35 50 and thinking of adding a 28 1.8

I

ideacipher

Senior Member
I heard people say - pick the 35 or 50 and get only one because they are so close in focal lengths. Well for my shooting they are very different and I know when to choose the 50 and the 35 plays most of the time. I've started to notice a limit in my day to day shooting and want to go a little wider to a 28 keeping them all at 1.8 would be ideal. I also checked out the 24 2.8d.

28 1.8g or 24 2.8d on a dx is the question. I lean toward the 28 1.8. Do any of you shoot with this set? Also I have a 12-24 f4 so I can cover a landscape shot, just looking for lowlight sharp images that will not put the focus plane in a spot where I need to be able to move through a wall.

As always thanks
 
Last edited:
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Hmm, 24 would be more noticeable of a difference, but 2.8 won't really play that well w/ the old 7000's sensor. 28 is just throwing money out the window if you have a 35. I'd say just stick with your 12-24 and save for a better body to handle low light, with your 12-24.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
ideacipher said:
I heard people say - pick the 35 or 50 and get only one because they are so close in focal lengths. Well for my shooting they are very different and I know when to choose the 50 and the 35 plays most of the time. I've started to notice a limit in my day to day shooting and want to go a little wider to a 28 keeping them all at 1.8 would be ideal. I also checked out the 24 2.8d.

28 1.8g or 24 2.8d on a dx is the question. I lean toward the 28 1.8. Do any of you shoot with this set? Also I have a 12-24 f4 so I can cover a landscape shot, just looking for lowlight sharp images that will not put the focus plane in a spot where I need to be able to move through a wall.

As always thanks
Click to expand...

Have you considered the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 zoom lens instead?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
I too would prefer the 24 over 28

That sigma art is stellar
Id sell the 50 and 35 u have abd just go with the sigma. If funds are low. Its that good i wohldnt feel the need for a prime.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I too would go 24 over 28 given a choice between the two. I have the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D and it sees use on both my full-frame D750 and the girlfriend's amazingly capable D5300. It's a gem of a lens and so light and small you hardly know it's there. IQ is outstanding even wide open.

If you wanna go whole-hog the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is in a class of its own... With, of course, a price tag to match. I own two Sigma "Art" series lenses and I warn you... They're the "crack cocaine" of glass.
....
 
I

ideacipher

Senior Member
Thanks for the input.

I'm shooting with the 12-24 @ 24mm and f/4. After a few weeks I should have a grasp on if it will work or not. The focus is a little slow and better suited for landscapes for sure. It also sounds like a dentist drill but that part I can live with its just the hunting in lowlight I'm worried about but we'll see. The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 looks looks very tempting and something to keep in mind if I decide not to switch to FX in the near future.
 
A

aroy

Senior Member
Read up the reviews and comparisons of all 28's. The only 28mm worth having from Nikon is the 28mm F2.8 AIS. Otherwise the 24mm F1.4G is the best buy.
 
Eduard

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I too have a 35mm and 50mm. If I add another prime, it would be the 20mm. To paraphrase Sir Mix-A-Lot, "I like wide lenses and I cannot lie...."
 
Top