35+85+180+ ?

Hi everyone,

So I am converting to prime lenses. I have the 24-70 + 70-200 + D700 but they are just to heavy for me ( I have a wrist problem) and on long days I really suffer ( events, weddings, conferances etc).

I saved up some $ and bought a 35mm 1.4 Sigma, a 85mm 1.8 Nikon and an old 180mm 2.8 Nikon. I am pleased with the setup but I know there will be times I really need a wider lens.

I thought about buying a cheap second hand 24 2.8 D (around 250 euros) and just have it in my jacket pocket or backpack but will it hold against my other lenses? Will it have enough quality? what if I upgrade to a D750?

I know I could get the 24 1.8G or the sigma (well maybee not the sigma because of the weight) but we are talking about 500 euros more and more bulk. I know there are many amazing photographers that use exclusivly the 35+85 combo but I wander how!

Thanks!

The 24mm is too close to the 35mm you already own. If you want wider then look at a 14mm or 10mm prime.

My preference in that situation would be the 20/1.8G. Even the Sigma 35/1.4 you have is heavy. I probably would have chosen the FX 35/1.8G.

My system would be two light bodies with 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 respectively, and a 20/1.8 for wider shots (I don't shoot wide a lot).

From all the reviews I have seen the 24 AF-D is not great with modern hi-res sensors.

gnet158 said:

The 24mm is too close to the 35mm you already own. If you want wider then look at a 14mm or 10mm prime.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I disagree. On the original poster's D700, a 24mm lens has a 73-degree horizonal angle of view, compare to a 35mm's 54-degree angle. That turns out to be quite a significant difference.

I don't know of any 10mm prime lenses designed for an FX camera like a D7xx, and a 14mm lens is very much a specialty item. While I personally the options for perspective offered by a wide-angle zoom, if the original poster wants to stick to primes, the choice between a 20mm and a 24mm is very much one of personal preference.

Satyaa said:

My preference in that situation would be the 20/1.8G. Even the Sigma 35/1.4 you have is heavy. I probably would have chosen the FX 35/1.8G.

My system would be two light bodies with 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 respectively, and a 20/1.8 for wider shots (I don't shoot wide a lot).

From all the reviews I have seen the 24 AF-D is not great with modern hi-res sensors.

Click to expand...

Another good choice is the 20mm f/2.8D if the price/size of the 1.8G is too big. It is generally considered to be a much better preforming lens than the 24mm version and can be had used for around $350 or so.

Josh152 said:

Satyaa said:

My preference in that situation would be the 20/1.8G. Even the Sigma 35/1.4 you have is heavy. I probably would have chosen the FX 35/1.8G.

My system would be two light bodies with 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 respectively, and a 20/1.8 for wider shots (I don't shoot wide a lot).

From all the reviews I have seen the 24 AF-D is not great with modern hi-res sensors.

Click to expand...

Another good choice is the 20mm f/2.8D if the price/size of the 1.8G is too big. It is generally considered to be a much better preforming lens than the 24mm version and can be had used for around $350 or so.

Click to expand...

Here is a review of the 20 f/2.8D:

Michael Benveniste said:

gnet158 said:

The 24mm is too close to the 35mm you already own. If you want wider then look at a 14mm or 10mm prime.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I disagree. On the original poster's D700, a 24mm lens has a 73-degree horizonal angle of view, compare to a 35mm's 54-degree angle. That turns out to be quite a significant difference.

Click to expand...

Yes - but 20mm would be a better separation when sticking with primes. If there was a right size updated 18mm that also may be a perfect separation. With 18mm each lens would about twice the focal length of the next wider lens: 18 * 2 roughly 35mm, 35mm * 2 not too far off from 85mm; 85mm * 2 not too far off from 180mm. With 20mm - the appropriate spacing would be 40mm which probably would translate to the new Tamron 45mm.

Michael Benveniste said:

I don't know of any 10mm prime lenses designed for an FX camera like a D7xx, and a 14mm lens is very much a specialty item.

Click to expand...

gnet158 may have meant a 20mm prime and had a typo (and it came as 10mm).

Michael Benveniste said:

While I personally the options for perspective offered by a wide-angle zoom, if the original poster wants to stick to primes, the choice between a 20mm and a 24mm is very much one of personal preference.

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

Click to expand...

