John Di Leo

all d810 nikon 35/2 Central Park Roche-Bobois Head Shots

IN theme, if talking about mammalian quadripeds if just mammal, then or maybe bipedal mammal? all d810 with Nikon 35/2 D

@mike_halliwell If I shot at those speeds, m a y b e, but I just don't trust in 1/4 and 1/2 sec handheld. If I am shooting that slow, or even 1/8, I'd prefer a beanbag, or setting the camera on something firm and using the timer, or increasing the iso, IOW something to avoid hand-holding at slow speeds. Obv ymmv. But thanks for the compliment, Now it just has to perform.

I spent considerable and, more importantly, enough time at B&H today with the Nikon rep, Gerry Rooney. I had my 810 with me and I was able to test drive all 4 lenses, as well as compare them to my 35/2. I mostly looked at center sharpness. That parameter by far was the easiest to observe over edge sharpness and speed of focus, both important to be sure. I really wanted the Nikon 28/1.8G to be the best, but it was not. It came in 4th. I compared them all hand held and on the same subject, a price tag about 12 feet away, and at f4, ISO 1000, 1 stop under and at 1/15 second. Yes, the 1/15 was a bit on the slow side, but I was shooting with the Tamron's vibration control ON, so I wanted to put that into the mix. I examined the test shots zoomed in all the way on the 810's LCD. I felt I was doing a real world comparison. The Sigma and the Tamron both had beautiful contrast, and the Nikon 35/1.8 was a very slight, very slight down in that measure, but still looking very good. The contrast with the 28 was good too. The Sigma is formidable in size and weight, especially weight, but it was the sharpest. Next was the Tamron and VERY close to the Tamron was the Nikon 35/1.8. In some shots the sharpness of the Nikon 35/1.8 was comparable/equal to the Tamron even though the Tamron had stability control turned on. I thought my 35/2 was sharper than the Nikon 28/1.8---a major disappointment, and a deal breaker for that lens. I also tested the focus of them all, though not as extensively as on the 28. What I found was that the focus on the Sigma, the Tamron and the Nikon 35/1.8 pretty much nailed it every time and I did not notice any real delay among any of them, the 28, not so much. I did not notice any focus shift with any of them. As I was switching the lenses back and forth, every time I picked up the Sigma I said "ugh." Again, I wanted portability and did not want to have the feeling I was "lugging" a lens. I can lug my 16-35 or the 24-70 if that was no issue. Gerry Rooney told me that he has a few photo pro friends that use the Sigma, love its IQ and complain about its weight. So, at that point it was down to two lenses, the Tamron and the Nikon 35/1.8. I again compared center sharpness and again was impressed how close they were, in fact at one point we could not tell which was the Tamron and which was the Nikon. The Tamron had a more substantial build quality, but I did not feel slighted by the feel of the Nikon. Some say they feel "cheap." I would say they feel "light" and that, to me is an important distinction. The Tamron was a bit more expensive, but that did not enter into the equation. I chose the Nikon. Of the 3 35s, they all had their strengths, they were all good. They were all physically bigger than my 35/2, but not oppressively so. For me the Sigma was just too heavy and did not offer substantially better IQ to justify the extra load. It is a beautiful lens though, as is the Tamron. Images will be posted in the Nikon Wednesday section. Thanks to all for the interesting discussion and advice.

so, a trip to B&H is set this morning. Walking around yesterday with the 35, I found that I "think" I would like something a bit wider. Maybe the 28 FOV is more similar to my eyes' FOV?? I examined my 35/2 also--hey, it's got a plastic filter ring. I've never used a filter on it, just didn't notice. I could tell it didn't feel like a tank, as my zooms do, but it has been very "good enough" in the build quality dept. Also, I have been in contact with a Nikon rep there, and he (of course) speaks highly of the 28/1.8 and tells me a number of his customers have it and like it. But, as said, I will look at them all, but right now pre-visit, I think the 28 leads the pack...of course that can turn on a dime.

don't understand, looking at his pics-the portraits in particular, they don't look like they were shot close-in and wide? Maybe shot with a wide angle then cropped?

Thanks, Dieter, ahhhh would that money were no object! It is. From what I can tell that Sigma 28 ART (yes, it caught my eye, too) looks like it will be in the 1500+ USD range---out of budget, as would the 28/1.4E ($1700 used). I will see the lenses in the next couple of days. I am in NY now with the 35/2, so when I go shopping I will have it to compare. I saw those reports about focus shift on the 28/1.8G and yes, troubling, but the reports I saw were years old, maybe the latest 2015? Recent reports have been glowing, 4 and 5 stars, so maybe Nikon addressed the problem? Although plastic, the advantage is lightness, and many have said that. The Sigma is a full pound heavier than the 35/2, the other 3 not as heavy. But, I will see in the next few days.

