Better choice than Nikon 35mm for wide on DX?

K

kartracer

Messages
1,178
Edit My Images
No
Is there a better option that the Nikon 35mm (1.8, or 2.0) for a wide walkabout lens on a DX? I'm really after something that is more akin to an actual 35mm/40mm effective length, but cannot find anything. The 35mm, at just over 50mm effective focal length is really too long.

Any suggestions for something that won't break the bank? Camera is a D90, and whilst I'd like to move to full-frame that's a long way off.
 
There's a 28mm f/2.8 AF-D (equates to 42mm effective focal length) and I think they just brought out a f/1.4 24mm, which is silly money (£1,200+). That would give you an EF of 36mm on DX. There is a 14mm and 16mm available, but i think these are fisheye-esque so will give plenty of distortion.

The 20mm f/2.8 is an option if you want 30mm (EF).
 
Nikon 10-24 (15-36) may be a good choice. Not the cheapest. I had a Sigma 30mm prime for sale here, 45mm equivalent. What are you intending to use it for?
 
a *better* choice can be the 18-105vr kit :)

personally, I don't think there's a better choice for a walkabout lens than the 35f/2D
 
Kartracer, are you looking at primes or zooms? You can quickly narrow things down if you know what you want. Personally, a good quality, fast aperture zoom like the Tammy 17-50 is a very versatile tool but you can't get those super fast apertures like you can on a prime.
 
specialman said:
There's a 28mm f/2.8 AF-D (equates to 42mm effective focal length) and I think they just brought out a f/1.4 24mm, which is silly money (£1,200+). That would give you an EF of 36mm on DX. There is a 14mm and 16mm available, but i think these are fisheye-esque so will give plenty of distortion.

The 20mm f/2.8 is an option if you want 30mm (EF).
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell seems to flip-flop on the 28mm. And says to get the 24mm, then says to get a decent zoom..

I want a compact, wide walkabout lens. 24mm=35mm on DX, is about right, but that doesn't get a great write up there either.
 
tictoc said:
Nikon 10-24 (15-36) may be a good choice. Not the cheapest. I had a Sigma 30mm prime for sale here, 45mm equivalent. What are you intending to use it for?
Click to expand...

Social doc. I was looking at the Sigma, but some reviews said it was bulky, but maybe its not that bad and could be an option. The Nikon 28mm is the nearest, but Rockwell's write up is so-so.
 
specialman said:
Kartracer, are you looking at primes or zooms? You can quickly narrow things down if you know what you want. Personally, a good quality, fast aperture zoom like the Tammy 17-50 is a very versatile tool but you can't get those super fast apertures like you can on a prime.
Click to expand...

Good question, I'm after a compact prime so I'll have my camera with me more often. Had an 18-70mm, now an 18-200mm, but I always used primes on my old FX kit, and prefer them. I want a good walkabout/prime/WA to refine my technique and use, mainly, for social doc.
 
kartracer said:
Social doc. I was looking at the Sigma, but some reviews said it was bulky, but maybe its not that bad and could be an option. The Nikon 28mm is the nearest, but Rockwell's write up is so-so.
Click to expand...

The 28 is one of those 'neither one thing nor another' lens...especially on FX...
If you want a 'standard wide' the 35mm is better by a mile and if you want a 'proper' wide' then the 24mm is also better by a mile...

But on DX the 28 behaves a bit more like a 35, so I might go for one of those over the 24... 28's are usually quite a bit cheaper than 24's as well...

But it's down to what you want from the lens rather than what everyone else thinks about it that really matters.
My personal preference is for a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom for almost everything and a 35mm f/2 prime for those few times I want a handy walkabout lens without the weight and bulk of the zoom.
 
kartracer said:
Ken Rockwell seems to...
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell said:
I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly. While often inspired by actual products and events [...] I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend.
Click to expand...

Ignore "Saint Ken".

Personally I like my Sigma 10-20mm, but like Arkady says, it's really down to what you want/need. How wide do you want to go? Do you want a prime or a zoom?
 
