28 or 35 - input please

henrik1963

I don't know if I should buy a 28mm or a 35mm next.

We have a D700 and a D800. We used to bring 14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 - all F2.8 + 50 F1.8 G + 105 macro.

I want a lighter load to carry and am planning on bringing 14-24 + (new lens) + 50 + 85. What is missing? 28 or 35? Thinking Nikon 28 1.8G or Nikon 35 1.8G.

Your input please

Golf007sd

The new Nikon 35 1.8G ED should meet your expectations, given its performance and weight. Should you want to go wider then you have the best with you already...namely the 14-24.

TaoTeJared

+1 with Golf007sd for the generic thought of covering focal lengths. One thing to think about is what you want a 28 or 35 to do. I have found that going out with small groups of friends the 35 is not wide enough, or doesn't close focus enough to capture them many times. Flip side, when walking around taking snapshots, I find the 35 to be perfect and 28/24 too wide.

Outside the box thought: I personally like my Fuji x100 to cover 35mm lengths and then keep my 50 or 24-120 f/4 on my D800. Fuji is on my neck and Nikon in a bag. GR DIGITAL IV or Nikon Coolpix A cover the 28mm mark for this type of shooting as well.

Ironheart

Why choose? Get both!

WestEndBoy

I don't know if I should buy a 28mm or a 35mm next.

We have a D700 and a D800. We used to bring 14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 - all F2.8 + 50 F1.8 G + 105 macro.

I want a lighter load to carry and am planning on bringing 14-24 + (new lens) + 50 + 85. What is missing? 28 or 35? Thinking Nikon 28 1.8G or Nikon 35 1.8G.

Your input please

Nothing is missing. You can make do with what you have. However, if you want it, get it.

Seriously, if you get a 28, that is the same as a 24. I can barely tell the difference between mine.

If you have 24 and 50 and feel that you are missing something, then you can argue that you are missing something between your 50 and 105.

But if you must get something, get the 35, as the 28 is too close to the 24.

Note, I use my 14-24 for interiors and architecture etc. I use my 28 (and 20) for landscapes and other applications that require filters. That is why I have duplicated those focal lengths.

henrik1963

Thank you for your feed back - none of it is wasted :-)

My main reason for wanting lighter primes: Last year we went to Berlin. A days walk could be up to 20 kilometers. One day I did it with a D800 + 70-200 2.8 - it was very hot and humid - its doable but not pleasant. We are going back in one weeks time.

As I have everything from 14 to 200 covered by the 3 2.8 zooms I can always get what I want in a decent quality by them.

I tested both Nikon 85 1.4 and Nikon 85 1.8 before going with the 1.8. (The 1.4 is a tiny bit better in some situations but I am very happy with the 1.8)

One last question: Is the image quality out of the 28 and 35 better than the image quality out of the 24-70 2.8G?

Everyone seems to think the Sigma 35 1.4 Art is king. If the Sigma is a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 what is the score of the Nikon 35 1.8 G? (Ok that was two questions :-)

I don't have the time to test the lenses - so your help is needed - thank you.

henrik1963

@Golf007sd: That is my hope - that it has good performance :-)
@Tao: I like your idea - buying a Fuji. But I would "have to" buy the X-E2 + 23 1.4 and blow my budget big time :-)
@PitchBlack: I was hoping the lenses was able to give me good image quality. The info about people vs no people in the pictures was very helpful information. I used to have a 28mm back in the film days and people often looked funny on the pictures :-)
@Ironheart: I would love to buy both - but then I would just be piling up weight :-) I have to limit myself.
@WestEndBoy: You are right. This is not about need it is about want :-)

The whole point is using the primes for walk about lenses - say a 35 or a 28 on one body and the 85 on the other. I can bring all my gear to Berlin and leave it in the apartment. If I need a lens for something special I can get to it. First world problem I know :-)

Again thank you for your input. Keep it coming :-)

WestEndBoy

When I do my cascade road trip (Crater Lake, Lassen, Northern California and Oregon Coast) this summer, it will be my D800 with the MB-D12 taken off, my RRS tripod, my 20, 28, 50, 85 and 200. The first three weigh about the same as the 85. The lenses and accessories (my filter collection of course) will fit in my Billingham Photo vest, the D800 will be on the shoulder and when I must, I will carry the RRS tripods, being careful not to hit the tripod on any rocks as Americans don't take kindly to Canadians coming down and damaging their national parks.

When I go to Europe in September (a city tour), I will bring my D800, again without the MB-D12, Billingham photo vest with accessories, no tripod, the 14-24 (museums, architecture, my 50 1.4G and either the 85 or 135). Ideally, I would have a DF and D800 on each shoulder with the 14-24, a 58mm 1.4G and 135. I will have this setup in a couple of years.

You will notice that there are "gaps" in the coverage, especially between 50 and 135 if I opt for the 135.

Heavy? I would be interested in what you guys thought. But I like photography enough to lug the gear around and I will lose weight.

henrik1963

@WestEndBoy: You must be a weakling :-) That setup is nowhere as heavy as the 3 2.8 zooms :-) But a nice setup.

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: Tanks for your input. I like what I hear about the Sigma except the "weights a ton bit". Oh well all lenses have limitations. I think a 35mm will fit the bill.

Is the Nikon 35 1.8 better than the 24-70 2.8G at 35mm?

