Wide Nikkor Primes

[erichlund]

There has been some talk recently about the mediocre quality of Nikon's wide primes. I have contributed to this opinion. However, as an aside, it should be said that Nikon has, in the past, made some very good wide primes. Unfortunately, most here cannot take advantage of them, because they are manual focus lenses with the AI-S tag. That means that they will not meter on Nikons with two numbers in the name, like 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80.

If you have one of the 3 digit or single digit Nikons, and you can swing the high price, the AI-S primes often have outstanding qualities that put them right up there with some of the "legend" lenses. There are excellent lenses at 20mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm. Build quality is far superior to the current plastic wonders, and the lenses are designed for manual focus, so the action will be very smooth. They are currently a bit out of my price range, and probably not coming down.

We can only hope that someday, Nikon will finally get around to refreshing this segment of their lens lineup. Unfortunately, I would not hold my breath, as that does not seem to be the current focus of company policy.

[Rooz]

i think nikon may surprise us again. after all who would have picked they would release super high quality tilt shift lens' and an update to the already excllent 60mm micro ?

the d3 will, and has, lured alot of pro's over. so they have to update the lens' pro's like to use. the wider angle primes would be high on thier list imo. then again...they may just say, "look the 14-24 f2.8 covers most of the wide end focal lengths and its better than any prime on the market anyway."

[erichlund]

I was surprised by the PC lenses, but not the 60mm Micro. They had already updated the 105, so there was a certain logic that the 60 would get an update as well. I suppose that means we can expect the 200 to get an update, though I don't suppose they sell as many of those. It is, after all, very expensive.

If I see a trend, it's that they are working very hard on the zooms as basic kit, and also working on specialty lenses. They seem to be specifically avoiding the basic primes.

Of course, that doesn't explain the long primes, but that was a hole in the lineup you could drive a truck through. It's probably the main reason that Canon instead of Nikon owns the pro sports market.

I do have to admit, if you look at the number of lenses that Nikon has introduced in the last couple of years, it's pretty impressive. Of course, it also has the impact of making some of us take a wait and see attitude. The 85mm f1.4 is a great lens, but it's due for an AF-S update. Should we wait? Fortunately, I'm in a position where I can wait because I don't NEED an 85mm f1.4. Want is an entirely different matter.

[Rooz]

RichNY is going to post pics that is going to destroy our resolve with the 85/1.4. a "want" turns into a "need" awful quick when you add a dash on NAS.

[K1W1]

Thom Hogan has some thoughts on this subject (here - Nikon's New Lenses) for those what are interested.

[T06]

...does some good stuff our Thom, a tad better than that ken fella....

[Visual Reality]

How many people have used the AF 35mm f/2? I am seriously considering this lens instead of the 50mm f/1.8. I think the 50 will be too much focal length for what I plan on using it for: night time street photography, and indoor get-togethers. The 35 will be perfect I think.

Any reason not to get it? Any lens that would suit me better in the same price range? It's currently right @ $300.

[e_dawg]

How many people have used the AF 35mm f/2? I am seriously considering this lens instead of the 50mm f/1.8. I think the 50 will be too much focal length for what I plan on using it for: night time street photography, and indoor get-togethers. The 35 will be perfect I think.

It depends on how close your subjects are. If you're talking about across the dinner table shots, the 35 is too long unless you want tight head shots only. And similarly for street photography, you'd have to be a fair distance away unless you only wanted head shots. Street photography to me means up close and personal with a wideangle lens to emphasize depth and put you right in the scene. 35 mm was a great focal length for street photography and indoor social situations when it was really 35 mm. But with the 1.5x FLM of the APS-C sensor, it's really 53 mm EFL. Heck, a "normal" lens is theoretically only 43 mm by FOV equivalence.

Personally, I'd suggest a shorter focal length for those purposes. I'm not sure how you shoot, but I personally prefer 24-30 mm for indoor social and street photography.

Any reason not to get it? Any lens that would suit me better in the same price range? It's currently right @ $300.

Unfortunately, there's nothing really comparable if you need the speed (f/2) and have a target price of $300. If you must have the speed, the Sigma 30/1.4 is the king of low-light photography if you can find a good copy (the QC is hit and miss with Sigma in general, and even worse for the 30/1.4). It's not as good as the 35/2, but it is a better focal length for your purposes and it gives you the main capability you were looking for in a prime: speed.

If speed is not your primary objective here, I'd suggest a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for the focal length versatility (and I feel that it's good enough that you won't notice the difference from the 35/2 unless you do a side by side). The higher price is justified because it can be your main lens and obviates the need for any primes below 35 mm because it's as good as or better than all of them. You can add a 55-200/VR and be done with it.

I'd say forget about the 18-200/VR. It's rather average. The 17-50/2.8 is a lens you can build a system around. The 18-200/VR is a convenience item, and something that must be replaced when you realize you need more quality and speed. The only reason I keep mine around anymore is for weddings or other events where by definition I need a massive focal length range and don't want to carry multiple bodies or don't have time to change lenses. It certainly isn't for the performance -- especially not on the long end.

[Rooz]

i just bought the 35/f2 and its superb. dont hesitate cos its a great lens. not quite as sharp as the 50mm but its close.

[Visual Reality]

Better than comparable Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lenses, if they exist? I've heard there is a 30mm f/1.4 Sigma that is pretty good. I'm not versed on primes from other companies.

Or would it make more sense to just get the similarly priced Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro? If the 35 f/2 isn't very sharp at f/2 and you would use f/2.8 mostly anyway, you may as well get one with more versatility.

Sharpness looks really similar between the two.

Edit: I just realized it's $130 more than the 35 f/2.