I appreciate the discussion of zooms and what would be best for a novice coming from a smartphone, but the major question is what to get for myself of the lenses mentioned. They are: Sigma Art 35/1.4 Tamron 35/1.8 VC Nikon 28/1.8 G AF-S Nikon 35/1.8 G That I am giving her the d700 could be considered irrelevant to my major question. Throwing in the 35/2 is lagnaippe because, if replaced, it will be redundant for me. So, I'd give it to her. She does not know it (the lens) is coming. I do not want to go the used route. I I've had mixed results with that and I do not want to deal with it. I am looking for something wide to replace my 35/2 D, something that is nearly as "portable" as the 35/2 D on a D810, something of a smaller profile than the 16-35 and the 24-70, and something that is a prime and that can be used as a walk-around lens for some closer, not distant, shots of people, street scenes in a crowded city. I want something that focuses quickly, and without issue. I do not think the 35 and the 50 are the "same" format wise. The 28mm format being slightly wider, intrigues, but I am not willing to sacrifice IQ or build quality for 28 over 35. The Sigma is physically the biggest of the lot, I believe, and that could be a drawback, even though the consensus is that it has the very best IQ-but it is not weather sealed; so, a plus/minus. The Nikon 35/1.8 has the smallest "footprint" so that is attractive, but compared to the Tamron and the Sigma it may have a lesser IQ, though still better than the 35/2. The 28 is wider than the 35 so that may be a plus(?), but many complain about its plastic body, plastic filter ring, and mention a flimsy feel to it. So, they all have pluses and minuses. I will likely not challenge the weather tolerance of the Sigma, but I do not want to carry a big lens. If size were not an issue, I'd carry the 16-35 or the 24-70. The Tamron appears attractive for IQ and weather sealing and VC, but it too is bigger. Still, I think at this hour--and I change my mind frequently--it may be the front-runner. If the Sigma doesn't feel huge, that could be the one, and I have never been disappointed by a Nikon lens. This is probably a good problem, right?, ie trying to decide among these, and I have not heard, I believe, anyone thus far say anything bad about any of the 4. I mentioned earlier about just keeping the 35/2 and buying her another lens, like the 50 1.8G. I've decided against that. I looked at similar magnifications from the 35/2 and my 16-35 at around 28mm. The IQ from the 16-35 is MUCH better, the 35/2 appearing blocky and smudged compared to the 16-35. And the 35/2 were tripod shots of still subjects while the zoom's were moving children. yes, Sandy, dealer's choice

Thanks for the input, Andrew. I do not disagree that a zoom has advantages. They of course do. The 35/2 performed well enough on the d700, however, on the d810 even with moderate cropping I am seeing its limits. Its IQ cannot keep up with the d810. So, a big factor is that I want to replace it for myself for primarily street, but also some people shots, like you mention...>> children-blowing-out-candles shots<< And I don't think I am ignoring the practicalities for her. A d700 with a 35/2 has proven to me a nice combo. Coincidentally with my wandering eye for a new wide, she, as a daughter can, "talked" me into giving her my d700 which I was going to sell for less than I thought it was worth (to me). I thought giving her the 35/2 and treating myself to something more modern was a win win. But what to get for me? And that was the thrust of my original post. Yes, 5 children. They are now beyond the age of pulling it off a table, and yes, she is busy with them, but it is not chasing them about the house anymore, but more car pool to piano, art, basketball, soccer, etc. And I didn't mention that she is an ER physician. So, simpler is better. Life is busy enough. And she can zoom with her feet. I think the main question could be not whether she should have a zoom, but should I keep the 35 and get her the 50mm 1.8G. I am less enthused about that because I like the small size of the 35 compared to my 16-35 and 24-70, both used pretty often except when I don't want to lug them around and want something smaller and still wide. The lure of the Sigma 35 ART, Nikon 35 1.8G, Tamron 35 and the Nikon 28 has snagged me. And there is my confusion--to me all those lenses have advantages and disadvantages. And they're all good. I will be in NY in a couple of days though and will visit B&H and test drive them all on my d810 (which I am taking along with the 35/2 solely). And another point should be made. She lives about 5 miles away and we see her often so when she gets adventurous and want to go beyond the 35/2 she can borrow something from my collection---and I have the 85, 20 AI, 55 micro 3.5, and the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200. I've found this discussion illuminating, but I still don't have a favorite! One day it's the Tamron, then it's the Nikon 28, then I read the reviews about the IQ of the Sigma, then I think I am overthinking all this, just get the Nikon 35/1.8. 4 very well regarded lenses; probably would not go wrong with any of them, but I find myself paralyzed by the choosing!

self portrait for Sanford:p

Amazon I have one :)

