35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8

Started Mar 11, 2007 | Discussions
SpitfireStu88
Regular MemberPosts: 267
Like?
35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
Mar 11, 2007

Hi All,

Im going to get a few primes to compliment my zooms for less intimidating portrait photography (sometimes people hate having a 17-55 with hood in their face).

I already have a 50mm 1.8 and am getting a 85mm 1.8, but am torn between the 28mm 2.8 and 35mm f2.

Honestly, they seem very similar, except for the 35mm being 320 new and I can get a 28mm 2.8 for 130 to 150 (US dollars), and of course the wide aperture difference.

For those owners, what are your opinions. This place has always been good for tech talk. Maybe go wider? Perhaps to little difference with the 35 and 50?

(BTW, the search function was down, as I am sure there are alot of threads on this).
--
pbase.com/spitfirestu

SpitfireStu88
Regular MemberPosts: 267
Like?
Re: 35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 11, 2007

Forgot to add I am a royal scrooge so are the AF non D versions of these lenses the same optically? I really dont care about the D feature if it can save some $$.

Thanks again everyone!

-- hide signature --

pbase.com/spitfirestu

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BinfordLPhiE
Contributing MemberPosts: 897Gear list
Like?
Re: 35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 11, 2007

Just posting more as a bump, as I'd like to know as well! I can't imagine the 28 f/2.8 being a replacement for the 35 f/2 that is so loved just becuase of the slightly smaller max aperture.

I'm also interested in the sigma 30mm, which is placed nicely bewteen the 35 and 28, and also has a larger max aperture, but the quality control issues and corner softness are discouraging me.

 BinfordLPhiE's gear list:BinfordLPhiE's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edwardneal
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,781
Like?
hello - -
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 11, 2007

I have the non-"d" version of the 35mm f/2. I bought it used in excellent+ condition from KEH.com for $160. It is an excellent lens and is my most used lens. I highly recommend it. As to the 28mm f/2.8 I have no personal experience with it, but from what I have read it does not seem to get reviews that are good. In his review of the AF version of the 28mm f/2.8 Bjorn Rorslett says this "A simple 5-element formula was later employed for the AF 28 mm f/2.8 lens and this likewise is a mediocre performer."

Frankly that word "mediocre" would keep me from even bothering with this paticular lens. you can read his review here

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html

Here are a couple of samples from my 35 f/2:

-- hide signature --

Edward

Lenses listed in profile

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SpitfireStu88
Regular MemberPosts: 267
Like?
Re: hello - -
In reply to edwardneal, Mar 11, 2007

Thank you guys for the responses. If I can find a 35 f2 used, Ill probably get it. The only issue is its field of view. Originally, I was going to get a 24mm. Do you find with the 35 you are stepping back alot when shooting people, and if you shoot wider landscape type shots with it, you find that you are wide enough.

My concern is its close reach to the 50mm.

Thanks again!

-- hide signature --

pbase.com/spitfirestu

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nuteshack
Senior MemberPosts: 2,626
Like?
Re: hello - -
In reply to edwardneal, Mar 11, 2007

wonderful photos, Edward ....;-))
...35f2 gets my vote

rippy likes it too

lol
;-))

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keith Aitken
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,564
Like?
stu - re 35 f/2
In reply to BinfordLPhiE, Mar 11, 2007

They are almost identical in size / weight, with the 35 costing
slightly more. It may boil down to whether you really, really need
the faster-by-a-tad aperture, because the W/angle diff would almost
not be noticeable.

I have found the 35 f/2 speed very handy for inside social shots with
family and friends

I have both the 35 and the 50. As you observe, some say that these
two FLs are too close, but I find them very complementary, with each
one having its own purpose. I use the 35 more frequently because it
stays on the camera, pending another lens, but I actually prefer very
slightly the sharpness of the 50 f/1.8.

Another 35 f/2 advantage ( to me ) is its close-focussing ability,
down to about 7 or 8 inches. I don't think the 28 does this.

There are any number of 35 f/2 threads here at dp, if you have a few
weels to spare

You probably can't go wrong with either lens, though there will be more
responses from 35 f/2 fanatics . . . er, users.

Good luck !
Keith

some 35 f/2 images :

-- hide signature --

Not a word was spoken, the church bells all were broken . . .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BoyOhBoy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,807
Like?
Re: hello - -
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 11, 2007

The 28mm gets pretty consistent poor reviews, which is why it sells for so little. The main complaints are significant vignetting (even on digital) and softness at the edges of the frame.

I just bought the 35/2 AF-D used from B&H for $215 in "9" condition, this is about what they go for on the forums too. I have consistently seen the non-D go for about the price Edward lists ($160). The reason I chose to go with the D is for easier flash use - I intend to use the 35/2 mostly indoors. Available light often equals poor light, and a flash bounced correctly can go a long way towards correcting the situation. If figured that, at that price, I can always sell it for nearly what I paid if I don't end up using it. Plus, the 17-55 + SB-800 is HEAVY

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Waldo_O
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538
Like?
Re: hello - -
In reply to edwardneal, Mar 11, 2007

Edward,

I have decided to ignore Nute's and your posts on the 35 F2 due to lack of funds.

