photograph most things in general, when I'm shooting in low light or otherwise need to have wide apertures available. I think the gap between 24mm and 85mm is a bit too wide for my preference. Of course it would be nicer to carry 3 instead of 4 lenses.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Avi, I can much understand the reasoning behind building a light primes kit (I mainly shoot primes myself, though the even lighter and smaller AiS ones); but choosing a focal length is much a personal preference. The photos made with the 24-70 should answer you which focal length "resonates" more with you.<br>

I've got no doubt the technical reports on the Sigma are true, and that this lens would make a serious performer. But all that is irrelevant if you find 24mm too wide. For me, personally: 24 - 35 - 50, for pretty much the same kind of things you describe (except the people photo, for that: 105 and 180). A 28mm doesn't "feel at home" <em>to me</em>, and that's the thing I mean - some lengths work, some don't. Try for yourself, I really think there is no better way. Between these two lenses, I doubt you can go much wrong.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I went through a similar decision process for primes for my D 810. I ended up getting a Nikon 20mm and a Sigma Art 35mm. When I need a 24mm prime, I rent the Nikon 24mm.<br>

In my film days, I had a 28mm but it was not wide enough. I sold it and got the 24mm f 2.8 which I used extensively for landscape work. It was my most used lens from my film days.<br>

I need to also mention that I own and use the Nikon 24-70mm zoom. If I did not own that lens, my first wide prime for a FX camera probably would have been a 24mm. </p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The photos you link could have been taken with a 28mm lens, and I bet you`d not notice a difference... well, I`d not notice it.</p>

<p>I don`t see much sense selecting a lens just because there is no more room at the bag for "normal" focal lenghts... if so, I`d leave at home the 180, and would get a 24, 35 and 85 combo, or a 24, 50, 105, or what Ilkka says, 20, 35 and 85.</p>

<p>The is a huge jump from 85 to 180 (think that the area covered by the 180 is less than a half than the 180, but well, it could make sense under certain scenarios), but you want something even more extreme with a wide angle (with a 24, you`ll have to choose between a wide view, or less than one-third with the 85!!).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>personally i would get the 35mm Sigma Art. it's a little sharper than the 24. as Ilkka notes, huge gap between 85 and 24/28. the Nikon 28G has pretty pronounced field curvature, which is what you dont want in a landscape lens.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>i considered to buy 35mm f1.4 prime but i think i need wider lens.<br /> But i'm afraid that focal length of 24mm f1.4 would be too wide for me, with consideration to my kit and limitation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you answered your own question already - go for the 28mm. I just sold my 28mm AiS lens - there's no longer a need for it between the 24/1.4 and the 35/1.4 (though I have a Ricoh GR which has the equivalent of 28mm). 28mm always felt a bit like the "in between"(or compromise) focal length - either too wide or too narrow (I feel the similarly, perhaps stronger, about the 50mm). My manual focus prime set (for Sony A7) closely matches Ilkka's: 21, 40, 90 - and I can throw in a 180 if I feel the need for something that long. My AF prime set (for Nikon DSLR) is 24, 35, 85, 150 - somehow I can never manage with just three (unless I leave the longest lens at home). </p>

[allan_jamieson2]

The gap is too wide between 24mm and 85mm in my opinion, if you could add a 50mm f1.8g in between a 24mm and

85mm lens, then that would work fairly well as you can always crop a bit off of a wider image from the 24mm lens if you

need or prefer to.

 

 

If I were choosing a few prime lenses, I think I'd have to have the new Nikon 20mm and 28mm f1.8g lenses with the

50mm f1.8g and maybe the 105mm macro lens, which is near enough to what I do have, it really depends how much of a

fan of wide angle lenses you are compared to longer focal lengths. No matter what camera model I've owned in the past,

most of my images are taken on wide angle or macro lenses, some with a standard lens and very few telephoto, which

maybe reflects back to the lengthy period of time that I had my Pentax 67II outfit with my longest lens being a Pentax

200mm, which is only equivalent to 100mm in full frame digital cameras, I learned to make do as it were, anything longer

than 200mm would have been too expensive and heavy on that system,.

[Two23]

<p>My choice for D800E was Nikon 24mm PC-E, Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, Nikon 85mm f1.8G. I add a Nikon 80-400mm AFS as needed. For my newest Nikon, a pristine F3/T, I went with Nikon AiS 28mm f2, 50mm f1.2, 105mm f2.5. I have several different camera systems and for greatest versatility I tend to stick to 24/50/100mm as closely as possible. Since I shoot a lot of small town and city architecture, a shift lens is something I use a lot. My favorite current lens is the 24mm PC-E. Keep in mind I almost always use a tripod as I'm after sharpness and precision though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[robert_stig]

<p>For ur first part 24 sigma over the nikon for sure. Just a tad more money but build is much better and optics as well and larger aperture. </p>

<p>On your 2nd part. 28 vs 24. Still 24mm. I dont like 35mm or 50 but if you need to shoot a few people together then 24 is not the fL to use. I shoot family formals at weddibg using the 70-200. Ill go back abd shoot 6-8 people full body at 70mm. Perspective is beautiful and complimenting. </p>

<p>If you have the tamron 15-30/24-70 then the 35 fL is unnecessary and just get a fast 50 when u feel. </p>

<p>Whats good for me might not be good for you. You have to consider if you reach for the tamron or the nikon 24-70 more between the two of them</p>

[daniel_bliss]

<p>With just the two lenses you have already, I'd generally lean toward the 28. Note that for several years I used a 24 and an 80-200 in combination for 90 percent of my work at a newspaper, but I always had recourse to a 50 and at times to a mid-range zoom just in case. I'd be leery of getting only the 24 without that extra backup. </p>

<p>As for the lenses themselves, I currently use that old Nikkor 24 AF-N along side a 28G, and the two lenses are quite different. We'll skip the 24 for now as it's not the one you're looking at but the 28G is an interesting beast, very good bokeh, very good optics, a good match for environmental portraits or street photography but an unusual field curvature that means if a landscape is what I'm after, I will go for the 24 unless my primary interest is keeping the center and the foreground sharp and letting the rest slide slightly. I'm assuming the Sigma 24 has rather more regular behavior than the 28G, like that old Nikkor 24.</p>

<p>Of course these are slightly contradicting pieces of advice, and you may have to make choices with budget as well. But I hope this helps. For what it's worth I'd regard 24-50-85-180 or 28-85-180 as for the most part very complete set-ups (with the 24-50 option being slightly more flexible but the 28 being slightly better as a single focal length), based on my own experience 15 to 20 years ago with 24-50-105-180. Once I switched to the zoom, then it became a bit less of a stretch from 80 to 24, and at the time Nikon did not have an autofocus 28 that was both reasonably priced and good.</p>

[avi_l1]

<p>Hi friends,<br>

Thanks for your advises. <br>

finally i went with the 28 f1.8 AFG. <br>

i'm happy with optics but lens is so "plastic" its a joke. why they made it like that. feel so cheap <br>

feel like Toysres toy.</p>

<p>anyway, if i see that i need to go wider and wider - i will add Nikon 20mm f1.8 afg to my kit.</p>

<p>so for now i have nice low weight kit : 28-85-180. all Nikon </p>

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

[ShunCheung]

<p>What's so wrong with plastics? I have the 28mm/f1.8 AF-S. It is a fairly small lens; you don't need a metal barrel to hold it together. The modern trend is towards smaller and lighter products.</p>