Reading mode: Light Dark

Anyone else think 35mm is not wide enough for DX normal prime?

Go to last post
G

Glen78

Senior Member
Messages
1,411
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,055
Location
Phoenix, AZ, US
I have a D3100 and bought a 35mm f/1.8G as a normal walk around prime for low light conditions but am finding it not wide enough for my liking and often switch back to the kit lens. Especially indoors I feel like I am always backing into walls or other people to get the shot. Does anyone else feel this way? There doesn't seem much else available in terms of wider and affordable DX primes. I am thinking of selling this and getting a used Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which might still not be wide enough, although I cannot justify the cost of the 24 or 28mm FX primes.
 
No. But as with many things it depends on what and where you are shooting. My 35 is almost always in my bag with the 55-200 and either the 8mm Rokinon or less often the 18-55. I find if I need wider than the 35, I just take several shots and stitch them together. Obviously that isn't going to work if you're shooting something that moves in the dark. However if I'm shooting something moving in the dark I probably have the SB-700 loaded up which solves the problem. Or go with the tripod and get some motion blur.

I don't know the Sigma 30 is going to be notably wider. When you shoot with the 18-55, where do most of your shots happen? At 18? 20? 28? I'd make a decision based on that. Sigma / Tamron and others make f/2.8 17-55's which might also work. They're not as budget as the 35mm though.
 
The diagonal of a 24 x 18 sensor is 30 mm, so 35mm is a bit longer than ideal as "normal" for DX. 28mm is about right, IMO.

As far as light wide-angle goes, there is nothing. Nikon have some excellent 20mm lenses including the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D, and there is the nice, tiny, Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5, but both of those are expensive and still only 30mm equivalent. The Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 is superb, but not light and very expensive, and still only just wide-angle on DX. Nikon has patented a DX 18mm f/3.5, but who knows when (or if) it will appear. Your only alternative is a 10 or 12-24 zoom; fortunately there are several good options, from Nikon, Sigma and Tokina.
 
I've owned two 35mm f/1.8s and they drove me nuts. I sold both of them. Yes, they are not at all wide enough to use as a walk around lens. I wound up just using my 18-55 VR. Yes, they were very sharp, yes, they drove me very nuts.

Many replies will follow on this thread talking about "zooming with your feet" and "but what about the bokeh?" LOL.
 
If you want wide you buy a 17-50mm f2.8

The idea of the 35mm f1.8 is a fast prime that is near to the much used normal 50mm f1.8 field of view.

And for that I think it does pretty well.

Wide angle fast primes are pricey in the case of the Nikon 28mm 1.8G IMO it's not worth the price and it's not that good on an optical level.
 
I agree with you, this lens is very frustrating as I often want to use it in poorly lit indoor situations where I need to keep my shutter speed at 1/60 or 1/125 to take photos of my kids in motion but would rather use ISO 800 or 1600 rather than 3200. I am often wanting its f/1.8 capability but every time I use it I have to be back pretty far to get the picture framed correctly and it always seems I am in crowded indoor spaces when I want to use this lens which make having to back up alot not practical or sometimes even possible. Plus my kit lens has VR so for still shots the 35mm provides no advantage plus the kit lens gives me alot more flexibility.

I think I will ultimately sell the 35mm f/1.8 and buy a used Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS which can currently be had on ebay for $450-$500. I also own the Sigma 8-16 and am very happy with it and the Nikon f/2.8 DX 17-55 is way out of my price range.

-Glen
 
That's what I did. That is, I got the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. I don't miss my long gone 35mms one bit.
Glen78 said:
I agree with you, this lens is very frustrating as I often want to use it in poorly lit indoor situations where I need to keep my shutter speed at 1/60 or 1/125 to take photos of my kids in motion but would rather use ISO 800 or 1600 rather than 3200. I am often wanting its f/1.8 capability but every time I use it I have to be back pretty far to get the picture framed correctly and it always seems I am in crowded indoor spaces when I want to use this lens which make having to back up alot not practical or sometimes even possible. Plus my kit lens has VR so for still shots the 35mm provides no advantage plus the kit lens gives me alot more flexibility.

I think I will ultimately sell the 35mm f/1.8 and buy a used Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS which can currently be had on ebay for $450-$500. I also own the Sigma 8-16 and am very happy with it and the Nikon f/2.8 DX 17-55 is way out of my price range.

-Glen
Click to expand...
 
I just looked through my shots from today and a significant portion of them are at 18mm (although some of this is due to it being the only focal length that offers f/3.5). The rest are mostly in the 20-30mm range with some in the the 30-50mm and another signifcant portion (maybe 10-20%) at 55mm. Based on the price/performance of what is available I think I am going to sell the 35mm and go for a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS. I have a Sigma 8-16 and really like Sigma image and build quality. Does anybody else have experience with this lens or prefer something else in this feature and price range.
 
The Tamron f/2.8 midrange is my other possibility although the VC version did not have as good of reviews as the non-VC (something about having to remember to wait for the VC to settle down before clicking the shutter). I have the Tamron 70-300 VC and really like it and it yields very sharp images but I don't use it nearly as much, the zoo being in the only place where it has obviously come in handy. How do you like the Tamron, do you miss image stabilization?
 
