Normal-to-slight-WA for Nikon.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Martin Sørensen - 11 Mar 2008 10:29 GMT

I have a D80 and picked up a used 50/1.8 AF which I am very happy
with.

I am now considering something wider to supplement it, preferably at a
low price. Essentially, something like the 35/2 I had when I was
shooting film.

A 24mm would be obvious, but Nikons seem a bit so-so when you read the
reviews. Any decent 28mm? Of course there is the Sigma 30/1.4, what
are the alternatives?

TIA

Martin

Reply to this Message

Rita Berkowitz - 11 Mar 2008 12:05 GMT

> I have a D80 and picked up a used 50/1.8 AF which I am very happy
> with.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> reviews. Any decent 28mm? Of course there is the Sigma 30/1.4, what
> are the alternatives?

Pick up a used 17-35/2.8 Nikkor and be done with it. It works on both DX
and full frame Nikon bodies. The performance and image quality is so good
that even Canon shooters buy and used them.

Rita

Reply to this Message

Martin Sørensen - 11 Mar 2008 13:08 GMT

> > I have a D80 and picked up a used 50/1.8 AF which I am very happy
> > with.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Rita

Hmm. It is big, heavy, and "only" does f/2.8. Even 2nd hand here in
Europe it looks like at least 500 Euro - that is 700 USD or so.

I don't have any plans to go FF, and I do have the 18-135 kit lens.

What I would like is something light, bright and cheap. Like the
50/1.8.

But thanks anyway

Martin

Reply to this Message

Rita Berkowitz - 12 Mar 2008 01:03 GMT

>> Pick up a used 17-35/2.8 Nikkor and be done with it. It works on
>> both DX and full frame Nikon bodies. The performance and image
>> quality is so good that even Canon shooters buy and used them.
>
> Hmm. It is big, heavy, and "only" does f/2.8. Even 2nd hand here in
> Europe it looks like at least 500 Euro - that is 700 USD or so.

I guess if it doesn't fit these requirements than it won't work for you.
It's such a sweet lens that will spoil you with great optics and build
quality.

> I don't have any plans to go FF, and I do have the 18-135 kit lens.

Still works great on DX. I used it on my D200 and D2x.

> What I would like is something light, bright and cheap. Like the
> 50/1.8.

Aint much out there from Nikon that is going to be bright and cheap. The
Sigma (Gag) 30/1.4 fits that category, but be prepared to play roulette
trying to get a decent sample.

> But thanks anyway

You'll find something.

Rita

Reply to this Message

Fredrik Sandstrom - 11 Mar 2008 14:52 GMT

> I am now considering something wider to supplement it, preferably at
> a low price. Essentially, something like the 35/2 I had when I was
> shooting film.
>
> A 24mm would be obvious, but Nikons seem a bit so-so when you read
> the reviews. Any decent 28mm?

24mm would get you essentially the same field of view as a 35mm on a
film camera. What reviews have you been reading? Nikkor 24/2.8 is very
good, but perhaps you want something faster. 28mm will not be wide,
it's normal on a DX body.

> Of course there is the Sigma 30/1.4, what are the alternatives?

Sigma's offering is a very good lens, and probably your best bet. I
use it all the time when I'm shooting digital (but I shoot more film
these days). Nikon doesn't have any real alternatives to this; their
28/2.8 is decent and inexpensive, but two stops slower. Nikkor 28/1.4
is extremely expensive and very hard to find.

Signature

Fredrik Sandström
fs@iki.fi

Reply to this Message

Martin Sørensen - 11 Mar 2008 15:46 GMT

> > I am now considering something wider to supplement it, preferably at
> > a low price. Essentially, something like the 35/2 I had when I was
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> good, but perhaps you want something faster. 28mm will not be wide,
> it's normal on a DX body.

I know, it is as much in relation to the 50 I already have - the
purpose is available light shots of the kids, and I find I need
something slightly wider than 50 on DX.

The reviews I found were
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/213-nikkor-af-
28mm-f28d-review--test-report?start=1
and http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html for the 28/2.8. And
yes, f/2 or better is nice.

> > Of course there is the Sigma 30/1.4, what are the alternatives?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 28/2.8 is decent and inexpensive, but two stops slower. Nikkor 28/1.4
> is extremely expensive and very hard to find.

I guess I will have a go with the 28/2.8 if I find a cheap one and
take it from there.

Interesting that it sound like you have gone back to film. Dare I ask
why? The only thing I miss is the luxurious blacks of quality bw
papers.

Thanks,

Martin

Reply to this Message

Fredrik Sandstrom - 11 Mar 2008 20:19 GMT

> I know, it is as much in relation to the 50 I already have - the
> purpose is available light shots of the kids, and I find I need
> something slightly wider than 50 on DX.

Well, AF Nikkor 35 f/2D seems like a good candidate in that case.
Fast, sharp, and wider than 50.

> Interesting that it sound like you have gone back to film. Dare I
> ask why?

Now these innocent questions usually start those endless film vs
digital wars so let's not go there. :) But since you asked, there's
three reasons:

- Kodachrome. Lately more and more people have realized that
Kodachrome is a historically significant and extraordinary medium,
and that it might soon be gone forever. So the time to shoot it, if
you ever want to do so (again, or for the first time) is NOW. Refer
to my own blog on the subject: http://photo.oktett.net/ and Daniel
Bayer's Kodachrome Project: http://www.kodachromeproject.com/

- Nothing beats a slide shown on a big screen. You can sit and watch a
photograph like you sit and admire a painting. You can walk up to
the screen and study the details up close. Video projectors? Pfft.
They have ridiculously low resolution (except perhaps _very_
expensive models). 1-2 megapixels. How much did you pay for that
12Mp camera again? You throw away 9/10 of the pixels, if you view
your shots on a video projector.

For prints, digital wins hands down. I see no reason to shoot 35mm
color negative film anymore. (For me, that is. I'm not saying you
shouldn't do that if you like it.)

- I just plain enjoy capturing images on a tangible medium like film.
Especially with a manual and mechanical camera. The process of
focusing carefully, setting the exposure (bracketing when unsure),
NOT seeing the result immediately, but contemplating every exposure
you make, making every shot count. It's rewarding, and just feels
right. To ME that is, I'm not saying anyone else ought to feel that
way

And DON'T interpret this as if I have anything against digital
photography. I shoot a lot of digital myself, and it has some
tremendous advantages.

Signature

Fredrik Sandström
fs@iki.fi

Reply to this Message

Martin Sørensen - 11 Mar 2008 22:42 GMT

> > I know, it is as much in relation to the 50 I already have - the
> > purpose is available light shots of the kids, and I find I need
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> digital wars so let's not go there. :) But since you asked, there's
> three reasons:

No war intended, just curious :-)

> - Nothing beats a slide shown on a big screen. You can sit and watch a
> photograph like you sit and admire a painting. You can walk up to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 12Mp camera again? You throw away 9/10 of the pixels, if you view
> your shots on a video projector.

I never shot slides, because I thought I would rarely view them.

> For prints, digital wins hands down. I see no reason to shoot 35mm
> color negative film anymore. (For me, that is. I'm not saying you
> shouldn't do that if you like it.)

I would consider doing BW if I had the time and space, I did like
that.

> And DON'T interpret this as if I have anything against digital
> photography. I shoot a lot of digital myself, and it has some
> tremendous advantages.

I don't!

Reply to this Message