standard(????) lens for fe2

[hugh_t]

I just won an online auction and will soon be receiving my FE2 body.

I need a first lens for this camera. I don't like zooms in general

and am leaning towards starting with a prime in the 28mm to 50mm

range. Most of pictures will be of my family and I usually prefer

black and white. I hate using a flash so I know I need something

fast, I don't mind used equipment. I am somewhat of a sharpness

freak, my budget is up to $500. I would say I am an advanced

amateur. Is the 35mm 1.4 a good choice???

[marklcooper]

Sounds like my situation. I've had an FE since purchased new in 78 with a 24 f/2.8 and a 50 f/2.0. I've recently gotten serious with my photography and added the 50 f/1.4, and while it works great for me, I'm thinking I should have purchased the 35 f/1.4 instead. Sometimes that 50 is just too long and the 24 is too slow and wide. I do a lot of indoor 'party' type photography and dislike flash also. I'm thinking that down the road I will be looking into the 85 f/1.4. to round out my lens selection.

<p>

FWIW - through experimentation and the recommendation of someone on this forum, I've decided that Fuji NPZ 800 exposed at 1200 and developed at 800 does a really good job with available indoor light and the f/1.4. For B&W I use Ilford XP2S exposed at 1200 and developed at 400 with good results. I've had good results taking both these films to the local grocery store to be sent off for processing and next day pick-up.

<p>

HTH<p>

[cory_phillips]

<p>

Hi Hugh. I just purchased an FE2 a few weeks ago and just recently bought a Nikkor 1.4f 50mm lens. This is my first SLR, so take this with a grain of salt. I am happy with my 1.4f but I would have liked to have gotten a 1.2f if I could have afforded it. I paid about $130 for mine.</p>

<p>

Since I just got the camera, I don't have a flash yet. The other day I decided to experiment with the lens and take a picture of my son indoors without flash. I took the photo during the morning hours on a cloudy day. We were about 6 feet from a wall with lots of windows (from floor to ceiling), but I also have heavy-duty solor screens on them. I set the f-stop top to 1.4 and my shutter speed to 1/15 and hopped for the best. I was also using ISO 200 speed film and I sat in an arm chair and braced my arms to hold the camera steady. As a rule of thumb 1/60 is about as slow as person can go without a tripod and flash. When I got the photo back from the lab, I was amazed how well the picture came out. Keep in mind I come from the point-and-shoot with built-in auto flash world. I truly expected the photo to be underexposed. I was very pleased.

</p>

<p>

I would say if you can afford a used 1.2f 50mm then go for it.

</p>

<p>

I've attached the photo with my response. Just keep in mind I scanned it in at 600 dpi with my aging scanner and resized it to fit the page better.

</p><div></div>

[klix]

Takes me back to the first Nikon body I owned - some thoughts on lenses: 35mm f1.4 is a great lens -- in fact the standard for photojournalists in the 70's and 80's Even sharper, although not as fast is the 28mm f2.8 -- probably Nikon's sharpest WA lens. On the 50mm front, I would go with the f1.8. The f1.4's leave something to be desired wide open, and only begin to show sharpness when stopped down. IMHO, stay away from the 50mm f1.2 -- it is incredibly difficult to focus wide open because of the very shallow DOF, and doesn't look as sharp as the f1.8. Go instead with a fast B&W film -- some suggestions: try the chromogenics: Ilford XP2 Super (my current standard) and Kodak Portra 400 (heard great things -- just got a few rolls today), or the Fuji Neopan 1600 (I'm about to order this one). Good luck!!!

[duncan_mcmorrin2]

Hugh,

I'd say that 35mm f1.4 would be a great choice. Good alround focal length and plenty of light. Well built too.

 

Best, Duncan

[david_kelly1]

The 35mm f1.4 was a good lens for its day but it has a huge amount of

light fall-off -wide open it's really only an f2.8 at the edges- and

shows large amounts of both barrel distotion and chromatic aberration,

especially close up. The 50 f1.4 AIS is a bit soft in the corners

wide open and also shows barrel distortion, but it clearly outperforms

the 35. The 50 1.8 AIS is sharper than either and almost

distortion-free even wide open but sometimes gives rather harsh

highlights and unpleasant bokeh - I think it's probably overcorrected

for chromatic aberration, More people seem to like it than the other

two, though, including me...................

