24mm, 28mm, 35mm (AFD), or 45mm P

Hi,

Great forum here (lots of learning and entertainment). I've been reading a bit for the past few months but really just started to immerse myself after receiving a D70 from the wifey this christmas

I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8

What's important to me is sharpness and bokeh. And my pet peeve is distortion.

Anyone with any first hand experience with these lenses? Other suggestions/recommendations are also welcome. I mostly take pictures of family members and some landscapes here and there.

Cheers,
Dinky7

http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_prime-wide.htm

There is some interesting information at the above link.

dinky7 said:

Hi,
Great forum here (lots of learning and entertainment). I've been
reading a bit for the past few months but really just started to
immerse myself after receiving a D70 from the wifey this christmas


I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8

What's important to me is sharpness and bokeh. And my pet peeve is
distortion.

Anyone with any first hand experience with these lenses? Other
suggestions/recommendations are also welcome. I mostly take
pictures of family members and some landscapes here and there.

Cheers,
Dinky7

Click to expand...

I can only vouch for the 35mm f2.0 AF-D : It is a superb lens, with average Bokeh, and as f2.0 suggests, pretty fast ! I have it, I like it. Here is my wife's picture taken in available light (Briarwood Mall, Ann Arbor MI).



I have read a lot of PRO photogs raving about 45mm f2.8 P, but I can't live without Auto Focus, so I did not go for it.

Regards,
-Sanjay

It's my walkaround lens most of the time now. Great for shooting people.

I also considered 24 f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8, but the current version of the 28mm lens is not so good, and 24mm is a bit wider than I like for shooting people -- plus I like having the extra stop. I do plan to add something wider though like the Sigma 20 f/1.8 (and/or the new Tokina 12-24 f/4).

I also passed on the 45 pancake for similar reasons as Sanjay -- too hard to manually focus w/ D70 anyway -- and feel it's too long for shooting people indoors when factoring the 1.5x crop factor. I also own the 50 f/1.8 and rarely use it for that reason.

Man

Sanjay Gaikwad said:

I can only vouch for the 35mm f2.0 AF-D : It is a superb lens, with
average Bokeh, and as f2.0 suggests, pretty fast ! I have it, I
like it. Here is my wife's picture taken in available light
(Briarwood Mall, Ann Arbor MI).

http://www.pbase.com/sanjayg/image/38199741.jpg

I have read a lot of PRO photogs raving about 45mm f2.8 P, but I
can't live without Auto Focus, so I did not go for it.

Regards,
-Sanjay

Click to expand...

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Thanks, Sanjay, Man for your input as well as to txbonds for the helpful link.

Have any of you also tried the 3rd party primes?

Cheers,
Dinky7

No text

... but I expect to add the Sigma 20 f/1.8 to my kit soon enough.

Someone -- forget who -- did tell me that he found the Sigma WA primes a bit soft at/near wide open on his film bodies, but get excellent results stopped down to f/2.5.

Ok, just dug up that old thread. Here ya go:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=10659610

I believe Thom Hogan and Sulonen Petteri (from Canon side) also have reviews and/or brief mentions of some of the Sigma WA primes w/ similar sentiments.

Man

dinky7 said:

Thanks, Sanjay, Man for your input as well as to txbonds for the
helpful link.

Have any of you also tried the 3rd party primes?

Cheers,
Dinky7

Click to expand...

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

dinky7 said:

Hi,
Great forum here (lots of learning and entertainment). I've been
reading a bit for the past few months but really just started to
immerse myself after receiving a D70 from the wifey this christmas


I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8

Click to expand...

Surely you know what focal length you want? Perhaps you should consider the Tamron 17-35 Di.
Skipper494.

What are you using it for? That seems to be the most basic (and unanswered here) question. If it's all around, I would consider the 17-35 or 17-55 as an everyday lens. Great glass and quite versatile. I also like the 45p--very fast to manually focus. Ron R calls it his "body cap." The glass seems to be a lot better than either of the 50's. I use it a often as a street lens, though it does get a bit long for a D2h. The 28 1.4 is great for low light. Still, day in and day out, I use my 17-35.

dinky7 said:

Hi,
Great forum here (lots of learning and entertainment). I've been
reading a bit for the past few months but really just started to
immerse myself after receiving a D70 from the wifey this christmas


I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8

What's important to me is sharpness and bokeh. And my pet peeve is
distortion.

Anyone with any first hand experience with these lenses? Other
suggestions/recommendations are also welcome. I mostly take
pictures of family members and some landscapes here and there.

Cheers,
Dinky7

Click to expand...

