Wide prime lens for traveling (Nikon D750)

[KonstantinosNNo]

Hi everyone!

I have been searching for some time now a perfect lens. I understand that cannot be achieved but I'd like your opinion on how to get as close to it as possible.

I currently have for my Nikon D750 FX:
a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G and a

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens

But the 70-200 is too large for my travels and I feel the 50mm is not wide enough.

I was between the following lenses (I'll tell you how I want to use them).

• Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art
• Tamron SP 35mm F/1.4 Di USD
• Tamron SP 35mm F/1.8 Di VC USD

I want a crispier lens than what I have, to be able to take it in my travels and use it also for friends and family in low light conditions (indoors). Maybe also some light astrophotography.

As I understand the stabilization of the Tamron, will not help me much with moving subjects like friends and family, please correct me if I am wrong.

Are the other two f/1.4 lenses close enough for the usage I want them? Or do you recommend something else?

Thanks a lot!

 

[Parry Johnson]

Hi everyone!

I have been searching for some time now a perfect lens. I understand that cannot be achieved but I'd like your opinion on how to get as close to it as possible.

I currently have for my Nikon D750 FX:
a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G and a

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens

But the 70-200 is too large for my travels and I feel the 50mm is not wide enough.

I was between the following lenses (I'll tell you how I want to use them).

• Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art
• Tamron SP 35mm F/1.4 Di USD
• Tamron SP 35mm F/1.8 Di VC USD

I want a crispier lens than what I have, to be able to take it in my travels and use it also for friends and family in low light conditions (indoors). Maybe also some light astrophotography.

As I understand the stabilization of the Tamron, will not help me much with moving subjects like friends and family, please correct me if I am wrong.

Are the other two f/1.4 lenses close enough for the usage I want them? Or do you recommend something else?

Thanks a lot!

35mm is too close to 50mm -- you will soon want wider.

28mm is more like the angle of view you get from a cellphone. You might just end up using your cell phone instead. I do if I'm in a situation like kayaking where changing lenses isn't convenient or safe. (I've already dropped one lens in the water!! Sometimes you've got to do something stupid to learn a good lesson!)

24mm is in the sweet spot of being wide enough yet not so wide that it distorts or shows too much or makes distant objects too small. How often do you use your cell phone to take wide photos? If you answer "often," then perhaps this lens is the one.

Finally, if you're looking at the size or weight over optical quality, there are some really good (and often not too expensive) small-ish zooms to consider. The Sigma 35mm Art lens on your list isn't cheap, nor light. Maybe a "do-all" lens like an 18-35 would serve you better, as the range is really good for most purposes (and can act like a normal lens if you are able to do a 1.2X or DX crop on your camera. If the light is good and you can shoot at f5.6 or f8, it's really hard to tell the difference between a prime. I've got the Tokina 16-28 f2.8, but I'll use my older 18-35 AF-D if I need a smaller lens (or filters). I've also got 24 and 28mm primes, but rarely use them anymore.

 

[Parry Johnson]

I now see you've only got wide aperture lenses on your list. If that's necessary for you, you'll have to stick with primes. Furthermore, the wider you go, the more expensive it'll be. However, again, 24mm is still your best option, and maybe f1.8 as the maximum.

Unlike a tele lens, big apertures on wide lenses don't matter as much, especially because of today's better high-ISO quality or noise reduction software.

 

[KonstantinosNNo]

I now see you've only got wide aperture lenses on your list. If that's necessary for you, you'll have to stick with primes. Furthermore, the wider you go, the more expensive it'll be. However, again, 24mm is still your best option, and maybe f1.8 as the maximum.

Unlike a tele lens, big apertures on wide lenses don't matter as much, especially because of today's better high-ISO quality or noise reduction software.

Yes I understand the 24mm would be better for travel and astrophotography. But I think it will not be good enough for portraits of friends and family. That's why I was thinking 35mm. I will check it out in more detail thought.

 

[Blufftonian]

As Parry says, with modern sensors and noise reduction software, you don’t really need super fast wide angles. I’d go with the classic, do-it-all, 24-120.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR | DSLR Lenses | Nikon USA

Upgraded standard zoom lens for FX-format D-SLRs offers a constant maximum aperture to maintain exposure settings throughout the entire zoom range.

www.nikonusa.com

 

[Parry Johnson]

As Parry says, with modern sensors and noise reduction software, you don’t really need super fast wide angles. I’d go with the classic, do-it-all, 24-120.

https://www.nikonusa.com/p/af-s-nikkor-24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr/2193

You're quite right about the convenience and quality overall of the 24-120. I've never had one, but the Z version is the one I'd go for as my first Z lens. However, the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 is enticing (but too darn expensive).

 

[Blufftonian]

As Parry says, with modern sensors and noise reduction software, you don’t really need super fast wide angles. I’d go with the classic, do-it-all, 24-120.

https://www.nikonusa.com/p/af-s-nikkor-24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr/2193

You're quite right about the convenience and quality overall of the 24-120. I've never had one, but the Z version is the one I'd go for as my first Z lens. However, the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 is enticing (but too darn expensive).

If and when I buy myself an FX Z camera I will definitely get a Z 24-120. Right now I'm happy with my D500 with a 16-80 (same FOV as 24-120 on an FX body) as an all-around lens.

I'm sure that Tamron is good, but 35mm is just not wide enough!

 

[Michael Benveniste]

For family and group portraits, you’ll need to stop down with any of these lenses in order to get the needed depth of field. So I wouldn’t think f/1.4 vs f/1.8 would make a difference, but stabilization could at shutter speeds around 1/60th of a second.



If you are planning to keep your 50mm, I think you’ll get more value out of a 28mm lens than a 35mm.

