- This topic is empty.
Another lens conundrum / dilemma
-
So I’m thinking of treating myself to a new lens for my birthday.
Decisions have to be made and quite frankly I’m struggling to come to one myself. Originally I was looking at the ultra-wide angles like the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24 but unfortunately they are out of my budget right now….
So I’ve narrowed it down to two different lenses fit for two different purposes –
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D – limit of budget but may be able to get some help in the form of vouchers ;)
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G – nifty little lens, keenly priced.
As you see, they are both suited to different areas so I was wondering if anyone uses either (or both) of these lenses and has anything to say about them in the real world (I’ve read reviews of both which say they are equally good from a technical point of view)
First question – what do you want to do with them? You have stated wildy various focal lengths (and possibly speed too), which, to me, means you may not be clear on what you want a new lens for.
I want a new lens cuz it’s me birthday :lol: (end of reasoning)
Thing is I would probably use both, just wondering if anyone has hands on experience of either !
Pete,
These lenses are of different purposes. 85/1.8 is a typical portrait lens, 35/1.8 is a multipurpose lens (street, indoors, lowlight etc.).
85 is not sharp wide open and it is FX lens. 35 is dx lens which is sharp wide open.
85 is an old sturdy piece of optics unlike 35, which is cheap and delicate.
35 will autofocus with d40-d5000 nikons. 85 won’t AF with them (it needs a ‘screwdriver’). AF speed is similar.
Prices – 85mm is >100sterling more than 35mm.
For a future. Try to be a little bit more polite when somebody is trying to help you.Thanks for the responses,
Like I say in the OP, I know these two lenses are for different purposes and I know the difference technically between the two, and also their technical limitations, and yes, I would use each for a different purpose.
However, what I was wondering was what people’s opinion was on each of the lenses independently of each other…..do people that have and use the 85mm like it ? Does anyone have the 35mm and like it ? Would people have any viable and comparable alternatives to either of them ?
Many thanks for response in advance,
Thanks
PeteI have the 35mm f2, the non-AFS version of the one you are looking at. To be honest this is the one lens you would have to pry from my hands, as long as I was shooting Nikon. In all, its a fantastic 50mm-equivalent on an APS sensor, razor-sharp, and focuses down to 1:4 magnification. Good primes are dangerous, in my opinion. When you see how good a lens can be, its hard to go back. I originally got the 35mm to take night shots when on holiday, and this lens just about allows to shoot handheld at night at about 1/15 f2 at ISO 1600.
Have no experience of the 85mm f1.8, but do have the 85mm f1.4 which is one of those Nikon wonder lenses. To be honest though, it gets little use, as on my D200 it is too long. I’ve used it for portraits, but much prefer my 50mm f1.4 for it’s shorter field of view.
If you have a body that can autofocus with the 35mm f2, I would recommend it as a do-it-all lens. This is the one lens, much like an old fashioned 50mm on a film slr, that will let you capture nearly anything. A highly utilitarian lens, and a great one for going light when travelling. All depends on your usage though and how you shoot. If its your first prime lens go for the 35mm, as you won’t feel as restricted as you are getting used to a single focal length. Unless you are a diehard tele-shooter, I think you will find the 85mm restrictive, and maybe just pulled out for specific purposes.
In all though, 2 great lenses. If someone can’t make good pictures with either, then the photographer is the problem :)
EDIT: by the way, disagree with the previous poster about the build quality of the 85mm. I have a number of this lens-build generation (20mm f2.8AF, 35mm f2AF, 50mm f1.4AF) and the build quality is pretty mediocre (decent, but plastic), with nothing leading me to believe the build quality of the 35mm f1.8 is significantly better/ worse. The one thing the 85 f1.8 has though is the lack of an AF-S motor, which means it is one less thing to break on the lens, and thus will probably outlive the 35mm f1.8 however.
Damien
Thanks Damien, since posting I found the 35mm f2 you were referring to, just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons !
I see what you mean about the length of the 85mm, on my D70s it would be fairly long and used primarily for portraits for which I’m currently using the 50mm f1.8. I think this lens is just great with sharpness that makes my kit lens look like a toilet roll with milk bottle bottoms for glass !
