28 or 35mm?

[Jaime Marin]

Debating on wether getting a 28mm 2.8 nikon AIS or the 35mm 1.4 ais? I havent used either focal length. I currently have a 85mm ais and a 50mm ais and felt that the wider focal length complete my current setup. What are your guys' thoughts?

 

[BrianShaw]

f/2 35mm

 

[Jesper]

28, 50 and 85 seems like a nice trio.

 

[Chris Lange]

I have, and use, a 35/1.4 ai-s on my F3/T and F3 all the time.

I mean -all- the time. Other than the instances where I put on the 105/1.8 or 85/1.4, that lens does not leave the camera body. I stopped bothering with the 50/1.4 altogether after I got the 35. It's very good, but has a unique way of rendering images. I suggest you try one out on a roll of film in varying light conditions before buying, if possible.

 

[MattKing]

Just to be contrary - 24mm, 35mm and 85mm.

At least one of which the OP already has .

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Indeed. 28s are sweet (although I carry a 105 at the other end).

 

[CGW]

The 28/2.8 AIS is killer. The 35/2 is truly nice, too, but a bit close to the 50.

 

[pentaxuser]

What Matt King has said. The 35mm is too close to the 50mm whereas the 28mm gives nearly as wide as you need in most situations but there have been a number of occasions where it wasn't quite wide enough and the 24mm would have been. A 24mm is about the limit without noticeable distortion.

I'll stick with my 28mm but if I had my time over again, I'd buy a 24mm instead

pentaxuser

 

[baachitraka]

FOV
----

24mm = 73° 44‘ 42"
28mm = 65° 28‘ 30"
35mm = 54° 26‘ 10"
------------------
50mm = 39° 36‘ 4"
------------------
85mm = 23° 54‘ 54"
------------------
I personally go with 28mm for Street-Photography and 24mm for Landscapes.

 

[vpwphoto]

..... mount them to the camera look about at how things look... pick the one you like best.

 

[Pumalite]

28MM AIS F-2
50MM AIS f-1.4
85MM AIS f-1.8

 

[brucemuir]

28MM AIS F-2

I have the 28 f/2 (Ai), it's worth the extra cost.

I also have an earlier 35 1.4 (thorium glass vintage)
It's not the greatest wide open but useable. It has a unique look at wider apertures thats for sure.

I have a 35 f/2 (Ais) and while good, it's nothing spectacular.

 

[BillBingham2]

Nikkor 28/2.8 AIs is the best 28 Nikon ever made. Actually one of the best from anyone. Focuses very close, very low distortion, sharp edge to edge across the range.

The 35/1.4 is a fine lens that shines in existing light. A bit heavy when compared to a RF lens of the same speed.

If I could only have one wide lens on a SLR it would be the 28 AIs. If I could have two, it would bed one of them....

B2

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

35mm is a bit too close to a 50mm
(I happily use a 35mm *instead* of a 50mm)

That said, I find that the best of the Nikon 35s to be the f/2.0 (didn't really like either the 1.4 or the 2.8).
Said 35mm f/2.0 is blown away by several Zeiss and Leica competitors, though I haven't tried the f/2.0 ZF lens, which would be the one you could use.

 

[agw]

35 is so near to 50, that they can be exchanged as a "normal" lens - it just depends on how one is used to look at things.

IMO, the set 35/50/85 does not make much sense from the focal length spacing. 28 (or 24)/50/85 is much better (though I would prefer 105 over 85...). Alternative: sell 50, get 20/35/85 (20 as "true WA", 35 as "wide normal", 85 as "tele" - comes close to what kind of kit one would put on a Leica M, anyway).

I agree about the 28/2.8 Ai-S. Excellent lens, though at times not wide enough. However, served me well as my only WA for a couple of years. Later, I got by without a 50 for years - just 20-35 and 80-200, neither missing nor using that 50 much.

It depends on which meaning you want to give your wide angle lens, and how important the 50 "normal" field of view is for you. Wanna keep the 50 for it's FOV, you need a wide companion - get the 28 or 24 (or even 20, that's what I probably would do nowadays). Wanna get the 35 - sell 50, get something even wider, too.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I used to have the 35/1.4 and I found it big and quite heavy. So much so that I tended to not use it. I like the 35mm perspective, I see it as a 'normal' focal length, more than the 50mm and if I was looking for a three lens set up I'd probably choose 24, 35, and 85.

 

[blockend]

Tricky question. A 35mm makes a great standard lens but for street and documentary it's not always wide enough to give coverage and DoF. OTOH it has less distortion and subjects appear closer. I don't think there is an ideal lens, unless you're prepared to use a zoom and the 28-80 Nikon comes close if you need flexibility and compromise on maximum aperture.

My regular kit consists of 24mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 on two SLR bodies. It's not perfect but covers most subjects.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I would go for the 28 and if possible go for the 24.

Jeff

 

[ooze]

Mathematically, a 35 may look close to a 50, or a 28, but if you've been using all three focal lengths for a while you will start to see that they are quite different animals because each of them renders spatial *relationships* differently. There are very good photographers out there who use a 35 as a standard, a 50 as a tele, and a 28 as a wide.

As to whether to get a 28 or a 35, no one can decide but you. I don't think you would be disappointed by either.

 

[markbarendt]

Debating on wether getting a 28mm 2.8 nikon AIS or the 35mm 1.4 ais? I havent used either focal length. I currently have a 85mm ais and a 50mm ais and felt that the wider focal length complete my current setup. What are your guys' thoughts?

Here's a link to a great resource http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html

I currently carry 3 primes, 35mm f/2 Nikkor "O", 50mm f/1.4, 105mm 2.5 Gauss Type.

The 35 & 105 are the ones that get the most use by far.

I like the 50 on the camera, but actually find that I rarely switch to the 50 because a step or two puts the 35 right where I want the subject and regularly find the 50 a bit narrow for just bopping around.

I do like wider lenses on occasion and could probably be just as happy with a 28 in place of the 35 but that drive isn't enough to get me to spend money on a 28 I'd want (the 0.2 close focus version).

 

[dbuckle]

I have the 28mm f2 and it is excellent.

 

[baachitraka]

May be some example shots of the same subject with 28mm and 35mm will clarify OP's doubts.

 

[DividedSky]

if you already have a 50mm, get the 28mm. although if you only had the 85mm, id say definitely the 35. 35 is a much better walk around lens than a 50mm imo. the 50 is too tele to be as versatile as it's considered.

 

[steveniphoto]

i'd go with the 35 for a walk around. i find 28 just a tad too wide in some situations.

 

[fmajor]

I can't speak to which Nikkor is an optically better lens, but as to FOV for street and general carrying around i use a 35mm. I have a 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, etc i've compared FOV to FOV and hte 35mm really is a great every-day focal length.

I really like my 24mm for landscape, while the 28mm FOV just never really did anything for me. I'm not talking about resolution, contrast, etc - just simply FOV. I know you can 'foot-zoom', but it just isn't the same - doesn't look the same.

My 50mm's are great GP lenses and one pretty much lives on my favorite all-manual body, but quite often the 35mm supplants the 50mm's place.