Normal-to-slight-WA for Nikon.

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Martin Sørensen, Mar 11, 2008.

  1. I have a D80 and picked up a used 50/1.8 AF which I am very happy
    with.

    I am now considering something wider to supplement it, preferably at a
    low price. Essentially, something like the 35/2 I had when I was
    shooting film.

    A 24mm would be obvious, but Nikons seem a bit so-so when you read the
    reviews. Any decent 28mm? Of course there is the Sigma 30/1.4, what
    are the alternatives?

    TIA

    Martin
     
    Martin Sørensen, Mar 11, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pick up a used 17-35/2.8 Nikkor and be done with it. It works on both DX
    and full frame Nikon bodies. The performance and image quality is so good
    that even Canon shooters buy and used them.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hmm. It is big, heavy, and "only" does f/2.8. Even 2nd hand here in
    Europe it looks like at least 500 Euro - that is 700 USD or so.

    I don't have any plans to go FF, and I do have the 18-135 kit lens.

    What I would like is something light, bright and cheap. Like the
    50/1.8.

    But thanks anyway

    Martin
     
    Martin Sørensen, Mar 11, 2008
    #3
  4. 24mm would get you essentially the same field of view as a 35mm on a
    film camera. What reviews have you been reading? Nikkor 24/2.8 is very
    good, but perhaps you want something faster. 28mm will not be wide,
    it's normal on a DX body.
    Sigma's offering is a very good lens, and probably your best bet. I
    use it all the time when I'm shooting digital (but I shoot more film
    these days). Nikon doesn't have any real alternatives to this; their
    28/2.8 is decent and inexpensive, but two stops slower. Nikkor 28/1.4
    is extremely expensive and very hard to find.
     
    Fredrik Sandstrom, Mar 11, 2008
    #4
  5. I know, it is as much in relation to the 50 I already have - the
    purpose is available light shots of the kids, and I find I need
    something slightly wider than 50 on DX.

    The reviews I found were
    http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nik...kkor-af-28mm-f28d-review--test-report?start=1
    and http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html for the 28/2.8. And
    yes, f/2 or better is nice.
    I guess I will have a go with the 28/2.8 if I find a cheap one and
    take it from there.

    Interesting that it sound like you have gone back to film. Dare I ask
    why? The only thing I miss is the luxurious blacks of quality bw
    papers.

    Thanks,

    Martin
     
    Martin Sørensen, Mar 11, 2008
    #5
  6. Well, AF Nikkor 35 f/2D seems like a good candidate in that case.
    Fast, sharp, and wider than 50.
    Now these innocent questions usually start those endless film vs
    digital wars so let's not go there. :) But since you asked, there's
    three reasons:

    - Kodachrome. Lately more and more people have realized that
    Kodachrome is a historically significant and extraordinary medium,
    and that it might soon be gone forever. So the time to shoot it, if
    you ever want to do so (again, or for the first time) is NOW. Refer
    to my own blog on the subject: http://photo.oktett.net/ and Daniel
    Bayer's Kodachrome Project: http://www.kodachromeproject.com/

    - Nothing beats a slide shown on a big screen. You can sit and watch a
    photograph like you sit and admire a painting. You can walk up to
    the screen and study the details up close. Video projectors? Pfft.
    They have ridiculously low resolution (except perhaps _very_
    expensive models). 1-2 megapixels. How much did you pay for that
    12Mp camera again? You throw away 9/10 of the pixels, if you view
    your shots on a video projector.

    For prints, digital wins hands down. I see no reason to shoot 35mm
    color negative film anymore. (For me, that is. I'm not saying you
    shouldn't do that if you like it.)

    - I just plain enjoy capturing images on a tangible medium like film.
    Especially with a manual and mechanical camera. The process of
    focusing carefully, setting the exposure (bracketing when unsure),
    NOT seeing the result immediately, but contemplating every exposure
    you make, making every shot count. It's rewarding, and just feels
    right. To ME that is, I'm not saying anyone else ought to feel that
    way

    And DON'T interpret this as if I have anything against digital
    photography. I shoot a lot of digital myself, and it has some
    tremendous advantages.
     
    Fredrik Sandstrom, Mar 11, 2008
    #6
  7. No war intended, just curious :)
    I never shot slides, because I thought I would rarely view them.
    I would consider doing BW if I had the time and space, I did like
    that.

    I don't!
     
    Martin Sørensen, Mar 11, 2008
    #7
  8. I guess if it doesn't fit these requirements than it won't work for you.
    It's such a sweet lens that will spoil you with great optics and build
    quality.
    Still works great on DX. I used it on my D200 and D2x.
    Aint much out there from Nikon that is going to be bright and cheap. The
    Sigma (Gag) 30/1.4 fits that category, but be prepared to play roulette
    trying to get a decent sample.
    You'll find something.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 12, 2008
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.