Oh decisions, decisions !!
PeteW wrote:
Thanks Damien, since posting I found the 35mm f2 you were referring to, just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons !
I see what you mean about the length of the 85mm, on my D70s it would be fairly long and used primarily for portraits for which I’m currently using the 50mm f1.8. I think this lens is just great with sharpness that makes my kit lens look like a toilet roll with milk bottle bottoms for glass !
Oh decisions, decisions !!
On your d70, an 85mm is like a 135mm on a film slr. I found it too long personally, as at heart I’m a 35/ 50/ 90mm guy, but it depends on how you shoot, your current lens usage, and if you’re experiencing any specific shortcomings with your current kit. These should answer what lens you need,
Damien
85mm is for portraits when you photograph faces only. 50mm is too short for face shots. It makes nose looks bigger or chick looks like a baloon. 85 on full frame is good for a half to whole person shots. So is 50mm on DX.
If you can get 35/2 in good price just take it. You can compare it with a new 35/1.8. If the new one is sturdy enough for you, you may consider that new one. It is sharper wide open. However, 35/2 is FX lens so you may use it in the future when you get d700.
Buying lenses can be a kind of long term investment. Good ones don’t lose their value. It is more likely that you replace an old body than a good lens. That is why planning is so important.Agree with Piotr, and for this reason I find 100mm (35mm equiv) perfect. In fact my main irritation with Nikon is they never produced a 70mm portrait lens for dx.
Planning can work sometimes, but sometimes there is no substitute for giving a lens/ focal length a go, and see how you like it. In this case, I think buying well is important. The second hand market holds no fear, once you know where to look, and what to look out for. A keenly priced 2nd hand lens in good condition is a great option, and should you ever sell it you don’t have as much to lose. I used to buy Nikon new, but that was before I discovered the 5 year extended warranty only applies to the US, meaning you’re only buying a one year guarantee. A high price to pay, I find.
I agree about Piotr about build quality and longevity. For this reason, I stay away from lenses with the VR/ AF-S, etc. The lifespan of this technology in lenses I put at about 5 years before something goes wrong with it. When it does, who knows whether it can be repaired economically, or even at all. Modern lenses are too expensive to be this disposable, so let the buyer beware.
EDIT: All lenses lose value by the way ..when you sell them :)
Damien
Damien,
You are right about loosing value, but good lenses don’t loose much.
AF-S and VR lenses are less reliable for one good reason and this reason is not AF-S motor neither VR. Photography became cheaper and more available for everybody. Cost cutting causes lower quality.
That means that older equipment is more reliable than new. Of course VR and AF-S are an extra possibilities for disaster to happen, but they are not causes.
One picture says more than 1000 words… Very new and very expensive Nikkor AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR II http://trick77.com/2010/01/11/thread-issue-with-nikon-nikkor-70-200-2-8-vr-ii/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
It is not a thread, but just antireflex coating, but still – such thing shouldn’t happen in such an expensive lens. It should be pristine. You won’t find such crap in old cheap (it was/is entry level lens) 50/1.8d (I have one too).Piotr M wrote:
good lenses don’t loose much.
Potentially. I’ve found 25- 30% loss in value is what I’ve experienced, assuming good lenses and good condition. At least for local/ national sales, maybe you would get more on ebay/ selling internationally, but in all, kind of like a car where the moment you walk it off the forecourt you’re down 25%..
Piotr M wrote:
AF-S and VR lenses are less reliable for one good reason and this reason is not AF-S motor neither VR. Photography became cheaper and more available for everybody. Cost cutting causes lower quality.
That means that older equipment is more reliable than new. Of course VR and AF-S are an extra possibilities for disaster to happen, but they are not causes.
One picture says more than 1000 words… Very new and very expensive Nikkor AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR II http://trick77.com/2010/01/11/thread-issue-with-nikon-nikkor-70-200-2-8-vr-ii/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;Ouch.. if I landed out close to two grand for a lens, I would not be impressed – I’ve always found it to be more economical to be a trendsetter, rather than a trend follower!
.. but then I’m just a a photography crank, who has almost given up on digital, and doesn’t even own a zoom lens :)
Damien
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