The 35 f/2 gives more or less a "normal" angle of view on a DX camera. It is small and light, fast enough to shoot without flash in many situations, acceptably sharp even at f/2, and has good (although not "superb") bokeh. I use a 17-55 most of the time on my D70, but if I want a smaller, lighter, less obtrusive lens, especially for shooting indiviuals or small groups indoors without flash, this is it. If you were going to get just one of these primes, I think this would probably be the most useful, just as when I had only one prime on a 35 mm camera it was generally a 50. (Some people prefer a shorter or longer lens as a "standard" prime, of course -- it depends on how you see the world and what you shoot.)

I used to use the 24 f/2.8 for landscapes, but it isn't really as wide as I wanted on a DX camera. I used it as a lighter travel substitute for a 17-35 I had, but since I sold the 17-35 and now primarily use a Sigma 12-24 for landscapes, I don't pick up the 24 very often. I don't see much advantage to it over the 17-55 except its smaller size and weight. It isn't any faster, and any differences in sharpness or contrast are very minor as far as I can tell.

The 45P is a unique lens, tiny, beautiful and simply designed, overpriced in my opinion, but it is sharp and has wonderful bokeh and contrast, so it's great for portraits, as long as you're willing to focus manually. It wouldn't be the first of the lenses in this group to get for most purposes, though, in my view.

I haven't tried the 28 f/2.8. From what I've read, it isn't anything special. The 28 f/1.4 sounds like another story entirely, but then of course you're talking much more money.

Hope that's helpful. There are lots of comments on all of these lenses in other threads and many reviews are available elsewhere on the web. You can get a pretty good idea of what to expect by reading about them, but there's really no substitute for putting one or another of them on your camera and trying it out.

--
Jim Kaye
PBase supporter

dinky7 said:

I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8
Anyone with any first hand experience with these lenses? Other
suggestions/recommendations are also welcome. I mostly take
pictures of family members and some landscapes here and there.

Click to expand...

Sorry Dinky, but not nearly enough information here.

1) First off are using a digital or film body? 'cause that would greatly influence my decision.

2) Secondly, you are the only one who really knows what focal length you like the best. I have the 24, 28 and 35mm lenses and they all have their place. They are excellent lenses, but the 35mm on a DSLR is not a wide angle lens.

Try to give us a little more background on this. Just my thoughts.....

Regards
Terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
Photography on the North American prairies & plains:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

Windancer said:

Sorry Dinky, but not nearly enough information here.

Click to expand...

Sorry again Dinky, missed reading the fact that you have a D70. If that's the case I would get the 24mm first, then the 35mm then the 28 and I wouldn't even consider the 45mm. Just my thoughts.

Regards
Terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
Photography on the North American prairies & plains:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

The 24/2.8 AF-D is a fine,fine lens....very,very useful on a 1.5x small d-slr. It is nice indoors,and great with bounce flash indoors,and is also a good lens outside. It shoots well on digital.

The 45-P is a manual focus lens that is easiest to focus at close ranges, under 10 feet. The manual focusing is tricky at ranges past 10 feet and requires excellent focusing technique and attention to detail. it has low distortion,has nice bokeh,and is a very high-quality imager. One of the best lenses at f/2.8 that you will find.

By halving or doubling your focal lengths, you make your selection of lenses different enough that each lens becomes distinctly different. So, 24 to 45, roughly a doubling or a halving as you move from lens to lens....makes the two lenses work as a team. Add an 85 or a 105,and you have a three-lens set where each lens brings something to the party. The small,light 85/1.8 would make a killer third leg in a trio of 24/45/85mm lenses.

I think the 24/2.8 is actually a must-have prime lens. I like the 35/2 AF-D well enough, but would rather have the 45-P with me than the 35 on most,but not all,occasions. The 60 Micro-Nikkor is a nicer tool to have than the 35/2 I think. So many lenses, so many choices. The 1.5x factor is what makes prime lens selection so odd using D-SLR's.
--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

28 2.8 is an ok lens, not great and not bad, its decent and not really expensive. i used it quit heavily when i still used film (oohh yeah the good old days with tri-x!)

24 2.8 is great! i currently use it most of the time! its a good constant performer regarding sharpness, contrast and it has beautifull bokeh!
on a dx sensor it gives the angle of view comparable to a 35mm lens on film

--
----------------------------------
http://www.johanjanssens.com

dinky7 said:

Hi,
Great forum here (lots of learning and entertainment). I've been
reading a bit for the past few months but really just started to
immerse myself after receiving a D70 from the wifey this christmas


I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8

What's important to me is sharpness and bokeh. And my pet peeve is
distortion.

Anyone with any first hand experience with these lenses? Other
suggestions/recommendations are also welcome. I mostly take
pictures of family members and some landscapes here and there.

Cheers,
Dinky7

Click to expand...

All of the above are in my collection except for the 45mm, rather a rarity in the U.S. For the Nikons, only the 24mm would be considered wide angle, but it's quite a decent lens, having two excellent stops at f/5.6 and f/8 (good in the corners, too). I often carry mine in preference to lugging around the cumbersome 17-35mm f/2.8. The 28mm is a notch better overall--also appers better optically than the 35mm f/2, especially in terms of corner definition. It's a surprisingly good performer through its entire range of stops, and suffers only moderate falloff at the corners wide open.

