Closing the gap between 24mm d and 80-200mm FX

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I have a 24mm d and 80-200mm d, both f2.8 on a d700 body. Both work well and I'm looking for something in between.<br /> Either<strong> 35mm d f2 or 50mm d f1.4</strong>.</p>

<p>I do not want to carry both and I do not want a zoom either. Ignoring the difference in aperture (which is insignificant to me), which focal length fits better inbetween 24mm and 80mm: 35 or 50 ?</p>

<p>PS: I shoot landscapes, travel, family, portraits and the occasional wedding. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>I use the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 between a Nikon 24mm f/2 and a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 on an FX body.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>I use the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 between a Nikon 24mm f/2 and a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 on an FX body.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And, what do you think? Would you rather have a 50 ?</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>For the use you describe, I'd get a 24-70/2.8 zoom and leave the others home or in the car. The 80-200/2.8 is good for shooting wedding vows from the sacristy door, but that's about it. A 24-70 is a hunk to carry for travel, but not that big compared to the 80-200, which you might use 10% of the time.</p>

<p>For city streets, a 35 is about ideal - small, light and unobtrusive. Just the right field of view. A 50, not so much, but probably better for landscapes. The 24 is good for interiors and narrow streets.</p>

[evilsivan]

I really like the Nikon 35mm f1.8 on my D750. A lot cheaper than the f1.4. I also use the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 but it is a beast.

[Two23]

<p>Sharpest lens I have ever purchased is the Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>The 105 2.8 VR. is a diamond.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Almost exactly in between 24mm and 80mm would be a 40mm lens. Personally, I'd be going with a 35mm while other may prefer the 50mm; "better fit" is a rather personal decision.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Either<strong> 35mm d f2 or 50mm d f1.4</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would not get either - but the newer 35/1.8G or the 50/1.8G. Unless you really need an aperture ring.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I got the 35-70mm F2.8 (non D) cos I don't do people shots a lot, and if I do they pretty much just want tit on Facebook. F2.8 as people do things indoors at cafes and restaurants so I need the fast aperture. I don't use it much myself to warrant the 24-70. I had the 50/1.8D before the 35-70mm but the zoom for people and children stuff was a lot more versatile. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>one could make a case for either, but i'd get the 35. a 50 is good if you're only carrying one lens, but less critical when you have wider and longer options. the difference between 24 and 35 is significant enough to warrant both. but no way would i get the 35/2. it's not sharp at open apertures and is one of the worst-performing film-era lenses on digital. if you're going to invest in this focal length, i would get the Sigma 35/1.4 ART, which has been my favorite lens since i got it. or sell the 24D and scoop the sigma 24-35/2 which is the new sharpness champion (and gives you a free 28/2 thrown in).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

If you're ruling out "zooms" but "the difference in

aperture is insignificant"... If you don't mind a relatively

bulky prime, I'd also vouch for the Sigma art series - but

get the dock for focus tuning, especially with the 35mm.

To go lighter and cheaper, the current f/1.8 Nikkors

should probably be under consideration unless you're

wedded to the rendering of the 50mm AF-D (if you don't

care about the corners at wide apertures, also look at the

non-art Sigma). If you're just after cheap and light,

there's the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6, which keeps up better than

you'd think, especially on a forgiving sensor like the

D700. But maybe you need an aperture ring for some reason...

 

To answer your question, I'd err towards the 35mm focal

length. But I'd probably prioritise the 90mm Tamron

macro (on a budget, the older one), especially given the

80-200's weakness at shorter distances, or get an 85

f/1.8 for more subject isolation at shorter range. On full

frame, I'm not really a fan of the 24-80 range much - I

prefer more subject isolation or more environment

inclusion. But many better photographers than me

disagree. Ymmv.

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>Thanks for all the replies. <br /> So the majority prefers 35 over 50.</p>

<p><br /> I like 35 for scenics, but for people or products, the 50 is better.<br /> Because of the proximity of 35-50, I'm loath to carry both though.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>" And, what do you think? Would you rather have a 50 ?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 auto focus and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 manual focus.</p>

<p>However, I prefer the angle-of-view of the 35mm f/1.4 because it is a better fit with my shooting style.</p>

<p>I also have the Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 auto focus but I keep it in reserve on my backup camera because I prefer shooting with smaller and 2-stop faster 35mm f/1.4.</p>

<p>

<div></div>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 auto focus Art lens is a well built lens with excellent image quality. Once, I considered replacing my 35mm manual focus Nikon lens with the Art lens but decided against it for the following reasons that are important to me:</p>

<p>1. The Art lens does not have an aperture ring. I need an aperture ring so I can use the lens on my older cameras that require one for exposure control.</p>

<p>2. I have two non-Nikon lenses that use a clutch to switch between manual focus and auto focus. I am not a big fan of clutch focus lenses. The Art lens is a clutch focus lens.</p>

<p>3. The manual focus ring of the Art lens rotates in the opposite direction as my Nikon lenses. I prefer all my lenses to rotate in the same direction.</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>I like 35 for scenics, but for people or products, the 50 is better.<br />Because of the proximity of 35-50, I'm loath to carry both though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was my thinking too, but the Sigma 50mm f1.4A that I bought was so outstanding, I went ahead and bought the 35mm too. Astonishing sharpness, if you use a tripod anyway. I'll add the the latest lenses with state of art coatings are much more flare resistant than the older ones. I no longer own any AFD lenses now that I've replaced the 20mm f2.8D with the 20mm f1.8G.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>The Art lens is a clutch focus lens.

