After recommendations for a 24mm or 35mm lens for my FE2

[Carlb]

I recently thought about selling my Nikon FE2 and the 35-105 Nikkor zoom because I don't really use them enough, but when it came to the crunch I realised what a superb camera it is and I decided to keep it.

But the lens is a different matter - it's too heavy for my liking so I want to replace it with a prime that will make it a more manageable package. I've got most focal lengths covered with either Pentax or Olympus gear (20, 28, 40, 50, 100, 135 and 70-210) so there doesn't seem any point in replicating those on the Nikon. A 24mm or 35mm would be good but a quick check on Ebay shows that they seem quite expensive.

Can anyone recommend a good quality non-Nikon 24mm or 35mm that won't cost me a fortune. Or is there a good macro lens that might be worth considering?

And I'm open to suggestions about lenses that I might have overlooked completely.

Or should I just bite the bullet and sell the FE2 and the zoom?

 

[maclin]

Nikkor Lens

Carlb, I have a pretty good selection of Nikkors which I use on my F2 but one of my favorites.............for its speed and lightness is the Nikkor 24mm f2.0.

 

[Poohblah]

I am of the opinion that having too many lenses is a bad thing, but that's just personal preference.

That said, I suggest searching for a 24mm lens and getting rid of that massive ol' zoom.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Sigma Super-Wide II f2.8 24mm. Very good value for money.

I bought mine new around 1984 as a lead in until I could afford a better Nikkor lens, I haven't worried about getting the Nikkor as whilst the Nikkor 24 mm lenses are generally better, they aren't that much better.

I also have the 35 - 105 Nikkor zoom lens, dog of a lens, I also bought that new as well. It's my loaner to students I'm personally teaching, so far none of them has even considered it after using some of the prime lenses.

You'll love the Sigma, it clicks in half stops and focuses the same way as Nikkor optics, plus it runs 52mm filters. If you are really lucky you'll get the heavily scalloped lens hood which came as standard with the lens, it clips in, not a screw in.

I believe that this particular Sigma lens goes for something between $50 - $85 USD or around $100 AUD

Mick.

 

[kozesluk]

if you are not rich then get the ai nikkor 2/35
or 1.4/35 if you are rich
or the modern af 2/35 - better optics than ai/ais 2/35 but plastic feeling. and bigger price.

 

[mgb74]

IMHO, there is a world of difference between a 24mm and a 35mm. So, if you want to use your FE2 as a "specialized" wide angle camera, I'd go for the 24mm (but why, if you have 20 and 28 on your other systems). If you want a relatively small, somewhat wide lens for general use (i.e. "street shooting") I'd go with the 35/2 or equivalent.

 

[Excalibur2]

****Sigma Super-Wide II f2.8 24mm. Very good value for money.***

Well I second that, if you can get it cheap...and I reckon £15-£20 would be about right, got mine for £10 inc postage last year.

 

[mudman]

Tamron makes a wonderful 24mm f2.5 adaptall lens. Tack sharp even wide open, with little distortion.

 

[Roger Thoms]

I'll put in a vote for 24mm focal length for a wide angle, a personal favorite.
Roger

 

[Chaplain Jeff]

Hello,

The Nikkor 24mm is a great lens - I have the f/2.8 AIc. Just be aware that it is a REAL wide angle lens and you will have all sorts of headaches if you shoot scenes of church steeples, etc., if you're not careful about what you're doing. The lens will bend the steeple backwards if you don't shoot straight. This was the lens that prompted me to buy the grid screen for each of my Nikon bodies.

Personally I prefer the 28mm lenses, but I am probably in a minority here. I use the 28mm on SLRs and RFs as my standard lens on about 85% of my shooting.

I almost never use a 35mm length lens. Too narrow for wide and too wide for portraits.

 

[filmamigo]

** Sigma Super-Wide II f2.8 24mm. Very good value for money. **

I third that.

After a very good experience with the similar 28mm for Nikon, I got the 24mm (auto focus version) for my Pentax. It's bright, sharp, and well corrected. The AF version focusses fast. Build quality is nice, it looks a bit like contemporary Nikon lenses.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Tamron makes a wonderful 24mm f2.5 adaptall lens. Tack sharp even wide open, with little distortion.

The other advantage of the Tamron Adaptall II, is that,
you can change the mount, to use it, with your
Pentaxes & Olympuses, fully coupled.
A good match to this is the Tamron 17 mm f 3.5 !

 

[removed-user-1]

If you want the best of both a low price and a Nikkor lens, don't overlook the Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 (*not* the PC lens). I haven't priced them lately, but I used to own one and it was a solid lens for not much money.

