My Finding this weekend

rookies

rookies

Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Ok...

Ive a Nikon 50mm 1.8G lens.. Love it..

This weekend I borrowed a 24-70 F2.8 Nikon Lens it a nicely built lens heavy but that expected.. But the images from the 50mm kicks the 24-70 in the but I honestly can say the 50mm give sharper images better rendering and contrast..

So I am thinking should I bother buying zoom.. hmm I am thinking of getting a Nikon 35mm 1.8G as when I looked at all the images I took this weekend with this zoom lens there was only 4 that went to 30 and nothing below. Most were 35 up to 56...

food for though I need to have a good think on this as I've a chance to get a Used 24-70 Lens I got to let the guy know ASAP..
 
Think I am going get a 35mm 1.8 and used old version tammron 28-75 2.8
 
Did you make sure the 24-70 was tuned to your body? Ive owned or used all 3 of the nikon 50mm lens and wouldn't say any are sharper than the 24-70, on par at most. Yes its big and heavy but you get the added benefit of zoom.

Have a look at the sigma 35 that is very sharp and has great contrast, better than the nikon and cheaper too if you can find a used one.

I sold my 50 1.8g about a year ago as after getting my sig 35 the focal lengths ended up being to close and I prefer 35/85 over 50/85 . Plus my 24-70 covers that range if needed.
 
Hi

I've never had to tune any lens with my canon I expect not toon this too.

Which sigma the Nikon is £399. Not seen a sigma cheaper than that.
 
Any samples between the two you could post? Or possibly on the newer D750 thread.
 
No way is the Sigma 35 cheaper than the Nikon 35. One other thing to consider is the Nikon also weighs less than half the Sigma, if you want a lighter setup thats a lot (360g difference or 2x 50mm 1.8Gs!)
 
I think u guys talking about the sigma 35mm 1.4. When I am referring to Nikon 35mm 1.8????


Will set up a tripod test later to see how the results turn out.
 
Unless u guys talking about the Non Art lens??
 
Then why above telling me a 35mm is cheaper than Nikon when there isn't one apart from 1.4. Am talking about 1.8.

Unless the sigma 30mm 1.8 art is good and better than Nikon 35mm 1.8????
 
rookies said:
Then why above telling me a 35mm is cheaper than Nikon when there isn't one apart from 1.4. Am talking about 1.8.

Unless the sigma 30mm 1.8 art is good and better than Nikon 35mm 1.8????
Click to expand...

What are you on about? I never said the Sigma was cheaper! NO DX is APSC you cant use the Sigma 30mm on a D750!
 
Sorry twist confusing ur post to other guy.

Yes your right sigma is cheaper than Nikon 35 1.4 I know that. But comparing the sigma 1.4 to Nikon 1.8. I believe it unfair to compare. The Nikon is within the price I want to pay but is it good enough.
 
Sorry should have checked the more recent prices. Last time I checked the nikon was 450ish and there were sigma's selling for less than this.. a few at 425 but seems there used price has gone back up as well.

Either way if you want a 35 over a 24-70 and can spend a little extra the sigma is a far better len's.
 
Is it worth the extra £200 ??
 
Bet it hard find these used if they thst good
 
look at sample pics and see which you prefer the look it produces, and get that one

the sigma's are made to be very sharp, for the foveon sensors (and future ones i guess)

the new ones have a lovely finish too, old ones from years back didnt
 
Been a fair few sold on here in the past year, depends how soon you want it and what your willing to pay.

But i wouldn't discard the 24-70 either though. Have a think if you want to be changing len's, lighter weight and 1.8 over 2.8, or more of a focal length thats sharp though out, faster AF but more weight.

I wouldn't sell my 24-70 anytime soon even though i have/had most the focal length covered by primes/ other len's.
 
I not saying the 24-70 a bad lens. Might have to fine tune the AF for it is that what u were suggestion??

I though primes are faster AF??
 
The Sigma 35 is a stunning lens easily the best IQ I've seen on my D800 however its a weighty beast. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 FX (£400 lens) is close but doesn't have the character of the Sigma its a lot smaller and lighter though if that's a consideration. Used Sigma 35's seem to go for between £400 and £450
 
rookies said:
I not saying the 24-70 a bad lens. Might have to fine tune the AF for it is that what u were suggestion??

I though primes are faster AF??
Click to expand...


yeah it is likely, I've fine tuned every lens on my d800 none were at 0. even with the 24-70 there was a difference between each end, so i just picked the middle. I've found the AF on the the 24-70 to be very quick and accurate, plus the copy i have is razor sharp. As you pointed out weight is the only issue with it.
 
Just got the 24-70 , the build quality is superb , and the auto focus is fast. Yes it's heavy , even my d800 is going to take some getting used to with this lens fitted . The price I think is expensive but for the build quality it's not.
I have not tried the lens with low light yet , but expect excellent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top