Nikon FM2 which lens?

[Huss]

The OP specified 35/2 or 50/1.4, which he already has.
Why is everyone recommending zooms and expensive stuff ?

What's wrong with expensive stuff? The camera is just a light tight box. If you can afford it, the money goes to the lenses. Currently Zeiss makes the best manual focus lenses for Nikon.
They also do not make zooms.
Voigtlander also makes fantastic expensive lenses for Nikon. I am partial to their 40mm f2. The 58 1.4 is very nice too.

 

[Colin Corneau]

This is an impossible question for anyone but you to answer - it's the age-old "50 or 35" debate.

Only your personal taste can determine - which is why I say only you can answer it. Honestly, the light-tight box you attach the focal length too is beside the point (other than an FM2 being lighter and smaller, which is nice).

Best of luck, and happy shooting!

 

[Ces1um]

I have all pentax gear but did NIkon make a 100mm 1:4 macro lens? It's amazing how many other "worlds" there are when you get walking about with a macro lens. Never a shortage of things to shoot.

between 35 and 50mm- meh. Those focal lengths are awfully close anyways. Shoot either one.

 

[Chan Tran]

What's wrong with expensive stuff? The camera is just a light tight box. If you can afford it, the money goes to the lenses. Currently Zeiss makes the best manual focus lenses for Nikon.
They also do not make zooms.
Voigtlander also makes fantastic expensive lenses for Nikon. I am partial to their 40mm f2. The 58 1.4 is very nice too.

It's just not the question.

 

[Chan Tran]

Although I never have a 35mm and quite happy with just the 50mm I think I would vote for the 35mm.

 

[Ces1um]

You've already gotten to know the 35, I'd take the 50.

My walk-around lens is the Voigtlander 40.

Nice lens the voigtlander 40. Do you have the single coated or multicoated one?

 

[rrusso]

Nice lens the voigtlander 40. Do you have the single coated or multicoated one?

Hmm, well I dunno, lol. It's the Ultron F2 SL Aspherical.

Edit: Ok, I just looked it up, and it is the SL "II" (doesn't say that on the lens, though), and is multicoated.

 

[Huss]

It's just not the question.

Question was which lens, 35 or 50? Zeiss gives those options.
Anyway..

 

[MartinCrabtree]

IMO the Zeiss ia not thousands better than an equivalent Nikon. Better? Absolutely. At what cost for a normal Joe who doesn't shoot resolution charts?

 

[Huss]

IMO the Zeiss ia not thousands better than an equivalent Nikon. Better? Absolutely. At what cost for a normal Joe who doesn't shoot resolution charts?

The rendering is much better, and you see that in portraits.
Thankfully I am not a normal Joe..



p.s. Who wastes film shooting charts?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The OPs question was which of the two lenses in his possession should he use.

 

[rmjranch]

Thanks everyone - going to shoot with a 50mm 1.4 for a while

 

[MartinCrabtree]

p.s. Who wastes film shooting charts?

If you must ask...........

 

[cooltouch]

I love the 28-50-135mm combo

This was exactly what I was gonna mention, but it leaves out that nice 35/2. So, I would lean more toward keeping the 35 and 50, and adding the 135 and a 24mm. I like 24mm way more than 28mm.
So, 24/35/50/135. Too much?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Too much? What a silly concept.