I do quite a bit of street photography with a D300. I have experimented with Nikon 24/28/35(f2) and 50 primes, the Nikon 18-70 (kit), Sigma10-20/18-50/24-70/Tamron 17-35 and more recently the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8D! The best overall two are the 18-50/24-70 Sigmas. At a fixed f2.8 they are useful, f2.8 not being too bad and no worse than the 24 or 28mm primes, the zoom just covers 'well you will never know what you will see next'. I also find them very sharp. I love primes, but for me the zoom in honesty is much more versatile and seems to keep me a bit more prepared. The 28mm Nikon does work well as a walkabout but I find it's performance below that of the 24/35 or 50mm.
 
In that case you 'want' the Nikkor 24-70.
Pin-sharp even wide open and as good if not better when stopped-down, to the best Nikkor primes...
I've compared mine to my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G and my 85mm f/1.4 and any difference in IQ is indistinguishable to my eye.

It's significantly better than my older 17-35mm f/2.8 (which I still use anyway because I like it) and my older 28-70 f/2.8 (which I sold in preference to the 24-70).
 
Yeah, I've used both the Nikon and Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses and I'd definitely go for the Nikon over the Sigma. Much much sharper lens.
 
Kaouthia said:
Yeah, I've used both the Nikon and Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses and I'd definitely go for the Nikon over the Sigma. Much much sharper lens.
Click to expand...

I think most people would assuming they have the budget, the Sigma is about a quarter of the price! :) For what it is, the Sigma is a corker and on DX mine at least is spot on. I also bought a 24-135 Tamron SP from Puddleduck and that is a spot on corker, but a stop slower and there's not many around. I tend to do a lot of work at around f4/4.5 so that Nikon is highly attractive but too expensive for me right now.

If I was looking for a walkabout zoom on a budget I'd definately suggest the two Sigmas,the Nikon 18-70, or if you are flush the 17-55 or 24-70 Nikons. Primes I would have a 24mm , a 35mm and 50mm.
 
Perhaps, but if you know you're eventually going to pick up the higher end lens at some point, it's better to get it sooner rather than later. Buying one or two cheaper alternatives now just means it's going to end up costing more money in the long run when you take a loss on reselling them (and the Sigma's a hair over half the price of the Nikon, not even close to a quarter of the price). :)
 
Maybe at new, but the secondhand price to pick one up in the forums represents around 25-30% of the Nikon. New is best for sure, the Nikon is best, but clearly many amateurs here are on a budget and cannot afford paying so much. That one lens may exceed the value of all their other kit! :) If you can afford it or you are a professional the advantages it gives are well worth it.
 
I think "justify" would perhaps be a more appropriate word than "afford". :)
 
Thanks folks. I think I'm just going to get a 24mm/28mm or 35mm (35/42/50mm on my DX) and try it out. One thing I do know, in terms of what I want/need, is a lens that I know where its at when I go to shoot. One issue I have with zooms is I've always got to take that extra step to check where its at before shooting. With a prime I know immediately what's in the frame, or not. Maybe a pro zoom , sans zoom-creep, etc. would work, but I don't have the budget at the moment.
 
You only really get "creep" on a push-pull zoom. I haven't seen one of those in a long while. :)
 
In my case justify would be appropriate. I don't have an abundance of money but i certainly have enough that i could go out and buy one, and a D3 or whatever, but yes, I have to justify this with other goings on and also the threat of violence from my Mrs! :)

I don't agree though that justify is a general replacement for afford. There are plenty of people who have to do their hobby on a budget. You see people having to sell lenses in a hurry to pay for a car repair or quite simply do their photography with only one lens and really hope they can save to get a flash or a wide-angle.

Anyway, sorry for hijacking the original thread... and yes, get the 24-70 and life can be sweet after that...
 
No, justify is always a more appropriate first step than afford.

If you can justify something enough and don't have the funds, you can see what you have that you may be able to sell, or what else you can do, in order to afford the purchase.

If you cannot justify a purchase, then whether you can afford it or not is irrelevant. I can afford a lot of things I cannot justify buying.

If somebody has to sell a lens in a hurry to pay for a car repair, then they simply cannot justify keeping that lens, as something more important came up that requires those funds.
 