That shot of the baby is excellent.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lp2dp
Regular MemberPosts: 245
Like?
Re: 35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 11, 2007

The 35 2.0 is not only excellent for low light indoor shots. I use it a lot for shot like these because of its low distortion and excellent corner sharpness.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/84057861@N00/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edwardneal
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,781
Like?
yes - -
In reply to Waldo_O, Mar 12, 2007

If there is a lack of funds you definitely need to ignore Nute's posts, I am not sure about mine, but definitely stay away from Nute's

Waldo_O wrote:

Edward,

I have decided to ignore Nute's and your posts on the 35 F2 due to
lack of funds.

That shot of the baby is excellent.

-- hide signature --

Edward

Lenses listed in profile

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Waldo_O
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538
Like?
Re: yes - -
In reply to edwardneal, Mar 12, 2007

You are a funny, helpful guy Edward.

Cheers to you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LeanderL
Junior MemberPosts: 46Gear list
Like?
Wide angle hard on digital?
In reply to edwardneal, Mar 12, 2007

I have tried the AF 20 2,8 and the AF24 2,8 and returned them both because my Nikkor 12-24 4,0 DX zoom turned out to be sharper. And that was a surprise to me, because I thought the primes would for sure be sharper than the zoom. It made me like my 12-24 more, even though I would like it to be sharper than it is. Made me think that somehow the use of wide angle lenses on aps sized sensors yields lesser results than on film.
This week I hope to try out an Ais 20 2,8 to see if it works better on my D200.
I' ll let you know what my findings are.

regards,
Leander

-- hide signature --
 LeanderL's gear list:LeanderL's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
avi
avi
Senior MemberPosts: 1,690
Like?
Re: 35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
In reply to lp2dp, Mar 12, 2007

lp2dt, I had to complement you here , these are really great images , wow , really great. I think its time to get this 35 2 again

-- hide signature --

avis
http://www.pbase.com/avistar/avi_s_photographic_world
Nikon D70, 50/1.4D, 85/1.8D 105/2.8D, 180/2.8ED
18-70DX SB600, SB800
Gitzo 1228, and 1226 ,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lp2dp
Regular MemberPosts: 245
Like?
Re: 35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
In reply to avi, Mar 12, 2007

Thanks Avi. The 35 2.0 is a great little lens, i use it as my standard lens.

Nice lens lineup you've got!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keith Aitken
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,564
Like?
lp2dp - unusual images,
In reply to lp2dp, Mar 12, 2007

So colourful, with a sense of organised sequence,
despite the obvious randomness of the shots -

well identfied and well-captured !

Keith

-- hide signature --

Not a word was spoken, the church bells all were broken . . .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lp2dp
Regular MemberPosts: 245
Like?
Re: lp2dp - unusual images,
In reply to Keith Aitken, Mar 12, 2007

Keith, thanks for your kind words.

Since i'm mostly shooting with primes i'm trying to avoid the obvious and the use of a prime lens instead of a zoom actually helps a lot trying to achieve just that. A prime forces me to carefully (re)compose the images.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kovacj
Contributing MemberPosts: 520
Like?
Re: 28mm f2.8 AF not optically same as AF-D...
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 19, 2007

non-D version = 5 elements in 5 groups
D version = 6 elements in 6 groups

I have the D version and I must admit that I am puzzled by all the negative press about this lens; I suspect that a lot of it is directed at the older non-D version. Good color rendition and contrast and mine is sharp even at f2.8 (no dreamy quality).

Here is one at f2.8 (no edits) from a D100:

and a 100% crop (again, no edits):

I really like mine and I find the focal length very versatile on DX.
-jk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fantastisch
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: 35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 19, 2007

I have had a 28/2.8 (AF, non-D) in the past, but sold it, because the image quality was very poor. The D-version is known to be better, but still not very good.

I now have the 35/2.0 (AF, non-D) and I like it. It has to be stopped down to 2.8 to be tack sharp. If your 17-55 performs well at 35mm@2.8, then you might want to skip this one and get a Sigma 30/1.4 or just nothing at all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Vertumnus
Regular MemberPosts: 448
Like?
Re: 35mm f2 and 28mm 2.8
In reply to SpitfireStu88, Mar 19, 2007

Hi,

I have both.If I were you I would get 35/2 over 28/2.8 for:

1.A litle less distortion
2.Slightly better sharpness wide open (corners)
3.Faster max aperture

In real life photos IQ differences between these lenses however are hardly visible,so only pixel peeping may disclose them.

You have 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 allready,so 35/2 will complement the trio of the best (IMO) performing primes up to 85mm (not macro) on Nikon mount DX dSLRs.

cheers
--
Etruscus

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads