1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

What to do between 20mm and 35mm?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by wings, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. I do most of my shooting in the backcountry, so weight is quite important to me.

    Lately, I've been noticing the lack of focal length between my Sigma 10-20mm and Nikkor 35mm 2.0 (205g). I also carry the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 (230g).

    One obvious solution is to buy a Nikkor 24mm 2.8 (270g).

    Another solution is to buy the Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8 (900g), and leave the two primes at home. This kit would be about 195g heavier than the 3 primes (roughly the weight of another prime), not to mention $1400 more expensive (perhaps I would sell the two primes ... not sure).

    From what I've read, image quality between the two options is not significantly different. Maybe a bit better sharpness with the primes, but less flare and ghosting with the zoom.

    However, as I do not own any of Nikon's latest-and-greatest glass, I have to admit to being quite curious as to what the hubbub is all about. Am I $1400 curious? Maybe.

    I would like to hear from people who have made a similar decision, and what they discovered after making that decision.
     
  2. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Don't forget about the 20-35/2.8.
     
  3. Fair enough, although I wonder what advantage the 20-35 has over the 24 (other than the fact that it covers the continuous range between 20 and 35)?

    I see Adorama has one in E- condition for $475. At 640g, it's not light, but it would allow me to leave the 35 at home, which is nice.

    The reviews of the 20-35 seem fairly good, but nothing spectacular. Corner softness seems to be an issue.

    Thanks for the suggestion. More things to ponder ...
     
  4. For weight, sharpness and low cost (relatively speaking, of course), you're gonna be hard pressed to beat the Nikon 24mm f/2.8. I used to have a Sigma Ultra Wide II 24mm f/2.8 Macro lens that I picked up used for about $85. It was great, but only stopped down to f/3 on my D80. I could have sent it back to Sigma to be re-chipped for about $60, but I traded it in on a 35 f/2 instead.

    One other, rather weighty option would be the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8.

    Or, you could go the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 route and leave the heavier 35-70 behind.

    I find the Sigma 10-20 paired with my Nikon 28-105 to be a good back country kit. I lose the f/2.8 in the entire range, but the 20mm f/2.8 will fill that void the next time I head out.
     
  5. Wail

    Wail

    784
    Aug 14, 2007
    Saudi Arabia
    Have a look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. It weighs in at just under 500g and is superb. Sharp, fast, relatively light, and gives a good range from wide to standard .. also, it's not that expensive.
     
  6. bharada

    bharada

    352
    May 25, 2006
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Thom Hogan gave a good review on the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S. The trouble is going to be finding one. With the release of the D700 the market for out-of-production Nikon lenses is pretty fierce now. :eek: 
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2008
  7. Yeah, the Tamron 17-50 was definitely a consideration at one point, but I've decided that I will eventually move to FX at some point (I want to see what the next model is after the D700), so I don't want to buy any more DX lenses.
     
  8. The 24-85 f/2.8-4 is still in production, and it's not AF-S. The newer, AF-S f/3.5-4.5 version that exhibits less distortion at the wide end is out of production and difficult to come by these days (cheaper, too).
     
  9. bharada

    bharada

    352
    May 25, 2006
    SF Bay Area, CA
    My bad on the speed of the AF-S lens. :redface:

    Regardless, apparently Nikon felt that a faster lens was more useful than AF-S, even though from all I've read, the AF-S was the better of the two.
     
  10. If money is no object...

    If money is no object go for the 28/1.4 AF ... It is on my D3 ... oh about 95% of the time it is so good :biggrin:

    I use it way more than the 24-70/2.8 ...
     
  11. STSinNYC

    STSinNYC

    65
    Sep 15, 2008
    NY, NY
    What body(ies) do you use?

    If it is body that can meter with manual focus lenses, you could use a very inexpensive (but quality) lens such as the 28mmAi F/3.5, or the 28/2 if you want to spend more. After reading Bjorn's review I picked up a 28/3.5 for under $40 IIRC and it delivers very nice results.
     
  12. I use a D80, which to my knowledge will not meter with the AI lenses.
     
  13. I was considering the 24-85 2.8-4.0, as the macro capabilities are also welcome.

    I hadn't thought about the 24-85 3.5-4.5. Thanks for the suggestion.
     
  14. Ha ha. I had not considered the 28 1.4, but it's a good suggestion. More stuff to ponder ...
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.