The 45mm is known to produce pleasing bokeh, but is a relatively simple and compact lens without AF. I haven't really felt tempted by this one.
-RogM

RogM said:

For the Nikons, only the 24mm would be
considered wide angle, but it's quite a decent lens, having two
excellent stops at f/5.6 and f/8 (good in the corners, too). I
often carry mine in preference to lugging around the cumbersome
17-35mm f/2.8. The 28mm is a notch better overall--also appers
better optically than the 35mm f/2, especially in terms of corner
definition. It's a surprisingly good performer through its entire
range of stops, and suffers only moderate falloff at the corners
wide open.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... That's odd. Are you sure you're talking about the same 28mm f/2.8 that's available nowadays? There are apparently a few different revisions over the years as seen here:

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

I have not tried one myself, but the consensus I read is that it's subpar compared to the other Nikon primes (as noted in the link above).

Man

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Hi!

I have/had all the primes you are referring to (mostly MF versioins though) and really like/liked what they have/had to offer; 24/45 would be a great setup.

However, some time ago I bought a Sigma 20-40 f/2.8 and am simply amazed by this lens; it is at least on even ground with my Nikkor MF 20 f/2.8 and does not have to fear any other competition (even by those other primes). Since 20mm is wide enough for me, I prefer this lens to all others out there in the Nikon world! If you can live with the costs (got mine for 1000 €) it is ONE GREAT lens!

I still use my MF primes as well, since about 80% of all my lenses are AI/AIS(E) models; that's why I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be disappointed with any of the lenses you mentioned.

Regards
Alex

dinky7 said:

Hi,
Great forum here (lots of learning and entertainment). I've been
reading a bit for the past few months but really just started to
immerse myself after receiving a D70 from the wifey this christmas


I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8

What's important to me is sharpness and bokeh. And my pet peeve is
distortion.

Anyone with any first hand experience with these lenses? Other
suggestions/recommendations are also welcome. I mostly take
pictures of family members and some landscapes here and there.

Cheers,
Dinky7

Click to expand...

--
carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

I have a 45mm f/2.8P which was quite an experience to handle for its size and build quality.

I do not have the other three, but perhaps you may consider the AF 28mm f/1.4D which could become very useful in low light situation. The quality seems exceptional, just like any of the expensive nikkors.

Cheers.
jcmt.

dinky7 said:

Hi,
Great forum here (lots of learning and entertainment). I've been
reading a bit for the past few months but really just started to
immerse myself after receiving a D70 from the wifey this christmas


I'm trying to figure out what wide/normal prime lens to get.
The four lenses I'm considering are Nikon's:
24mm AF-D f/2.8
28mm AF-D f/2.8
35mm AF-D f/2
45mm P f/2.8

What's important to me is sharpness and bokeh. And my pet peeve is
distortion.

Anyone with any first hand experience with these lenses? Other
suggestions/recommendations are also welcome. I mostly take
pictures of family members and some landscapes here and there.

Cheers,
Dinky7

Click to expand...

im referring to the 28 2.8 AF! ive used it for a long time. but one time i used a manual version and it was clearly sharper! in my opinion i refer to my own 'real life' experience, with both small and big prints, and not to brick walls orso

(the difference between an ok lens and a sharp lens is clearly noticable on an A3 sized print or bigger)

Man-Fai Wong said:

RogM said:

For the Nikons, only the 24mm would be
considered wide angle, but it's quite a decent lens, having two
excellent stops at f/5.6 and f/8 (good in the corners, too). I
often carry mine in preference to lugging around the cumbersome
17-35mm f/2.8. The 28mm is a notch better overall--also appers
better optically than the 35mm f/2, especially in terms of corner
definition. It's a surprisingly good performer through its entire
range of stops, and suffers only moderate falloff at the corners
wide open.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... That's odd. Are you sure you're talking about the same
28mm f/2.8 that's available nowadays? There are apparently a few
different revisions over the years as seen here:

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

I have not tried one myself, but the consensus I read is that it's
subpar compared to the other Nikon primes (as noted in the link
above).

Man

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.'
(John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Click to expand...

--
----------------------------------
http://www.johanjanssens.com

Thank you all for your insightful responses.

I've dwelled upon this, and one path forward is to start with one of these primes and then expand the collection as my experience and needs grow.

I already have the 85mm 1.8D (very good IMHO) and I was really looking for something that could compliment it from a wider perspective.

Actually, one more thing that could help me decide is if someone posts sample shots from these lenses above (since quite a number of you have most if not all of above) with a simple picture comparison:
1) aperture wide open and
2) at f4.5

(while trying to maintain the same perspective of the shot and without any post processing)
It would be interesting to see the differences.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Dinky7