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Really fast lenses may not be the optimal solution. If you look at the picture from one of the above posts, you will see that there is very depth of field and the picture is out of focus (the boy's shoulder and not his eye is in focus). Shooting with in a few feet of a subject at f1.4 (let alone 1.2) give a plane of focus that is shallower than you probably want. To get what you want in focus you will need a smaller f stop. This requires additional light or faster film. You can use a slower shutter speed, but then either you shake the camera or the subject moves and you still get blur (camera supports doesn't help moving subjects. If you learn how to light things you can get that "availiable light" look and things sharp and in focus.

[duncan_mcmorrin2]

Bruce, yes, but I think you missed the point of the original question here. If your situation requires that you stop down the lens a bit, so be it, but as a first and alround lens on a manual body, the 35 1.4 is still not a bad choice at all. There are many situations other than the one you describe where that extra speed WILL come in very handy and Hugh stated he'd rather not use flash.

[hugh_t]

Thanks for all the input. Right now I'm leaning towards the AFD 50mm 1.8 and AFD 35mm 2.0, it looks like I can get both new for well within my budget (under 500) and I have read good things on the web about both. (I know, watch for oil on the 35mm blades.) I realize they are not the fastest choices available. How does this sound???

Would I be better to get the 28mm instead of the 35mm?? From your experience are these two too close together??? Decisions, decisions, and thanks again for all the excellent responses.

[graham_line]

Why not buy the 35/2 first, give it a workout, and see if you feel a need for something wider or longer? Adding equipment too rapidly and having too many choices can be confusing.

My preference would be 24/35/50 because I think they all have distinct uses, but a 35 is on the camera more often than not. Don't forget to pick up an HN-3 hood at the same time; it keeps your fingers off the front of the lens.

[richard_cochran]

If the lens is strictly for use in manual focus, I'd generally

advise avoiding the AFD lenses, unless you have a chance to

practice with them and feel the way the focusing ring on your

particular choice responds before you commit to purchase.

Manual focus (AI, AIS, or Series E) lenses are all designed

to be focused manually, with a long focus throw and smooth

action. Some AF lenses work well manually, but others

aren't nearly as pleasant to use as their manual focus cousins.

<p>

I won't weigh in on the particular best focal length and aperture

lens. There are lots of good options, with much coming down to

personal preferences.

[keith_hunter]

Hugh,

 

I have owned the 35 f/2 and f/1.4, as well as the 50 f/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2. I like the 35 f/1.4 the best and use it most often. The 50 f/1.4 is my second choice and I use it often as well. I rarely shoot either of them wide open, but do occasionally and they are more than sufficient then. I do think that having a faster lens makes focusing easier due to the brighter image in the viewfinder. (I found the 50 f/1.2 was not very sharp until it was stopped down to f/8 and it was almost as heavy a an 85 f/1.4. Not to mention it was very expensive.)

 

All that being said, I'd buy a 35 f/1.4 AIS and then think about a longer or wider lens later, if you think you need it.

[dj_soroka]

Since you want to start in the 28 to 50 area, my favorites, in order, are:

 

35 mm f/1.4 AIS; 50 mm f/2 AI; 28 mm f/2 AIS

 

That said, I think the 35 mm f/1.4 would make a great cornerstone, and available light lens. Fantastic at f/2.8 thru f/8. Solid wide open. Much prefer to the manual or AF f/2 versions.

 

Consider combining it with an 85, 105 or the 'ole 75-150 f/3.5 zoom (which is fairly cheap).

[mark_jordan3]

Hugh, You can do a lot with $500...especially used. I think the 35mm would be a good choice if you wish to keep it down to only one lens. The 50mm 1.8 is highly regarded and can be picked up for around $100...you may want to just start there and see where your needs take you. I personally own primes 24mm/50mm/85mm and find that I use the 24mm and 85mm the most. The FE2 is a great camera...enjoy!

[hugh_t]

Thanks for all the help and insights. I decided to start out with a 50mm 1.4. This way I can see how often the 1.4 comes in handy for my shooting before I spend alot on the 35mm 1.4. The price and condition were very nice on the 50mm at a local store (which helped in the decision process). Thanks again.

 

Hugh

[david_h._hartman]

My AF 50/1.8 Nikkor has a rather nasty feel when focusing manually so I only use it for AF. I also have a 50/1.8 AI and 50/1.4 AIS (late compact version). The 50/1.8 AI is the sharpest Nikkor Ive tested. <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new">Bjørn

Rørslett</a> list the both of these in his <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/bestof.html" target="_new">Best

of the Best : A not-too-serious compilation of the best Nikkor

lenses</a>. Here is a link to his evaluations of <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html" target="_new">Normal

Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount.</a> I think youll be pleased

with either of these manual focus lenses.