35mm F2 prime on FX?

Y

yslim88

Messages
655
Name
Yee Siang
Edit My Images
Yes
Having a 50 prime and a 85 prime. was considering if there was a need for a 35mm prime. Any suggestions???
 
Yeah, 35mm on dx is around 50mm on full frame. not sure if 35mm is really needed on full frame at the moment...

ecniv said:
Hi,

Its wider :D

I found the 50 got me too closer and the 35 slots in nicely (on the crop).

Depends on what you shoot, how close you need to be and funds... 35mm f1.8 is around 170ukp ish...
Click to expand...
 
Hard to answer really. Do you have a fast zoom that covers that range too? It's quite a useful length for landscapes on FX but never used that particular lens, I've just covered it with a fast zoom and never felt shorth changed. I generally prefer longer primes. Maybe also worth considering the 30mm 1.4 Sigma if you do look down the 35mm route.
 
gad-westy said:
Hard to answer really. Do you have a fast zoom that covers that range too? It's quite a useful length for landscapes on FX but never used that particular lens, I've just covered it with a fast zoom and never felt shorth changed. I generally prefer longer primes. Maybe also worth considering the 30mm 1.4 Sigma if you do look down the 35mm route.
Click to expand...

I have a 24-70mm, would want to get a wider prime so I can do street shots. Am using my tokina 11-16mm at the 16mm end for landscapes :)

the 30mm 1.4 is not usable for FX as the corners will be black on the reviews i read (similar to 11mm on my tokina).

Cant afford a 35 or 24 1.4 too
 
Sorry, I'd always thought the Siggy was full frame. Would have thought that the 24-70 does pretty much what the 35mm is going to do though maybe you're looking to save weight? There isn't a massive amount of choice at this sort of length. You could look at the 28mm 2.8 as well. It's much cheaper though in my experience a good lens rather than a great one.
 
gad-westy said:
Sorry, I'd always thought the Siggy was full frame. Would have thought that the 24-70 does pretty much what the 35mm is going to do though maybe you're looking to save weight? There isn't a massive amount of choice at this sort of length. You could look at the 28mm 2.8 as well. It's much cheaper though in my experience a good lens rather than a great one.
Click to expand...

yup, save the weight when I travel. good idea. Will have a look at it:thumbs:
 
The 35/2 Nikkor is fine on FX, MPB had several used ones last time I looked on their site.

Has a really good minimum focusing distance of around 200mm which can get you some interesting different perspective on shots.
 
Is manual focus a no-go? There are a few more options in that range if you don't need AF. I personally was never quite convinced by the 35/2, I suppose it was decent enough but the 35mm focal length always seemed neither here nor there on FX.
 
my main concern is that I wouldnt use 35mm that much. What lenses would you suggest for manual focus?
 
yslim88 said:
my main concern is that I wouldnt use 35mm that much. What lenses would you suggest for manual focus?
Click to expand...

That is something only you can answer, I like the focal length on FX, but it is all down to personal opinion, a used 35/2 Nikon is going to be a cheap option, and if you don't like it sell it on.

Manual focus ... Zeiss ZF.2 35/2, Voigtlander 40mm f2 SL II, are at the upper end of the scale, then you have the Nikkor Ai or AiS range, but they are getting pricey these days, certainly not the bargain they were.

Looking at what you have you may be better looking at something around the 20mm - 24mm range, you may find 35mm is too close to the 50mm you have.
 
same here :) love the 50mm on fx, but would prefer a lighter and wider prime as compared to my 24-70
 
Martyn... said:
If Nikkor the 20mm and 24mm f2.8's are the better options, optically.
Click to expand...

I've heard this before and would like to try them although the few I have watched on ebay have gone for £200+. I bought my 28mm on there for £95 as a bit of a punt. It's definitely not stunning and is a little soft wide open but I certainly wasn't disappointed overall. At 5.6 and up to F11 it was very good but that might not be much use if you want to shoot wide open.
 
yslim88 said:
same here :) love the 50mm on fx, but would prefer a lighter and wider prime as compared to my 24-70
Click to expand...

Best thing to do would be to mount your 24 - 70 and fire off some shots at 24mm 35mm and 50mm and compare them on your computer screen to see which focal length appeals to you.
 
gad-westy said:
I've heard this before and would like to try them although the few I have watched on ebay have gone for £200+. I bought my 28mm on there for £95 as a bit of a punt. It's definitely not stunning and is a little soft wide open but I certainly wasn't disappointed overall. At 5.6 and up to F11 it was very good but that might not be much use if you want to shoot wide open.
Click to expand...

It never gets as good a review as the 20 or 24, but then again neither does the Zeiss 28mm get a good press ... must be the focal length :D
 
mmm this thread is interesting seeing as you purchased a 35mm 1.8 from me and said it is faulty when it is not and has been confirmed by both Jessops and Jacobs that it is not faulty..

you gave me the impression that you had made a wrong purchase, maybe you should have just admitted that from the start it would have saved me time and effort in getting the lens confirmed as no fault found..

:bang::bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top