Wide to Normal Prime Lens Recommendation for Nikon F6

[moranjr]

I am would be very grateful for recommendations for a wide angle, a 35mm, a 50mm lenses for a Nikon F6.
I prefer AF but that is not nearly important to me as image quality and character. Price is not a huge factor. Thank you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 35mm lens is too close to the 50mm lens. I recommend either a 24mm or 28mm lens with a 50mm lens.

 

[frank]

Everyone is different and it's a subjective choice, but I prefer the 28/50 pairing.

 

[karl]

Um, no. The 50mm and 35mm lenses feel quite different. I like the 50mm f1.2 AI-S and the 35mm f1.4 AI-S. The 50mm f1.4 AF-D is a fine lens as well.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am would be very grateful for recommendations for a wide angle, a 35mm, a 50mm lenses for a Nikon F6.
I prefer AF but that is not nearly important to me as image quality and character. Price is not a huge factor. Thank you.

easy24f/2.8, 35f/250f/1.4 and 85f/2

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have the Nikon 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens and the Nikon 28mm to 200mm AF zoom lens.

 

[moranjr]

...I prefer the 28/50 pairing.

Thanks for your reply. Which 28 and 50?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you like a lens with character, look at the Zeiss Distagon 35/2.0. I have it in M42 mount and use it on Canon FD and EOS, but it also comes in Nikon mount, manual focus.

 

[frank]

You're not going to get much lens character (as i define it) from modern SLR lenses. For character, I look for 20th century 35mm rangefinder lenses.

For your Nikon, the lenses spoken highly of are the nikkor 28f2.8 Ai-s and 50f2 Ai long-nose version, both manual focus.

 

[film_man]

When I had Nikon I tried the following lenses in that range:
20/2.8AFD, 35/2AFD, Zeiss 35/2, 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G, 50/1.4D, Zeiss 50/1.4, 20-35/2.8D, 17-35/2.8AFS.

The 17-35 is simply spectacular, better than the old 20 and 35 lenses (obviously not f/2 at 35), fast AF, sharp, nice colour and contrast. The 20 I only used in digital and it was just not good but I don't know if it is any better with film. The 20-35 I used with both film and digital and found it so-so wide open but nice from f/4. It was a bit bland though.

The Zeiss 35/2 was essentially a perfect lens, the contrast, colour and sharpness from wide open was outstanding and it matched in rendering character the Zeiss 50/1.4 (see below). My only criticism is that for a manual focus 35/2 it is quite long and heavy.

From the 50s the Zeiss was outstanding but obviously manual focus, it has a distinct character in the rendering, was stupid sharp from f/2.8 and had a nice glow effect wide open. From the AF ones the f/1.8 versions were both junk, the 50/1.4D was a very nice lens, sharp-ish even wide open but a bit low contrast wide open but stop down to f/2-2.2 and it was great.

Since money is not an issue note that there are a bunch of new lenses out nowadays from Nikon like the 20/1.8G, 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G and some zooms which would probably be a lot sharper than all these older lenses. So unless you want something with a bit more character (eg Zeiss) then these would give you excellent sharpness and colour with AF but that's all from what I read, never used these myself.

If I was buying myself with an F6 I'd go 17-35AFS, Zeiss 35/2 and Zeiss 50/1.4. Or maybe swap the 17-35 for the newer 16-35/4 VR.

If I was buying manual focus (eg an FM2n or similar), I'd go Zeiss 28/2, 35/2 and 50/1.4.

 

[moranjr]

Thanks!

Thanks to everyone that responded!

 

[flavio81]

The 35mm lens is too close to the 50mm lens.

Not for me...

 

[mayokevin]

I always found the 50mm F2.0 AI and non AI to be the best of the Nikon 50's. I have never been much of a 35mm person it doesn't match my vison.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Not for me...

+1 to me there is a clear difference between the two but, both are veryunivesal and I see them bothh as go-to lenses for an array of situations.If I wouldn't do portrait, those two would do for me.I added the 24 and the 85 to round up my system.If you have from half to double the normal focal length,you're all set for a while.