new to nikonians (and a new photographer too ) and would like to ask for some advices...
i now have a 50mm 1.8 which is sharp and great!
and now decided to broaden the range of my lens.
but unluckily i can only afford two lens at a time, so, i will try to have one wide-angle and one short-tele.
which one should i choose among 24mm f2.8 and 35mm f2?? should i need a wider one? i would like to get some wide-angle night shoots which i can't do with my 50mm. and which one is more suitable for daily use like recording an activity?
and which one should i get among 85mm f1.8 and 105mm f2.8 (macro too!!)? i would like to do some portrait snapshot in the streets, and some photos for my girlfriend, but macro would be a nice choice too.
maybe i am too greedy or i should get all four, but what should i get first?
thx a lot.
#1. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 0lordnikon Registered since 17th Feb 2002Sun 10-Nov-02 04:43 PM
I've been blessed where two fellow Nikonians I have met and shot with (Lefty and Brian Scmidt) have let me use thier 2mm lens, and it is magnificant. I love the 24mm It was sharp, it, was broad, and best part of all, if I buy one, it's inexpensive. I wou;d take the 24mm, especially since the 35mm has what a ppears to be a debilitating flaw, that to this day seems to have not been taken care of. The 35mm AF-D Nikkor has a horrible track record of ol leaking from within the lens onto the apperture blades jaming the blades from opening and closing. After researching this lens in-depth on here, and three other boards, it seems that this lens has a fail rate of roughly 80%, and from what I gathered to this day, Nikon does not acknolge a design flaw (this was confirmed when I asked the Nikon sales rep about the 35mm AF-D lens' flaw at Nikon School, andsiad he had never heard of the oil on blade delimima before)
The second lens choice is a bit tougher. For street use the 105 is a better bet, but for general portraiture, the 85 is preferable. Both lenses are great for portraite use. The 105 wll give you the added bonus of the micro which you may (or may not) ever take advantage of. I prefer to have more in a lens or any other equipment and never use it than not have it and need it. Obviously the only disadvantage with the 105 is you'l need to be back a little further for general portaite unless you are doing just a head shot (head and shoulders pose) The 85 is a GREAT lens, and shold someday find itself in every photog's bag including mine, but you may find more use to start with the 105.
Good luck, and welcome to Nikonians.
Aaron J. Heiner
Team Coast Guard Photographer
US Department of Homeland Security
#2. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 0f8bthere Basic MemberSun 10-Nov-02 05:12 PM
This is of course all personal. Some people consider a 20mm lens essential, while others make the 50mm lens work for a majority of their photography. In other words, nobody can tell you what you need, since everyone has their own vision and way of seeing.
After many years I have arrived at two mini-kits for travel that interestingly enough correspond to the exact same focal lengths you ask about. I use a kit consisting of 24mm f/2.8 and an 85mm f/2.0 AIS Nikkors, or 35mm f/1.4 and a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkors. Both of these combinations have a similar ratio of just at (or over) 3 to 1, and make the act of changing glass worth the effort. My choice would be based on my destination... the 24 / 85 for tight European streets, and the 35 / 105 for more open areas. Again, this works for me... I'm not saying DO THIS!
The one thing in your situation that should be taken into account is that you already own a 50mm lens. This alone would make me go towards the 24mm and 105mm. I love the 35mm and 85mm lenses, but I don't use the 50mm with these lenses, since as a prime lens user I have been working on finding the ideal spread between focal lengths. Yes, those two focal lengths (35 / 85)are different than a 50mm lens, but not dramatically so. I could lay some shots made with 35mm and 50mm or 50mm and 85mm lenses, and I could bet you wouldn't be able to distinguish them 100 correctly. At certain apertures and distances... they are pretty close. I would also bet that if you saw some shots made with the 24mm and 50mm or the 50mm and 105mm lenses, you would find it easier to determine which was shot with which lens. A 24mm shot won't look much like a 50mm shot, but a 35mm lens can produce a similar "look" to the 50mm.