 

[nicefor88]

Please please don't sell your FE2!!
I'm puzzled about what you mean by fortune. Sure Nikkor lenses have never been cheap but their price are much lower than in the 1980s, comparatively.
A 35mm f2 mint is usually sold around 200 dollars, is that kind of price what you mean by fortune? Used lenses can be grabbed for much less.
A 35mm f2.8 is much cheaper.
This focal length does everything except coffee

 

[panastasia]

Hello,

The Nikkor 24mm is a great lens - I have the f/2.8 AIc. Just be aware that it is a REAL wide angle lens and you will have all sorts of headaches if you shoot scenes of church steeples, etc., if you're not careful about what you're doing. The lens will bend the steeple backwards if you don't shoot straight. This was the lens that prompted me to buy the grid screen for each of my Nikon bod

..Personally I prefer the 28mm lenses, but I am probably in a minority here. I use the 28mm on SLRs and RFs as my standard lens on about 85% of my shooting.

I almost never use a 35mm length lens. Too narrow for wide and too wide for portraits.

I think the same way.

The 28mm was my standard lens until I found a short 28-100 zoom, the 85mm was my other most used lens, the 35 was never used - I eventually gave it away. I guess I'm saying I'd choose the 24 over the 35, or save your money if you have a 20, 28 and 40.

I'm also of the opinion that having too many lenses is not a good thing. I have too many for my RB, but not the 75mm (37mm equivalent). After paying retail prices for lenses some years ago I went overboard picking more at current prices. Now I feel that having closely spaced focal lengths is somewhat foolish, it's more difficult to choose which ones to go out with, and lugging them all is equally foolish. At one point I felt I had too many 35mm cameras, so I gave a couple of them away to friends - finding the 28-100 zoom was also a factor in that decision.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

If you want the best of both a low price and a Nikkor lens, don't overlook the Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 (*not* the PC lens). I haven't priced them lately, but I used to own one and it was a solid lens for not much money.

What do you have against the PC Nikkor, other than it is big and slow, it seems to have wonderful optics...
David

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Two fairly affordable choices:

Nikkor-N or NC 24f2.8 with AI conversion ring (or mill job)
Nikkor-O 35f2 with AI ring, or again, mill job.

Should be able to pick up both in decent condition for $150.

-J

 

[Carlb]

Please please don't sell your FE2!!
I'm puzzled about what you mean by fortune. Sure Nikkor lenses have never been cheap but their price are much lower than in the 1980s, comparatively.
A 35mm f2 mint is usually sold around 200 dollars, is that kind of price what you mean by fortune? Used lenses can be grabbed for much less.
A 35mm f2.8 is much cheaper.
This focal length does everything except coffee

It was while I was writing a description for the ad for the FE2 that I realised that I couldn't bring myself to sell it - but the zoom has to go!!!

When I wrote "a small fortune" I meant "about double what I currently have in my lens budget" so maybe it was a slight exaggeration, but I take your point that they are relatively cheap when compared to their original prices.

I've decided to go for either a 35mm or 50mm lens so that I have a good, general walk-around kit. I've given the the Birthday Fairy (ie my partner) a list with a few options that include the words "Nikon" and "lens" so I'll see what happens in June .

How do people rate the Series E lenses??

 

[Pumal]

I have a 20mm, a 24mm and a 28mm. I find myself using the 20mm; other wise an 85mm a Micro-Nikkor 55mm or a Micro-Nikkor 105mm or the 200mm f/4

 

[mudman]

Some of the e series are great, some not so much from what I've heard. I've used two - the 50mm f1.8 which is decent, but not as nice as the AIS Nikkor and the 70-150 f3.5 which is a great lightweight lens that I sometimes use when I need reach but don't want to haul around the 80-200 or several focal lengths. sometimes if I'm really weight concious I'll just bring a 28mm AF, 35 f2 and the 70-150.

 

[removed-user-1]

What do you have against the PC Nikkor, other than it is big and slow, it seems to have wonderful optics...
David

I have nothing against the PC-Nikkor - in fact I would love to own one. Sometimes I think I should sell everything, including my digital stuff, and get an F2, a 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor and a 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I could probably do everything I'm really interested in with those two lenses... OK, I guess I need the 24mm f/2.8 also.

My reason for not suggesting the 35mm PC is just that it's about four times more expensive than the non-PC 35mm f/2.8. I was trying to meet the OP's requirement that the lens be inexpensive.

 

[dougjgreen]

I agree that the Tamron 24mm f2.5 is a really nice lens. You might even find one for well under $50.

 

[nocrop]

Personally I prefer the 28mm lenses, but I am probably in a minority here. I use the 28mm on SLRs and RFs as my standard lens on about 85% of my shooting.

Same here--28 seems like a good compromise when I want to go wide.

 

[nocrop]

I am of the opinion that having too many lenses is a bad thing, but that's just personal preference.

Beats the alternative, though!