The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a welcome addition to my prime kit. >90 degrees field of view, sharp, light, cheap, and takes 77mm filters.

That said, I sure do like shooting with 35 and 85mm primes, especially given the multiple fine options available for Nikon bodies at those focal lengths.

exapixel said:

The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a welcome addition to my prime kit. >90 degrees field of view, sharp, light, cheap, and takes 77mm filters.

Click to expand...

$800 for an f/1.8 prime is hardly cheap.

exapixel said:

That said, I sure do like shooting with 35 and 85mm primes, especially given the multiple fine options available for Nikon bodies at those focal lengths.

Click to expand...

The 35mm in particular is crowded with quality options.

Aside from focal length considerations (I think 24mm is probably the widest you want to go with people in the frame, and then you must be very careful), the 24F2.8 AF-D is not a great lens. Compared to the others you have, I think you would be disappointed. It's got poor corners, isn't fast enough for much subject isolation and just seems kind of average-mediocre.

I've got some test shots from mine on a D700 here: http://www.cjcphoto.net/lenstests/24f2.8/index.html

Albert Silver said:

exapixel said:

The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a welcome addition to my prime kit. >90 degrees field of view, sharp, light, cheap, and takes 77mm filters.

Click to expand...

$800 for an f/1.8 prime is hardly cheap.

Click to expand...

It's cheaper than the $1500 Zeiss 21mm.

Albert Silver said:

Albert Silver said:

That said, I sure do like shooting with 35 and 85mm primes, especially given the multiple fine options available for Nikon bodies at those focal lengths.

Click to expand...

The 35mm in particular is crowded with quality options.

Click to expand...

exapixel said:

Albert Silver said:

exapixel said:

The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a welcome addition to my prime kit. >90 degrees field of view, sharp, light, cheap, and takes 77mm filters.

Click to expand...

$800 for an f/1.8 prime is hardly cheap.

Click to expand...

It's cheaper than the $1500 Zeiss 21mm.

Click to expand...

Cheaper doesn't make it cheap. I like the Nikkor 20 f/2.8D idea. I checked on ebay and there were some good used ones at just over $300. Also, Photozone's MTF results were quite encouraging, so all in all, a solid suggestion.

exapixel said:

exapixel said:

exapixel said:

That said, I sure do like shooting with 35 and 85mm primes, especially given the multiple fine options available for Nikon bodies at those focal lengths.

Click to expand...

The 35mm in particular is crowded with quality options.

exapixel said:

--
"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."

Click to expand...

As far as I know, this quote is attributed to Hemingway, who wrote no poetry.

Click to expand...

Sure he did.

--
"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."

Click to expand...

Albert Silver said:

exapixel said:

Albert Silver said:

exapixel said:

The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a welcome addition to my prime kit. >90 degrees field of view, sharp, light, cheap, and takes 77mm filters.

Click to expand...

$800 for an f/1.8 prime is hardly cheap.

Click to expand...

It's cheaper than the $1500 Zeiss 21mm.

Click to expand...

Cheaper doesn't make it cheap. I like the Nikkor 20 f/2.8D idea. I checked on ebay and there were some good used ones at just over $300. Also, Photozone's MTF results were quite encouraging, so all in all, a solid suggestion.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's like when the D600 came out and everyone was saying how cheap and affordable it was even though it was still $2100 just because it was cheaper than the D7xx/D8xx cameras.

I'm sure the 20mm 1.8G is sharper lens across the frame wide open and in the edges/corners stopped down and probably has less flaring but for around $300-$350 the 20mm f/2.8D offers a lot of performance and is punching above its' price. Plus it is nice and small. It's a very good budget option and good if you want something you can just throw in a coat pocket or fit in your bag easily. If someone doesn't mind the size and can afford it obviously they should probably go with the 1.8g version but the 20mm f/2.8D isn't a terrible lens either, especially if you stop it down to f/4.

Albert Silver said:

Albert Silver said:

Albert Silver said:

Albert Silver said:

That said, I sure do like shooting with 35 and 85mm primes, especially given the multiple fine options available for Nikon bodies at those focal lengths.

Click to expand...

The 35mm in particular is crowded with quality options.

Albert Silver said:

--
"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."

Click to expand...

As far as I know, this quote is attributed to Hemingway, who wrote no poetry.

Click to expand...

Sure he did.

--
"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks all for you responses! Much apreciated!