I agree. I think 28mm is about perfect on DX. I was excited when I heard about the new 28mm 1.8 until I heard the price and the less-than-stellar test reports. The 35 is great as a DX prime, but I think Nikon should come out with one or two more just for DX. I would love a 16mm f/2.8 DX and a 26mm f/2 DX. The FX version works fine for longer primes, like the 50 and 85mm. But, we need a couple wider primes for our crop cameras.
 
I feel the same way, most of the time. The 35/1.8 is a great lens (I have one) but Nikon really needs an affordable 24mm/2.8 in DX format.

I bought a used 24/2.8 (AIS, FX format) for less than $200 and swap it on and off with the 35mm on my D5100. Great combination.
 
Love it and no. Don't overthink this. Just sell your 35mm (as I did) get the Tamron non-VC (like I did) and enjoy.
Glen78 said:
The Tamron f/2.8 midrange is my other possibility although the VC version did not have as good of reviews as the non-VC (something about having to remember to wait for the VC to settle down before clicking the shutter). I have the Tamron 70-300 VC and really like it and it yields very sharp images but I don't use it nearly as much, the zoo being in the only place where it has obviously come in handy. How do you like the Tamron, do you miss image stabilization?
Click to expand...
 
Glen78 said:
I have a D3100 and bought a 35mm f/1.8G as a normal walk around prime for low light conditions but am finding it not wide enough for my liking and often switch back to the kit lens. Especially indoors I feel like I am always backing into walls or other people to get the shot. Does anyone else feel this way? There doesn't seem much else available in terms of wider and affordable DX primes. I am thinking of selling this and getting a used Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which might still not be wide enough, although I cannot justify the cost of the 24 or 28mm FX primes.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that you'd notice much improvement going from the 35 to 30mm. For your situation, I would recommend both the 17-50 f/2.8 and 20 f/1.8 Sigma lenses.

The 20 f/1.8 should give you the fast lens that you want, while giving you much wider coverage than the 35mm. New, it runs around $630 US from both Amazon and B&H, however, right now B&H has one used, in 9+ condition, for $470 US. That's a bargain, IMO.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/217799/Sigma_411306_Super_W_A_20mm_f_1_8.html

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Kerry Pierce said:
The 20 f/1.8 should give you the fast lens that you want, while giving you much wider coverage than the 35mm. New, it runs around $630 US from both Amazon and B&H, however, right now B&H has one used, in 9+ condition, for $470 US. That's a bargain, IMO.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/217799/Sigma_411306_Super_W_A_20mm_f_1_8.html
Click to expand...
This lens does not look like it would autofocus with D3100 (no AF motor in the body).

I have the same problem and I would like a wider DX AF-S lens than 35mm and have thought about getting a f/2.8 zoom like Tamron or Sigma but, quite honestly, f/2.8 is not all that much brighter than f/3.5 of the kit lens (at 18mm), The f/1.8 of the 35mm is much brighter and makes all the difference in low light.
 
The 35mm lense would be slightly wide angle with the FX format and the same as 50mm on FX. I have the Nikon 20mm f2.8 which is a very good prime lense for wide shots on DX, in existing light. Like you I find myself using the kit lens indoors with people and flash as I am switching focal lengths quite a bit and don't want to take the time to switch lenses. I find the kit lense a bit limiting at the long end so considering the purchase of the Nikon 16-85. I also find the 20mm prime to be excellent for video. Another choice is the 24mm f2.8 AF D.
 
whiggy said:
Kerry Pierce said:
The 20 f/1.8 should give you the fast lens that you want, while giving you much wider coverage than the 35mm. New, it runs around $630 US from both Amazon and B&H, however, right now B&H has one used, in 9+ condition, for $470 US. That's a bargain, IMO.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/217799/Sigma_411306_Super_W_A_20mm_f_1_8.html
Click to expand...
This lens does not look like it would autofocus with D3100 (no AF motor in the body).
Click to expand...
ack.... I didn't think about that. :(

If your camera has an AF-S requirement, then your lens selection is rather limited. At some point in the future, all new lenses are likely to be AF-S, but that doesn't help now. :(

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Yesterday, my newborn great niece came for a visit. In the livingroom, I found my 35mm too wide for what I wanted to do and switched to an 85mm. Every lens requires that you make adjustments and it takes a while to learn to use a lens.
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
Unfortunately I think image stabilization is a must for me. The Tamron only gains 2/3 -1 stop at the wide end for shots where I need a fast shutter speed but I would end up losing about two stops for still photos without VR. The Sigma 17-50 OS gives me the extra aperture performance plus slightly better image stabilization so I think it may be my best option. Or I could just wait for the D7000 replacement and hopefully it will have the same image quality at ISO 6400 that the D3100 has at 1600. Optically I am very happy with the 18-55 I just find myself often needing higher ISO speeds than I would like to use for indoor shots that require shutters speeds of 1/60 or higher.
 
I agree, at the wide end you are only gaining 2/3-1 stop plus the ability for a slightly shallower depth of field. And sometimes a shallow depth of field is not desirable for family photos anyway. I think what I really need is for an ISO 6400 that looks like my D3100s ISO 1600. We're not quite there with APS-C cameras (except maybe the X-Pro 1 - but not an option for me) but perhaps the D7000 replacement will be able to do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top