Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nikor AF lens advice for D90. 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 or 35mm f/2?

S

sjobs@mac.com

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 16, 2007
44
0
I have found that the 50mm is a bit long for indoor use on my D90. I am thinking of buying another prime. What are your thoughts/opinions of these lenses for people picture taking in the context of family functions like birthday parties? Thanks.

I did do a search.
 
I have considered the Sigma but the reviews put me off a bit. There seems to be a relatively high percentage of faulty lenses.
 
If that's the only thing putting you off, then just get one and send it back if you have to until you get a good one. I'm looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, which gets *rave* reviews when you get a good copy. I've kind of just accepted I might have to send a third-party lens back once or twice at first to get a good copy...so what? The manufacturers do honor their warranty, and I'm not in a hurry. It's sort of a hassle, yes, but if that's the lens I want then I'll do it.
 
For family gatherings, etc...I would go with the 35 f2. It will give a "normal" view on the D90.

There's a HUGE thread at Nikon Cafe on the Sigma 30 1.4 vs the Nikkor 35 f2. Both produce wonderful images, but...the Sigma was particularly impressive to *me*.

If you think you might someday go FX, then there's an advantage to the Nikkor 35. The Nikkor is better than the Sigma for up close shots.

I would take the 28 2.8 off your list....kinda mediocre.
 
The 35mm is your best option, IMO. It provides roughly a "normal" (52.5mm equivalent) field of view on the APS-C sensor, and is fast enough for lower light when shot wide open.

It's also pretty compact and will balance well on the D90...
 
sjobs@mac.com said:
.....the 50mm is a bit long for indoor use on my D90. I am thinking of buying another prime. What are your thoughts/opinions of these lenses for people picture taking in the context of family functions like birthday parties?...
Click to expand...

I assume you already own an 18-55 or something like it that came as the kit lens on the camera. Why not shot with that for a while then look at the images you like best and check what focal length you were using. If you find that all your best shots were done at 24mm and 20mm then you'd not want the 35mm lens everyone else likes so much.

An iPhoto or Aperture library can tell you a lot about which lens to buy. Pull up all your "4 star and better" images then browse to attached meta-data to see which focal lengths and what f-stops you seem to use
 
ChrisA said:
An iPhoto or Aperture library can tell you a lot about which lens to buy. Pull up all your "4 star and better" images then browse to attached meta-data to see which focal lengths and what f-stops you seem to use
Click to expand...

The counter-argument to that is to pull up the shots you *missed* and see what would have made them work. If you're getting 4 and 5 star images, then you likely already have that focal length and lens speed covered. Getting another lens that gets you the shots you're already getting may not be the best use of your lens dollar. Better shots like the ones you already have is only one way of looking at a lens purchase.
 
Thank you for all the answers everyone.

I think I will stick to Nikon, because I do not want to have to deal with the possible issues and because of the comments about the close ups not being as good as the Nikon. That is of course My facts are off.

compuwar said:
The Internet tends to magnify some issues. The main question between the f/1.4 and the f/2 is do you need to shoot in half the light?
Click to expand...

I guess that is the issue. Up to this point most of my shots have been talken a D40 and a much slower lens, the 18-200mm. In very low light I have been using the SB400 flash and bouncing it of the ceiling. I did not use the 50mm f/1.8 because I would have to manually focus. I can't take candid shots in low light when I am asking people not to move while I focus.

ChrisA said:
I assume you already own an 18-55 or something like it that came as the kit lens on the camera. Why not shot with that for a while then look at the images you like best and check what focal length you were using. If you find that all your best shots were done at 24mm and 20mm then you'd not want the 35mm lens everyone else likes so much.

An iPhoto or Aperture library can tell you a lot about which lens to buy. Pull up all your "4 star and better" images then browse to attached meta-data to see which focal lengths and what f-stops you seem to use
Click to expand...

I got a D40 with the Kit lens, but once I got the 18-200mm VR, I really did not use it much. I have been using the 18-200mm with the D90 for the past month or so which technically covers the ranges we are talking about. But there is something about a fast prime that takes sharp images that is so enticing.

My indoor shots have ranged from 18mm-50mm, depending on the situation with most of them coming at or below 35mm. I have been using the 50mm f/1.8 on the D90 for the last week and on a recent trip. It takes great pictures but there are sometimes you cannot back away sufficiently to frame the picture just right.
 
You don't mention a budget but a nice used 17-55 2.8 would be as good as a prime. 850.00 or so
 
raxafarian said:
You don't mention a budget but a nice used 17-55 2.8 would be as good as a prime. 850.00 or so
Click to expand...

:confused: That's a nice lens, yes, but it can't be called a prime. A prime lens is one that has a fixed focal length. And if you're on a budget but want a fast zoom in that range, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 offers the most bang for the buck at about $400. For really low light photography though you have to get a prime and get below f/2.8.
 
The AF 35/2 is probably Nikon's nicest wide prime. Very high quality at a reasonable price. The AF 28 is pretty disappointing, the MF AIS version is much better (as is the 28/2 AIS). The AF 24/2.8 is OK, but not an outstanding lens. The 20/2.8 is quite nice however. So of the 3 you asked about, the 35/2 hands down. It also focuses very close.

The Sigma 30/1.4 is a really nice lens, but has been plagued by reports of having to get it serviced by Sigma to fix focus issues. It amy be a bit of a crapshoot. Nice images, however.
 
I am leaning towards the 35mm f/2. It is getting good reviews, and it is close to 50mm equivalent on my camera body. It is currently $299.00 at Amazon. :)

Thank you everyone for your comments.
 
If you do get that one, post back with your impressions after you've used it for a bit. I have a feeling I may want something wider in addition to the 50mm at some point.
 
sjobs@mac.com said:
I am leaning towards the 35mm f/2. It is getting good reviews, and it is close to 50mm equivalent on my camera body. It is currently $299.00 at Amazon. :)

Thank you everyone for your comments.
Click to expand...

It's a good lens. My dad has one and has it permanently on one of his bodies. I don't think you could regret it.
 
How many times do you think, "I wish I could fit just a little more in this frame..."? If you've ever thought that, get the 24. If you've never thought that, get the 35.
 
35 f2 is the lens you want. It's the widest without introducing distortion. There is a reason the 35 f2 was a favorite lens for Photojournalists back the days before zooms became good enough. It will give you a view similar to what the eye sees and it's got great depth of field. Relatively fast for indoor and low light situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back