First prime lens

S

Sapy

Senior Member
Well I am thinking about my first prime lens for my new d7100 (kit 18-105 mm) and I hope to get some help from you.

To be honest I was thinking to get Nikkor 35mm 1.4 but it seams a little to much for my pocket at this moment. So second choice will be Nikkor 35mm 1.8. Now, I would like to have a little more room from 50mm (thats why 35) and also bokeh is the one of big reasons for this purchase.
Is this the right choice or is there a better deal?
What would you recommend and what is your oppinion on 35 1.8 lens. Enough sharp, how is the bokeh?

Thank you for all the answers in advance!
 
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
The 35mm f/1.8G is a fantastic choice. I have the 35mm, 50mm AND 85mm f/1.G's and I wouldn't let go of ANY of them. While the 1.4's are nice, I think Nikon just wants too much for them. Get the 35mm f/1.8G and don't look back.

....
 
S

Sapy

Senior Member
Thanks HFish, how are you satisfy with the bokeh and sharpnes on 35mm? Read that the 85mm would be the best choice but maybe to narrow for me at this point and a little to expensive for me wright now. Hope in the future.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Sapy said:
Thanks HFish, how are you satisfy with the bokeh and sharpnes on 35mm? Read that the 85mm would be the best choice but maybe to narrow for me at this point and a little to expensive for me wright now. Hope in the future.
Click to expand...
The sharpness is excellent. No, it's not as sharp as the 85mm but you'd just about need pictures from each lens, enlarged to 100%, and put side by side to see the difference. It will be a VERY sharp lens on your D7100.

Bokeh is...Good... Not great but it's good.

My girlfriend uses a 35mm f/1.8G almost exclusively and she gets some amaaaazing shots with it.
 
J

jrleo33

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
If you're concerned about sharpness, look for AF 35mm f/2D. It is much sharper and has significantly less barrel distortion than 35mm f/1.8 DX. Plus, it covers full frame as well (you might need it tomorrow). Nikon 35mm f/2.0 AF-D Nikkor Test Review © 2003 KenRockwell.com
Click to expand...

I agree with DraganDL. I do own and use the FX 35mm F/2D lens, and just love it. Your D7100 has a built-in focus motor, so the F/2D will auto-focus, and crop out on DX at about 52mm. The F/2 has a metal body, so there is few things that will go wrong with it, as it is built to last. It is a very sharp lens, and shows no distortion on my D600. The main qustion that one must answer is; how much will I really use a F1.4 versus the F/2, and is the larger glass really worth the extra cost?
 
S

STM

Senior Member
The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is less than half an f/ stop. If price is an issue, I would go with the f/1.8, no brainer
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
If you're concerned about sharpness, look for AF 35mm f/2D. It is much sharper and has significantly less barrel distortion than 35mm f/1.8 DX.
Click to expand...
DXO Mark shows the f/1.8G with an overall score of 26, versus 21 for the f/2D; both being mounted on a D7100. Sharpness scores are neck and neck with the f/2.0 coming in one point ahead of the f/1.8G. The f/2D does have slightly less distortion but displays way more chromatic aberration. The f/2.0D is also a lot more expensive compared to the 1.8G. Pick your poison, I guess.

.....
 
S

ShootRaw

Senior Member
The 85mm 1.4g is the best lens I have put on my D7100...Even @ 1.4 focused on the the eye, is super sharp and the rest melts away with Bokeh...The 1.4 has a 9 rounded blade aperture vs the 1.8's 7 rounded..It is noticeable..I used to own all the 1.8g's.. As for the best 35mm...Sigma's 1.4 is king..
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Nothing much to add at this point. This is more of a financial issue now and it depends on how much are you willing to spend for this prime lens.
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
I find DXO lists inconsistent, very often (though I do consult their info, just the same). I saw REAL photos (on Flickr and elsewhere) and I compared (but, I admit, it's pretty subjective) the photos taken with AF-S 35 DX to those taken with AF 35D and to my opinion, the 35D works better. Many photographers are not aware of the fact that, among the other things, by using full frame lenses on DX bodies, you get way less vignetting too (the 35mm 1.8 DX has quite a high level of vignetting, besides exhibiting a high level of barrel distortion).

But don't get me wrong - I am not saying the 35mm 1.8 DX is a BAD lens (I wouldn't reject it, if someone would have offered it to me as a birthday present;)).
---------------------------
On another note: yesterday I was offered the "good-old" venerable 35mm f/2 AIS ("full metal jacket" kind of build, with that coupling prong for the ancient Nikkormats and alike, ha, ha!), for about 100$. I think I'm gonna buy it, just for fun...
This one:
35mmAIS.jpg
 
Last edited:
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I'd also look into 40mm Micro. Its not 1.8 or better, but that macro option may open up some more possibilities for ya than the standard primes.

I'd say 35 for the field of view- ~50 equivalent is useable in most scenarios, but your 85 would be indeed too long for more general purpose shots, and even a 50 would be a 75, which ends up a tad too long as well IMO.

As far as 35 1.8, I like it for what its worth, but it gets pretty bad CA wide open.
 
W

wreckdiver1321

Senior Member
Sapy said:
35mm it is:)!
Click to expand...

Nice choice! I recently got a 35mm f/1.8, and I love it. Nice and sharp, quick focus, and a great standard length on a DX camera. I use it a lot when I'm out wandering the back alleys in my city. It's also very good indoors and for street/candid photography.

Bokeh isn't fantastic, but that's because it's a shorter focal length. That's why I'm thinking of getting a 50mm.
 
L

LensWork

Senior Member
Just to throw another suggestion out there, the new AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED lens | DSLR lenses from Nikon ($599.95) is an exceptional lens and if you ever go full-frame would work there too.
STM said:
The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is less than half an f/ stop. If price is an issue, I would go with the f/1.8, no brainer
Click to expand...
FYI, the difference between 1.4 & 1.8 is 2/3 of a stop, not that it makes a lot of difference with the high ISO capabilities of newer cameras.
 
S

Sapy

Senior Member
wreckdiver1321 said:
Bokeh isn't fantastic, but that's because it's a shorter focal length. That's why I'm thinking of getting a 50mm.
Click to expand...

That is the one big reason why I didnt rush to the store :(. I would like very much to have nice bokeh and as I understand the 50mm 1.8 has better bokeh than 35mm 1.8.
That was the reason I was thinking about 50 but it is too narrow for me :(..

So I figure maybe 35 is better, but if someone knows the prime with better bokeh and too expensive I would appreciate it.
 
W

wreckdiver1321

Senior Member
Sapy said:
That is the one big reason why I didnt rush to the store :(. I would like very much to have nice bokeh and as I understand the 50mm 1.8 has better bokeh than 35mm 1.8.
That was the reason I was thinking about 50 but it is too narrow for me :(..

So I figure maybe 35 is better, but if someone knows the prime with better bokeh and too expensive I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Here's a couple examples.


Apples by wreckdiver1321, on Flickr


Flattened bottles by wreckdiver1321, on Flickr

You will get a more blown out background with something like a 50mm or 85mm. But the 35mm 1.8 does a pretty good job at it. Again, if your going for just bokeh, then a longer lens is good. But for general usability, I find the 35mm length to be very good.
 
Last edited:
Top