Kaouthia said:
No, justify is always a more appropriate first step than afford.

If you can justify something enough and don't have the funds, you can see what you have that you may be able to sell, or what else you can do, in order to afford the purchase.

If you cannot justify a purchase, then whether you can afford it or not is irrelevant. I can afford a lot of things I cannot justify buying.

If somebody has to sell a lens in a hurry to pay for a car repair, then they simply cannot justify keeping that lens, as something more important came up that requires those funds.
Click to expand...

Ah, in that case they cannot afford to keep it either! Just joking... When I had my FX (film) kit (including most of Nikon's decent lenses at the time), I had a lot of it idle much of the time. And, I found what an old pro friend (that would be pro photographer) told me to be true - get a decent wide lens, anything else won't get much use.
 
specialman said:
... The 20mm f/2.8 is an option if you want 30mm (EF).
Click to expand...

kartracer said:
Ken Rockwell seems to flip-flop on the 28mm. And says to get the 24mm, then says to get a decent zoom..

I want a compact, wide walkabout lens. 24mm=35mm on DX, is about right, but that doesn't get a great write up there either.
Click to expand...

So, if you want to go wider than the 35 mm DX lens (44° DX fov) what is against Nikon's 20 mm f/2.8 (70° DX fov & 94° FX)?
 
It would depend how far away from it they are and in what part of the frame.
 
I'm leaning towards the Nikon 20mm, or possibly 24mm. The latter is a a little cheaper, which might swing it for me. Also, thinking about flash, would that be a little less troublesome with the 24mm (I'd probably use bounce/a diffuser anyway)
 
Arkady said:
On DX it'll behave like a 30mm lens anyway...
Click to expand...

But significantly different from the 35 mm DX ...

PickleB said:
... the 35 mm DX lens (44° DX fov) ... Nikon's 20 mm f/2.8 (70° DX fov & 94° FX)?
Click to expand...
... don't you think?

I suppose it depends upon how wide a lens you really need. If you're talking people it might be easier to change your subject distance and then f/1.8 ability of the 35 mm may become an attractive feature as against max fov.

Best bet is to borrow one or the other and see if it does what you need. Where abouts are you ... ?
 
Fair comment.

People are in the frame - do you mean the 35mm DX f.1.8?

I'm in West London. One of these days, I'm going to get around to joining a club...
 
kartracer said:
I'm leaning towards the Nikon 20mm, or possibly 24mm. The latter is a a little cheaper, which might swing it for me. Also, thinking about flash, would that be a little less troublesome with the 24mm (I'd probably use bounce/a diffuser anyway)
Click to expand...

The 24mm is reported to be the better of the two, here is a link to Thom Hogan's assessment of the 20mm, he refers to the 24mm in the side notes LINK
 
Thanks, I've seen that - cannot really find a great write up on the 20mm. Of course, those are both old lenses.
 
kartracer said:
... do you mean the 35mm DX f.1.8?

I'm in West London ...
Click to expand...
Yes - the 35 mm DX is a nice, light, small lens. I'm away now for a bit, but if you haven't bought anything in a week or so, we might be able to arrange to meet and you can try out the lenses I have.

kartracer said:
Thanks, I've seen that - cannot really find a great write up on the 20mm. Of course, those are both old lenses.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the review on this page? (It's about a quarter of the way down the page.) Not a lot of info, but read in comparison to the MF version he also reviews, probably enough to form a view.
 
The Nikon 24mm f2.8D AF is a really good lens. I've just been looking back at my photos and realise that this was my most favourite walkabout lens. It's compact, very sharp, and just right for landscapes. You can also get some good candid shots with it by cropping in. It works well fairly close up too when I've been photographing flowers.
 
I was after a wide angle for street photography and as a walk about lens etc and found a 24mm Super wide Sigma with macro. This is a film lens but I'm using it on a D200 so don't know what it's like on FX. It cost me £45 from a camera shop.

A cheap but adequate lens which suits me for the moment.


pete
 
Sigma 20mm f1.8 is a great lens on a DX, you might even find one in the for sale section.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top