Wow this has gotten to be an esoteric and almost existential discussion of 35 and 50 and their respective contributions to photography--and it's great! Obviously input from people who has tripped a shutter many many times. It shows! Ha, but it is interesting to read. I agree with SCL that as I get older I am more appreciative of a 50, yet I agree with Gary about the utility of the 35's extra "width" when shooting in smaller quarters. And Sandy comes in with the practical mature advice. All very appreciated. I want whatever I give her to be small, light weight and easy. If she picks it up as a hobby, she can shop for her zoom, or secondary prime. It could be that by having a prime, it would stoke her desire for more, and that would be a good thing. The 50 1.8G, that's the one in question, has the best price point (and I want to buy new), but, truth be told, I was kinda looking forward to something new for me in addition to gifting her. ;) I need to look at the Tamron---how is its weather sealing compared to the sigma and the Nikon?

yeah, it's that "deciding" thing. :) Your input on the 24 being generally too wide for people shots (generally speaking) without making the nose look a mile long was appreciated. I like the 35 format, so, maybe, why reinvent the wheel? Although I seem to land on around 24 using my 16-35, it is mostly done with landscapes, while my 24-70 is more general purpose and def a people lens, and I often land on 35 with that one. Regarding Shun's mention of the Sigma Art---I looked at that one, and it remains tempting. I did see a review that questioned the weather sealing on it though, as his copy allowed moisture to get in and fog it. He reported that Sigma failed to honor the warranty stating user abuse. I carry these lenses on the back of my motorcycle and they get in all kinds of weather. That report scared me a bit, still I realize that is one copy of the lens and one reviewer. That said, weather resistance is a matter of high concern to me. Again thanks to all of y'all for the excellent advice

First, thanks to all for the excellent input. One of the main criteria in the choice is I do not want to have a burdensome lens, physically or weight-wise. If I want to go bigger I can use the 16-35 or the 24-70--and I do carry those around. But the smaller size of the 35/2 is a real advantage "sometimes." My daughter has a good eye for composition, but has never had an slr, so the step up to a D700 will be a big one for her. There will be a learning curve for her, and to add to that curve the presence of a zoom, could add to the level of complexity. And I think that in the learning phase having a fixed focus lens, while not as flexible as a zoom, will make one think more about what you're shooting because of the constraint of a fixed focus, if that makes sense. She'll have to zoom with her feet, and will learn things about photography more quickly than with the luxury of a zoom. She will learn the limits of a 50 or a 35, and better appreciate what a zoom or other focal lengths can do. Tough love of a sort. A 1.4 is just not needed, not with the dynamic range of my d810, and the depth of field of the 1.8 vs the 1.4 is fine for me. Interesting comment about the 28 being either too wide or too narrow. A jack of all trades, but master of none? Totally personal I know, but that comment hit home. So, whittling things down....a 50/1.8 for her @ <$180 or give her the 35/2 and a new 35 or 24 for me at $600-$750 ish. All are in budget. More comments on the 24, which in reviews seems to have been heaven sent? But will it be too wide and be more of a specialty lens, making me miss the 35 format? When I was post processing the shots I got on Thanksgiving, I noticed when I was cropping in, faces had a sort of mottled appearance, like a lot of noise (ISO 640). I have never noticed that with my 16-35 or my 24-70, or really any of my other lenses--the nikkor H 50/2, an 85/1.8 55/3.5 Ai, and 70-200 VRii---and that would drive me to gifting the 35, but...decisions decisions. This is with the 35/2, me in front, glasses, jeans, dark blue shirt.

I will be giving the above lens to my daughter along with my old D700 (It's good to be a daughter), so I will be replacing the 35, but with what? She would be using it as a general purpose lens as a mom of 5. I like the 35mm format, I use this lens as a sometimes carry about lens, if I am shooting grandchildren, or sometimes street. I also have the 24-70/2.8 and the 16-35/4--both Nikons. Although there is some redundancy, the 35 is a MUCH smaller package, and there are circumstances when that, for me, is a real advantage. I also have a vintage Nikkor 50/2 H, that I rarely use, but will never part with. So, I am looking at 3 f1.8G Nikkors: 1) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED 2) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G 3) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED Again, most, but not all, usage will be of human subjects, possibly pets, and quick pull-up-the-camera and shoot type shots, There may be urban shots, shop fronts, people watching, etc. It will not be used for landscapes. All three are within budget. I will add that when I shoot with my 16-35 I find the 24mm focal length is commonly where I land; and with the 24-70, I am frequently shooting at 35ish. The reviews of the three lenses somewhat favor the 24 and the 35 over the 28, but it is close. I recognize that I would not go wrong with any and that all three are bigger than my current 35. There is another option: keep my 35 and get her the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens. There's a real price advantage to this choice, but would it be the most practical? Would I be sacrificing IQ with this choice? Insight? advice? what would you get? and thanks