One thing you might consider is that since you are a beginner, you might wish to find YOUR way of seeing. If you had a zoom lens, you could tape the focal length ring to a certain focal length and force yourself to work with this one lens setting for a period of time to see if a certain lenses works for you. This could save you money in the long run, because you could avoid needless spending for lenses you won't be comfortable with. To use me as an example, look at my profile and you will se my available lenses and cameras. With all of that, I have arrived at a place where I would most likely have only two lenses with me... maybe three if I had a specific need (macro, tele, etc...). I would have more money if I could have arrived at those two lenses more directly and analytically.
Have a plan and don't rush. Buy a new lens when the lens on your camera won't allow you to do what you need it to do... not because someone else says to buy it. It is YOUR photography.
#3. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 2nkcllewis Charter MemberSun 10-Nov-02 06:54 PM
Since you are a new photographer, and you are expressing an interest in spending money on a lens, I would recommend you get a zoom lens like the 28-105 or the 24-120 instead of spending a lot of money on prime lenses. If you want to spend money, how about a decent flash or tripod? The absolute best photgraphers get to a know a prime lens and its angle of view after years of working with that one focal length. It will take you some time to get to "know" your 50 so that you can previsualize an image and place yourself accordingly. Primes have an advantage over most zooms in their shalow depth of field and fast lens. This gives a better looking image to people shots. But a good zoom will allow you to have fun while you learn your 50 prime and it will help you decide what focal lengths and types of images you like to take before you invest in primes.
My opinion only,
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
"A poor worker always blames his tools" Anonymous
#5. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 0
It's great to see others making a commitment to Nikkor primes. My own personal choice is to either half or double a focal lenght. For me, this has meant four primes, all AFD. 20mm/f2.8, 35mm,f2.0, 85mm/f1.8, and 180mm/f2.8. If I really want to travel light (like to Paris in ten days), I leave the 180mm home. The 35mm (which I've had for two years and never had a problem with), I consider my normal lens, although for city/urban shooting, the 85mm is my main lens, with a Nikon 28TI for backup. I'd like to make one comment about the Nikkor AFD 35mm/f2.0, and I hope others will take it within the context that I'm aiming for. This lens is totally outstanding, orginally designed for PJ's. I've heard rumors that it's been redesigned several times, with the latest being the finest 35mm that Nikon engineers could make. At some point there may have been an aperature oil problem, but since the design is so similar to other Nikkors (20mm, 24mm, 28mm, ect) I've always wondered why they were never affected? I've only heard about this problem on the internet. I've never met anyone who had this problem, or met anyone who actually knew anyone that had this problem. And if I did meet anyone that claimed to have this problem, I would need proof that it actually does exist. Im sorry, but I am unwilling to take anyone's word for this. In two years, my 35mm has worked flawlessly. The aperature blades are spotless and the glass is crystal clear. In fact, half way through this post, I pulled the 35mm off the F100 and thoroughly examined it again. The only other 35mm's that I feel can compete with this Nikkor are Leica's. Until I see the proof in b&w, or experience this problem myself, I will consider this to be an Urban Legend of unusually nasty consequences.
#8. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 5ronduren Registered since 09th Feb 2002Mon 11-Nov-02 01:45 AM
Glenn I have the same collection of Nikkors; 20mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0, 85mm 1.8 and 180mm 2.8. The 35 along with the 85 are my most used lens, for street shots and interior shooting in small NYC apartments the 35 can’t be beat. I’m also one who has experienced the problem of oily diaphragm blades sticking and preventing the lens from stopping down during exposure. I purchased the lens from B&H (grey market) 3 years ago and the problem developed after about 11/2 years. This being my normal lens I did not try to dump it off on eBay (the problem could be masked by storing the lens vertically the blades would look clean and the diaphragm would function without sticking but if left on the camera for a day or two the problem would reoccur) instead I had the lens repaired. The serviced used by B&H did the repair, one week for the estimate and another week to pick-up the lens all for $70 and the lens has since been trouble free. The speed and effectiveness of the repair indicates that the problem was known and a fix had been developed. How prevalent was this problem? With people trading what could be the few defective ones on eBay it’s hard to determine. The serial # of my 35 is 322514 I would not buy a used one with a similar # unless you had the right to return the lens if the problem developed. If anything happened to my 35 I would not hesitate to buy a new one.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#9. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 5f8bthere Basic MemberMon 11-Nov-02 11:53 AM
My 35mm f/2.0 AF lens was optically great. I was totally happy with it... and then it failed. No urban legend... just eight ruined rolls of film. I was using it on my FM2 with the lens set to f/8 and zone focused for street shooting. In the middle of the eigth roll, I was going to do a more considered composition, and hit the DOF preview to check the depth of field. I pulled the lever in and the viewfinder did not change at all. The lens stayed wide-open.