--

Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 

[KonstantinosNNo]

As Parry says, with modern sensors and noise reduction software, you don’t really need super fast wide angles. I’d go with the classic, do-it-all, 24-120.

https://www.nikonusa.com/p/af-s-nikkor-24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr/2193

This sounds interesting and I was actually thinking about an all-around lens. But even with noise reduction software, will this or other zoom lenses be as sharp as the sigma 35mm or the Tamron? I didn't want to go with a zoom lens for this reason.

 

[Blufftonian]

As Parry says, with modern sensors and noise reduction software, you don’t really need super fast wide angles. I’d go with the classic, do-it-all, 24-120.

https://www.nikonusa.com/p/af-s-nikkor-24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr/2193

This sounds interesting and I was actually thinking about an all-around lens. But even with noise reduction software, will this or other zoom lenses be as sharp as the sigma 35mm or the Tamron? I didn't want to go with a zoom lens for this reason.

I think that unless you are planning poster-sized prints you'll never notice a difference. I have printed (and sold) prints up to 36" x 36" from my 200-500 zoom, and that's with a DX camera. Shooting in RAW always preserves the best picture detail and you can always denoise, sharpen (if necessary) and convert to jpeg in post-processing.

The 24-120 has been the pro photojournalists, do everything "streetsweeper" since its inception in 1996 and the latest version of the lens is excellent. The 24-85 is smaller, lighter and less expensive and is a good option, especially if you are also considering taking a telephoto lens along.

 

[TheFiend]

The 24-120mm F4 a lens I take with me when I jet off, and the one I most often shoot with even if I've took other lenses with me.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

This sounds interesting and I was actually thinking about an all-around lens. But even with noise reduction software, will this or other zoom lenses be as sharp as the sigma 35mm or the Tamron?

The short answer is "no."

One popular aspect of the hobby is to try to achieve as much "sharpness" as possible from your gear. If that's your goal, then stick with high end prime lenses, focus in magnified live view, and do your best to eliminate any sources of vibration or movement by using a tripod or other support device.

But one of my mantras is the so-called "IQ" of a missed shot is exactly zero. Another is that a perfectly exposed and focused shot of a boring subject is still a boring shot, but a technically flawed shot of great subject can still be a great shot. I find both to be especially true when traveling, which is why I've purchased and used 4 different models of 24-120mm lenses in sequence (f/3.5~4.5D, f/3.5~4.5G VR, f/4, Z).

 

[Bruce Ferjulian]

No the lightest lens but for a DSLR consider the ( Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 ). I have it and it's a nice lens. It's selling used on ebay for around $250 USD.

 

[Parry Johnson]

As Parry says, with modern sensors and noise reduction software, you don’t really need super fast wide angles. I’d go with the classic, do-it-all, 24-120.

https://www.nikonusa.com/p/af-s-nikkor-24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr/2193

This sounds interesting and I was actually thinking about an all-around lens. But even with noise reduction software, will this or other zoom lenses be as sharp as the sigma 35mm or the Tamron? I didn't want to go with a zoom lens for this reason.

It all depends on what and where you're shooting. In your original needs, you want a fairly fast wide angle to take landscapes and photos of friends in a less formal environment. There's usually enough available light that you can shoot indoors at f4 (max. aperture with most smaller zooms) at ISO 1600 or 3200. The D750 and newer cameras can do that well. I'd go that route, and maybe carry a smaller f2.8 prime wide or my 50mm in my coat pocket when I want to go smaller or need more light. Stashing a bigger zoom can be a problem, so plan for that with maybe a lens bag on your belt. That way, you're set for some enjoyment and have most situations covered. (Use a crop mode at 120 on your zoom, and you're closer to the 200mm mark on your bigger tele zoom.)

Again, like was mentioned by others, VR can be useful. Finally, there's AI software to sharpen things up when you really do blow it on focus -- you can't do much for subject movement, but even that's come a long way.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

No the lightest lens but for a DSLR consider the ( Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 ). I have it and it's a nice lens. It's selling used on ebay for around $250 USD.

As a long time 17-35mm owner, I can only recommend the lens if you want or need an aperture ring. I love the focal length range and maximum aperture, but the constant threat and expense of AF motor failure? Not so much.

 

[Parry Johnson]

No the lightest lens but for a DSLR consider the ( Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 ). I have it and it's a nice lens. It's selling used on ebay for around $250 USD.

As a long time 17-35mm owner, I can only recommend the lens if you want or need an aperture ring. I love the focal length range and maximum aperture, but the constant threat and expense of AF motor failure? Not so much.

 

[Toby43]

Hi everyone!

I have been searching for some time now a perfect lens. I understand that cannot be achieved but I'd like your opinion on how to get as close to it as possible.

I currently have for my Nikon D750 FX:
a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G and a

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens

But the 70-200 is too large for my travels and I feel the 50mm is not wide enough.

I was between the following lenses (I'll tell you how I want to use them).

• Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art
• Tamron SP 35mm F/1.4 Di USD
• Tamron SP 35mm F/1.8 Di VC USD

I want a crispier lens than what I have, to be able to take it in my travels and use it also for friends and family in low light conditions (indoors). Maybe also some light astrophotography.

As I understand the stabilization of the Tamron, will not help me much with moving subjects like friends and family, please correct me if I am wrong.

Are the other two f/1.4 lenses close enough for the usage I want them? Or do you recommend something else?

Thanks a lot!

I went for the 28mm 1.8g paired with same 50 and body as you. Great combo. The 28 is sufficiently good that you can crop a quarter of the frame and get a decent large print. 35 is too close to 50. Plus the 28 is lighter than those bricks you’re looking at.