Which lens next?

Steve Mack · Dec 18, 2010

I'm looking for recommendations to help me decide on another prime for my Nikons: N80 and F100. I switch off the 50 mm f/1.8 with the 28-80 f/3.5-5.6G, but I'd like another prime. I was looking at the 50 mm f/1.4, but I seem to be doing just fine with the 1.8. So, how about the wide end of the spectrum? I haven't tried 24 mm yet, maybe something wider? I do general photography; I don't have any specialties to consider.

What are your suggestions/experiences with wide-er primes?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen

JohnMeadows · Dec 18, 2010

I have a non-AI 24mm Nikon which I love. The 28 mm f2.8 has a very good reputation, to a point where the price is rather high. You might enjoy something in the 24mm range.

brucemuir · Dec 18, 2010

35mm is a good walk around FL with out being too wide but it may be too close to your 50.
I usually prefer a 35 f/2 over a 50 anyway but it all depends on what I'm doing.

If a tele try the 105 f/2.5

Jeff Kubach · Dec 18, 2010

I would go for a 24 or a 20mm. How about a 100~ Macro.

Jeff

lxdude · Dec 18, 2010

What focal length do you find yourself going to on your zoom? Do you find yourself wishing it were a little wider? A 24 could be the ticket. Or a lot wider? Maybe a 20 would suit your vision. It's a significant jump from a 28. I enjoy the 17mm I have, but many folks find they don't like the ultrawide, 17-21mm range for much. So it's up to you. If your 28 range on your zoom isn't wide enough for you, you know you're ready for something more. BTW, though I have a 24-35/3.5 zoom which performs well, I also have a 28/2.8. Less distortion, and the non-rotating front element makes it easier to use polarisers and ND grads. If you shoot in dim light fast 35's and 28's are pretty easy to find. The fast wides by independent makers are cheaper and may not be as good, but the conditions I use them under, i.e., handheld in dim, usually high contrast conditions, makes a little softness, lack of contrast, or higher distortion unimportant to me.

If you think you'd like to try something longer the 105/2.5 is a legendary lens, or you could try the E series 75-150/3.5, the 80-200/4.5, or something similar.

M.A.Longmore · Dec 18, 2010

.
Hi Steve,

Definitely consider a 24mm, if the budget allows, or a 28mm should be
more affordable. I've been doing a lot with the 28mm lately. But, I'm
always wishing for something just a little wider, but my wallet isn't
falling for that olde trick, at the moment. My 85mm has been
getting some occasional usage also.

Enjoy The Weekend !

Happy Images !

Ron
.

Aja B · Dec 18, 2010

35 seems too close to your current 50. I find 28 to be a very approachable FL for general shooting. There's considerably less distortion and 'stretching' of corners vs 24. With a 24 I'm needing to pay more attention to finer composition details. The 28/2.8 AIS is the preferred version in MF, unless the additional expense of a 28/2 is acceptable. Both 2.8 and 2 AIS enjoy CRC; others do not. The AF models generally don't get real high marks. I suggest 28, esp if you expect something wider (e.g. 20) in the future. If you regard the purchase to be your 'max-wideness' for the foreseeable future, then 24 is worth considering.

Amongst the various common FLs (e.g. 20-105 in round numbers) and models within those FLs, Nikon seems to have struggled enormously with the construction composition (# elements/groups) of their 28 the most, having introduced a different composition for nearly every version (AI, AIS, AF, AF-D, E). Shame they didn't retain the AIS recipe for AF and AF-D.

tkamiya · Dec 18, 2010

I'd approach this problem backwards. What do you feel is lacking in your current line up in the type of shooting you do? Just like you reasoned why 50mm f/1.4 isn't for you, do you feel gaining 4mm will give you something you cannot do with your current equipment? (by stepping back few yards?)

With that said, Macro lens of some kind may give you something new to explore.... but that's my preference.

j-dogg · Dec 18, 2010

brucemuir said:
If a tele try the 105 f/2.5

/thread

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 18, 2010

As many have mentioned, what do you seem to use most in your currently available FLs and what do you miss?

If you're satisfied with the quality of your 28-80 throughout its range, I'd go for a 20mm and/or a 200mm.
The 20mm AI/AIS is quite good and the 200mm f/4.0 AI/AIS is one of Nikon's most underrated lenses.

Also, a macro could be good, and/or the 105mm f/2.5 if going for bokehish portraits...

totalmotard · Dec 18, 2010

Keep in mind AIS lenses won't meter with your N80. You will need a G or D type lens, or chipped AIS lenses. Your F100 will meter the AIS lenses.

HarryW · Dec 18, 2010

Stephen,
35mm is too close to your 50mm and 28mm is never wide enough. You can always zoom with your feet
Why don't you try a classic three lens set-up:
24mm 2.8
50mm
105mm 2.5

check out Bjorn Rorslett's site - http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

Regards
Harry

dehk · Dec 18, 2010

Rol_Lei Nut said:
.... and the 200mm f/4.0 AI/AIS is one of Nikon's most underrated lenses.

My 200mm Nikkor Q NAI is one of the best lens ever.

Sirius Glass · Dec 18, 2010

20mm or 21mm
After that 150mm or 200mm

Steve

John_Nikon_F · Dec 19, 2010

Or, try this:

24/2.8 AF
35/2 AF
85/1.8 AF.

All compatible with both your bodies.

-J

2F/2F · Dec 20, 2010

Do you find yourself wishing your zoom lens was wider? If so, I'd get a 24mm. In not, I'd get a fast 28 mm or 35 mm. 24, 28, and 35 sound close, but they are all very different.

2F/2F · Dec 20, 2010

HarryW said:
Stephen,
35mm is too close to your 50mm and 28mm is never wide enough. You can always zoom with your feet [/url]

That is most definitely an opinion only.

2F/2F · Dec 20, 2010

dehk said:
My 200mm Nikkor Q NAI is one of the best lens ever.

I have used three different copies, and always found them to be decent, but a bit on the soft end. (My Canon FD 200mm f/4, OTOH, was sharp as a tack wide open.) They certainly are cheap, though.

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 20, 2010

Re. "My 200mm Nikkor Q NAI is one of the best lens ever."

2F/2F said:
I have used three different copies, and always found them to be decent, but a bit on the soft end. (My Canon FD 200mm f/4, OTOH, was sharp as a tack wide open.) They certainly are cheap, though.

Keep in mind that the pre-AI and the AI/AIS have completely different optical schemes.
The pre-AI was a good, but not great lens. The later one comes very close to the 180mm f/2.8 ED in the stops it covers, at a fraction of the weight and cost.

While I now use some 180/200mm lenses which are even sharper, they cost a bit more and won't fit a Nikon...

2F/2F · Dec 21, 2010

Rol_Lei Nut said:
Re. "My 200mm Nikkor Q NAI is one of the best lens ever."

Keep in mind that the pre-AI and the AI/AIS have completely different optical schemes.
The pre-AI was a good, but not great lens. The later one comes very close to the 180mm f/2.8 ED in the stops it covers, at a fraction of the weight and cost.

While I now use some 180/200mm lenses which are even sharper, they cost a bit more and won't fit a Nikon...

My comments were specifically directed toward the pre AI lens the other fellow mentioned.

Pumalite · Dec 24, 2010

I think the old glass is better than the new

Which lens next?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency