anyone have or tried the nikon 24mm f1.4 or nikon 35mm f1.4

S

straycat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,582
Edit My Images
Yes
nikon 24mm f1.4 or nikon 35mm ff1.4

i wondered out of these 2 which people would rate as the most useful and why.
as it would be hard enough to afford one let alone 2 of these
 
Last edited:
How long's a piece of string?
What will you use it for?
What other lenses do you have?
Can't be bothered looking up prices so is budget a consideration?
Crop sensor or FF?
 
FF,i was thinking of the perfect trio of primes

i allready have a

35mm f2

50mm 1.4g

85mm 1.4d
 
In that case, unless you find the 35 not wide enough or the 85 not long enough, you already have the perfect trio...

By the way, the 35 f/2 is a better all-round performer than the f/1.4 - especially when the cost is factored in - unless you really need that extra stop, don't bother...
 
Arkady said:
In that case, unless you find the 35 not wide enough or the 85 not long enough, you already have the perfect trio...

By the way, the 35 f/2 is a better all-round performer than the f/1.4 - especially when the cost is factored in - unless you really need that extra stop, don't bother...
Click to expand...

there have been times when i had to shoot concerts at 1,4 with iso 3200
to get anything at all.
i agree the 35mm f2 is good but the lure of 1.4 is strong
 
I see that, but if I were you, I'd be saving for a D3s or a 2nd hand D3 rather than faster lenses...
 
If you're talking about the new 35mm f1.4 AF-S it's a very different beast to the 35/2. As well it should be for the huge outlay.

I ordered it the day it was announced and collected it on Monday afternoon. By the looks of it the first in the country.

It's THE lens I've been waiting for since moving back to Nikon in early 2008. Very expensive but an absolute no-brainer for me and what I do.

It's that impressive that I'll be adding the 24/1.4 at some point next year.
 
Last edited:
Radiohead said:
If you're talking about the new 35mm f1.4 AF-S it's a very different beast to the 35/2. As well it should be for the huge outlay.

I ordered it the day it was announced and collected it on Monday afternoon. By the looks of it the first in the country.

It's THE lens I've been waiting for since moving back to Nikon in early 2008. Very expensive but an absolute no-brainer for me and what I do.
Click to expand...

I played with one at Photokina and compared my shots to ones taken at the same time on my own 35mm f/2 and to be honest, once the ISO is pushed up, I couldn't see any difference.

In optimal light conditions it must be better - especially at the edges: I accept that, but in optimal conditions I wouldn't be using a fast wide-angle wide-open, in the same way that I might be using a 50mm or 85mm wide-open...
 
I've never had a lot of love for the 35/2 and it's had little use, yet is my favoured FL. Never found the AF to be that accurate or that fast, and I really didn't care for the bokeh.

I'm often in less than optimal conditions - last weekend for instance. 3.30pm ceremony, November, dark at 4.10pm. 50mm f1.4 needed ISO4000 and f1.6 to get me 1/100s. No flash allowed.

I'd have killed for a wider lens faster than the 35mm I had in my bag. Worth noting that those who shot the pre-prod sample and now have the newer one are reporting considerably faster AF. It's pretty quick.

Huge price difference, but absolutely no question it was a lens I had to have.

To the OP though - I agree entirely with Arkady. The 35/2 is so affordable that it's the one to get until you know you're a 35mm shooter. The f1.4 is so expensive that you have to be really committed to that FL to spend that money.
 
Last edited:
my question was which of the 2 would be the most useful as if i do sell to buy i will only be able to afford one

like to see some pics and a mini revue of yours,thanks.
 
I can't answer that for you.

What I would say is that if you're not sure, there are much cheaper ways to find out what focal length you'd use the most. And you already have one of them. If you've got a cheap zoom lying around then tape it to 24mm and use it for a month. Failing that, buy a used 24mm f2.8 and see how you like it.

I'd want to be very, very sure before dropping £1700 on a prime and there are stacks of pictures out there already.
 
Because I use that focal length more.

So flip the question - why do you think you need/want a 24m or 35mm f1.4?
 
Last edited:
It'll get it's first proper work-out at tomorrow's wedding, so I should have a better idea of how the lens performs in the environments I'm usually in next week.
 
boliston said:
I'd have thought fall off is pretty much guaranteed when shooting full frame at f/1.4 unless you use the "vignette correction" camera menu option.
Click to expand...

If I was paying as much for a lens as the 35mm f1.4 costs I'd like to hope that the fall off wouldn't be quite as much as that.

Radiohead said:
Look at anything I do and you'll see I often add a vignette.
Click to expand...

As do I.
Perhaps I should have added a smiley to make it more obvious I was being a bit tongue in cheek.
Did it not hurt a little though, having paid so much for the lens to then nullify one of the things it must do so well?
 
No - I only know of one other person who managed to get one and we both pre-ordered on the day it was announced in September.

Thanks for the typo spot - now amended!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top