Golf007sd

@henrik1963: One can make a very strong argument that a pro-level prime lens will out perform a variable telephoto fixed aperture lens. They key factors are the elements within each lens and the amount of available light when taking the shot.

Personally, I love the 24-70 2.8. It has outstanding performance and covers a very usable focal length...for my style of photography. The down side, for some, is it's weight. I have never had it problem carrying it all day while shooting. But as soon as night time arrives, I will switch to a prime...currently my go to lens is the Nikon 24 1.4G (a.k.a My Black-hole lens), followed closely by the Sigma 35 1.4 (these two constitute about 85% of all my shots at night) and lastly the Nikon 85 1.8G.

My recommendation to you is: consider the type of shooting activity you will be doing from morning to just before night time, and then afterwards. This will help you in deciding which lenses to take with you; hence, carry for the day. But, do yourself a favor and take one extra lens than you may considern on the first day. This will help narrow down which to the lenses you end up using for the following days.

henrik1963

So - is the Nikon 35 1.8 better than the 24-70 at 35mm? :-) BTW I am pretty happy with my 24-70 - it does most things well. Used to shoot 90 percent of my pictures with it. But lately I am using it less and less - don't know why.

WestEndBoy

I have the 24-70/2.8 to shoot events and in a pinch wide-angle at 24mm. I sort of hate it (no offense, @Golf007sd). I especially dislike taking photos of people with it because they always seem to be pin-cushiony or barrely distorted, and being a little OCD it drives me crazy. Also, I don't know, the pictures have a harshness to them that I really can't explain. I really can't provide any rational basis for my dislike of the lens, I'm just never happy with the pictures. Don't jump on me, I know I can't justify any of this.

I know what you mean. Just before I bought most of my lenses, I fooled around with a 50mm 1.4G vs the 24-70 2.8. While I feel that there is a certain harshness to the 50 that is missing on the 58 (which is why I like the 58), it is more pronounced with the 24-70. I compared both at 50 (of course) at various apertures. And while I can zoom with my feet out to 24 and 70, I know of no fix for only being able to go to 2.8 and for that reason I bought the prime. Being 70% cheaper sealed the deal and I think that it was at that point I decided zooms were not for me.

I wish that I could comment on the 35 vs the 24-70 but I have no experience with any Nikon 35. However, I suspect that the 35 1.8 is better than any of Nikon's 50s so if it was my money, I would buy the 35 and be done with it.

And Henrik, regarding your comment about me being a weakling, I love your spirit.

henrik1963

@WestEndBoy: I think that is where I am right now - just buy the 35 and be done with it :-) Thanks for your input.

BTW when I was visiting Canada a few years back I found that Canadians had a good sense of humor - I gambled that you would be a "good Canadian" :-)

All the best

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: Yes please. I went to my camera dealer today to check out the Nikon 35 1.8. He said that it was a OK lens - but not as good as the Sigma 1.4 :-)

I´ve been reading all I can find on the net about the Nikon - not a lot of good reviews. But the few I could find confirmed what you have said - stopped down they look a lot alike but wide open and at larger apertures the sigma is far better.

So now I´m sitting with my thinking hat on - I look stupid with that thing on :-)

bbeinca

I'm in a similar situation -- have the D600 with the Nikon 24 2.8D and the 85 1.8G (which is just fantastic on the D600 and is the lens I mostly use), but I would like something in between. I keep hearing good things about the 28 1.8G and seem to hear very little about the 35 1.8G which seems suspicious given that it's been out for a while now...

Msmoto

A discussion of many subtleties....I like either the 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor, which can be cropped when on full frame, but the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma is so sweet, this is quite desirable as well. As I sometimes just stick a lens on and shoot whatever I can with a particular lens, no planning necessary, LOL, I might use the 24mm in crop mode and when forced to do wider simply change to full frame.

henrik1963

@Msmoto: That is what I often do - use one lens for the day. Works great as it forces you to adapt. I never shoot in crop mode - I can just crop in post if I want to. 24 1.4 sounds good too - but a little out of my budget right now.

@bbeinca: You are right - the Nikon 85 1.8 is a great lens. Now I just need a wide lens that is just as good :-) I just might have to bite the bullet and go for the Sigma and carry a little more :-)

Too bad there is no way to crop a 85 so it becomes a 35 :-)

henrik1963

Just been walking my new Sigma 35 1.4 Art - Holy smoke that thing is sharp :-)

Thank you for all your input - none of it was wasted. Looking forward to getting to know the lens.

They did not have the USB thing - should I buy one?

JJ_SO

Excellent decision! I was going to suggest it earlier to go Sigma, but then I thought I'm too biased and maybe the Nikon 35/1.8 is not too bad... My travel set is 14-24, 35, 70-200/4, one body, enough batteries. This is all fitting into an Ortlieb frontroller bag on bicycle or a Thinktank slingshot.

henrik1963

@JJ_SO: I was sure I would be flooded with: BUY A SIGMA posts :-) The deciding factor: I could not find any reviews where the reviewer was happy with the Nikon 35 1.8 - OK they said that is was a good lens for the price but everyone compared it to the Sigma. What can you do when you are a lemming :-)

I will try a travel kit like this: 14-24, 35 and 85.

framer

My travel lens is the 17 - 35 AFs. Before I had this I used a 28 f2.8 AIS manual. Still have it, zero distortion, sharp as a tack and small. I still use it for zero distortion needs. If I had to pick one I'd be looking at 28.

framer