Nikon 24mm 2.8 vs Nikon 18-35mm 3.5

[tintin]

Hi all,

Would love some advice...

I recently bought a Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-4.5 and love it to bits but when I go travelling next year I'm hoping to have something with less distortion at 20mm and a wider aperture. My main reasoning is that I'm going to be taking pics indoors and in quite confined spaces and want to come away knowing I used the best kit I could afford. I've already decided that I want something between 20 and 35mm and I already have the 50mm f1.4 however this just isn't wide (angle) enough.

So without breaking the bank (c.£300 budget) I figure my options are:

Nikon 35mm f2 (maybe not wide enough but f2 is tempting)
Nikon 20mm or 24mm f2.8

Set at 24mm my 18-35 offers f3.5 so that's only half a stop above the f2.8....

Do you guys think the extra half stop is worth it? I'm checking Ken's site RE distortion as we speak

Sorry if this is an age old question, I'm a bit of a n00b where indoors/natural light togging is concerned and need a little guidance!

Cheers

Barney

 

[Arkady]

The 35mm f/2 is a brilliant walkabout lens, but may not be quite wide enough for you if you're used to using the wider-end of your 18-35.
I use my 35mm in preference to my 50mm in almost all general-purpose situations.

The old 24mm f/2.8 is also very good but a bit pricey at £324 IMO...

A good compromise would be a 28mm f/2.8 bought second-hand (they go for about £225 new against the 35mm f/2 at £253 - so maybe look at second-hand for one of those as well).

You should also note that all of those lenses are about 10-15 years old in terms of design and so may not perform quite as well as newer multi ££££ optics brought-out during recent months (but who wants to spend £1800 on a prime lens these days?).
The lack of nano-chrystal coatings in particular may cause a tadge more CA than you might like in very high contrast situations. Mostly, you'll not notice any significant difference unless you're a hyper-critical pixel-peeper though...lol

 

[jpw]

Set at 24mm my 18-35 offers f3.5 so that's only half a stop above the f2.8....

Do you guys think the extra half stop is worth it? I'm checking Ken's site RE distortion as we speak

It's actually f4 at 24mm (well mine is anyway!), a full stop slower than the prime. I've got both and wouldn't be without either, the 24mm is pretty sharp at 2.8 already.

 

[tintin]

Yeah 35mm is a little too wide for what I need but I know what you mean about using it over the 50mm, I might save for the 35mm f1.4 when it finally comes out, assuming it's not silly money! I'm digging the 24mm f2.8 right now so will probably pick one up second hand off ebay, they seem to be selling around the £160 mark.

Thanks for the advice