I took the lens off of the camera, set it to the minimum aperture (f/22) and the blades oozed to about f/8 after 15 or 20 seconds. Since I was using the FM2, the shutterspeed was set manually for the proper exposure for f/8... not f/2.0. Additionally, the zone of focus was set for f/8. All of the shots were 4 stops over exposed and the focus was off since the zone of focus was inches, not feet. 8 rolls of film and three hours of shooting were ruined by this problem... it was not my imagination.
All of this was before I ever used the internet, and I thought I had a very unique problem. I have been using Nikkors since the late 1960s, and never had any mechanical defects. Once I got on-line, it was then that I saw the numerous stories, including "repaired" lenses failing a second time. I used this to justify my f/1.4 AIS lens.
Believe me, I would never "trash" Nikon on a Nikon forum... this is all true.
#12. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 5beddoe Registered since 11th Dec 2002Wed 11-Dec-02 12:18 PM
If you'd like to contact me and arrange to come round I can show you my AF Nikkor 35mm with oil all over the aperture blades. You can get it to stop down by manually moving the aperture lever but the spring doesn't have enough tension to pull it shut and therefore it stays wide open when I shoot. This lens has been repaired once at a cost of 65 GBP and I followed all the advice of storing it at f22 and the problem recurred within 6 months. Nikon have been nothing short of shameful in continuing to sell this lens.
If this is an urban myth then I am having some really weird and incredibly detailed hallucinations.
#6. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 0
I would like to report that my AFD 35mm f2 AFD serial number 201xxx around 3-4 years old does not have the oil problem. On top of that, the focusing ring feels nice and smooth unlike the AFD 50mm f1.8 which has relatively rough feeling. I must add that the 35mm is heavily used and not stored in a box.
#10. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 6Flask Registered since 29th Sep 2002Mon 11-Nov-02 01:12 PM
My 35 2.0 AF was purchased at the same time as my 85 1.8 AF (about 15+ years ago.) The 35 has been used more than the 85, but it is clearly in better shape. I have never had a problem with blades sticking or oil oozing.
The 85, on the other hand, needs new rear "bushings" (can't recall the proper term now.) The rear lens elements can be moved from side to side about 1-2mm.
M a r k . E
#7. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 0
I have the 24 2.8, 35 2.0 and 85 1.8, so I could give you a perspective from experience.
If you already have the 50 1.8, I would recommend the 24 2.8 and 105 2.8 Micro. The 35 2.0 is not really wide enough for many landscape shots and it's fairly close to your 50mm. While the 85 1.8 is an awesome lens, the 105 Micro is more versatile. The 85 1.8 is a very sharp lens though, so if you decide on that one, you won't be disatisfied.
M a r k . E
M a r k . E
#11. "RE: 24mm or 35mm? 85mm or 105mm?" | In response to Reply # 0
thx to all of you first, you are just so cool~~
really help me a lot... and a nice discussion too.
AI and Kent, actually i found that i have to get lens other than my 50mm just because after buying my tripod, hahaha...
so probably i will be buying a 24mm first, since i saw one in the second hand market, and then take photos with it and my 50mm. about the 85 and 105 one, maybe i will try to borrow a zoom lens from my friend and try what range is suitable for me...
thx again, you people help!!