</blockquote>

 

<p>Huh? I have the 35 and 50mm art lenses, and they're

both HSM - equivalent to AF-S or USM, with full-time

manual override. I do have a clutch lens (Tamron 90mm)

and the old Sigma 20mm f/1.8 is a clutch lens, but the

art lenses behave like modern Nikkors. They ARE "G" (no

aperture ring) though (and I manual focus rarely enough

that I haven't thought about directions).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The Art lens is a clutch focus lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no, it isn't. it has a mf/af switch on the side and full-time manual override, as andrew mentioned. </p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>I like 35 for scenics, but for people or products, the 50 is better.<br />Because of the proximity of 35-50, I'm loath to carry both though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You didn't mention what format you are shooting. For me 50mm is passable on DX for people . For people on FX it's way too short for a tele and very far from wide enough for using it as a wide.</p>

<p>I think 35mm is perfect. It's wide enough for a wide-ish lens but not wide enough to get you in trouble with perspective distortion.</p>

<p>And 80mm is tele enough for a tele even though I often prefer a little longer lens. I do however think the 24mm is not wide enough when you want wide. I prefer 20mm. So my preference would be to get a 35mm and ditch the 24mm for a 20mm.</p>

<p>That's why I have personal problem with a normal zoom like the 24-70mm f2.8. Not really wide enough at 24mm and not really tele enough at 70mm and pretty heavy for lens that can only do the work of a 35mm f2.8.</p>

<p>I have to put a disclaimer that I'm talking about shooting people or scenes with people in them in journalistic type of way where shots are not normally set up, like a wedding or a social gathering - not products or anything else. If you want to do many kinds of photography in lots of situations you will need both zooms and primes so you can pick the best tool for the job.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Andrew & Eric,</p>

<p>Sorry about the misinformation. I remember looking at a fast wide-angle lens that I thought was a Sigma and remember it as my first encounter with a clutch lens.</p>

<p>I stand corrected.</p>

[roland_vink]

<p>"Would not get either - but the newer 35/1.8G or the 50/1.8G."<br>

"I like 35 for scenics, but for people or products, the 50 is better."<br>

You could compromise and go half way with the new Tamron 45/1.8 VC. The close-focus feature might be useful. Not sure when it hits the shops though...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>forgot all about the tamron. they also have a 35/1.8 which focuses even closer than the 45. that could be a good one for a wedding photog's trick bag.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

John: Your memory was probably correct, but of the

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 - which is clutched, as I learnt while

accidentally driving my camera's screw focus motor

backwards in a shop. For reference, the 90mm Tamron

is clutched differently and it's focus ring is disconnected

when its (internal) autofocus motor is engaged. The "art"

lenses are HSM, though.

 

I'd forgotten the Tamrons too. May well be worth a look.

[Robin Smith]

<p>I would get a fast 50mm, but you can't go wrong with 35 or 50mm.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>So 24/2.8 + 50/1.4 + 80-200/2.8 it is.</p>

<p>Anyone use this set?</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Because of the proximity of 35-50, I'm loath to carry both though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Despite the 'common wisdom' that a kit contains either a 35 OR a 50, I find both focal lengths to be distinctly different, and not all that interchangable at all. I'd hate to miss either focal length; plus, none of these are heavy or big. So, carrying both isn't a big burden, if you're OK with a 80-200 f/2.8 already. A 50mm f/1.8G is optically about as good the f/1.4, and cheaper, so I'd go with that one to have more money for a 35mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So 24/2.8 + 50/1.4 + 80-200/2.8 it is. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personal style and preferences have got an awful lot to do with this, so it's not all that relevant whether any of us used this, like this or not. You've got your way of working, and should align your lenses to that. If you feel this kit will work for you - go for it.<br>

For me - if I were shooting weddings and charging for it, I'd really go with a 24-70 f/2.8 or if budget is tight, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Even though I prefer primes, but weddings/events, the flexibility of a zoom is a great thing.<br>

If only primes, for a wedding I'd carry 35/50/105. Buying those today for commercial use: Sigma 35 f/1.4, Nikon 50 f/1.8G, Nikon 105VR Macro. The 24 f/2.8 isn't a great lens anyway - I'd save up to replace it with a 20 f/1.8 and go seriously wide instead, for those few photos where that makes sense. I've had the 80-200 f/2.8, and sold it, as I found 105 usually was enough for me to cover that range; in case I know I'll want longer, the 180 f/2.8 is optically better and lighter, but not as fast to focus. But again, that's my approach and my preference, so it could well be pretty meaningless to you.</p>