Nikor 35mm AFD ??

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by Soeren, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. Soeren

    Soeren Member

    Messages:
    2,449
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi all
    My lens line up consist of a 20mm, 50mm and 85mm AFD lenses. I find the gap from 20 to 50 to big and 50 to 85 a bit to small so I'm thinking about getting a 35mm f/2,0. How do APUG'ers find this lens? Or should I go for the 28mm AFD instead?
    Kind regards
     
  2. cotdt

    cotdt Member

    Messages:
    171
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    the zeiss distagon 35/2 is better if you're after wide-open performance, sharpness, and flatness of field.
     
  3. Soeren

    Soeren Member

    Messages:
    2,449
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes but its also more than double the price :sad:
    Kind regards
     
  4. Erik Ehrling

    Erik Ehrling Member

    Messages:
    35
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Location:
    Alingsås, Sw
    Shooter:
    35mm
    My standard walk-around kit consists of 20mm, 28mm, 50mm and 105mm. (If I cut it down to three lenses it would be 28mm, 50mm and 105mm.) It is nice to have a modest set of lenses that you can grab without contemplating too much which lenses to bring...

    So, based on my experience, I think a 28mm would fit in nicely in your setup. The 50mm is such a good lens that I wouldn't like to leave it at home, and the 35mm is relatively close to the 50mm. (Otherwise another option would be a three lens setup of 20mm, 35mm and 85mm).

    If autofocus is not a must I would also consider manual (AI-S) lenses just because of the pure pleasure of using lenses of a very high build quality.

    Just my ramblings...

    Erik Ehrling (Sweden)
     
  5. André E.C.

    André E.C. Member

    Messages:
    1,520
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hi Soeren,

    I once had 35mm for my Nikon set up, not so good memories of it due to oil on the blades, in 2 samples.
    If I was you and taking in consideration your present set of optics, I would go for the 28mm, why? Because you don't have a 24 between that great 20 and 50mm!

    Check this out


    1.4

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...oresources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor_28mm/index2.htm

    2.8

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor_28mm/index1.htm


    Up to you, cheers mate!




    André
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2008
  6. Pinholemaster

    Pinholemaster Member

    Messages:
    1,504
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Westminster,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    All depends on how you see. Before buying, you should put a 35 and 28 mm lens on your camera so to see if either lens meets your needs.

    A 28 mm is more in the middle of the jump from 50 mm to 20 mm. 35 mm is closer to 50 mm so you'll still have a gap between 35 mm and 20. That's OK to have the gap if the 35 mm works better with the way you see then the 28.

    On my Leica rangefinder system I jump from 75 to 35 to 24 mm, skipping a 50 mm all together. That's just how I see. Best to try to borrow friends 35s and 28s to test them before buying.
     
  7. ehparis

    ehparis Member

    Messages:
    376
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Go for the 28mm f3.5 AI lens on eBay. They seem to be commonly available and reasonable in price. This is a very contrasty and sharp lens.
     
  8. Soeren

    Soeren Member

    Messages:
    2,449
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks for all your replies.
    Hmm I'm still undecided on this one.
    35mm AFD would be more in the midle between 20 and 85mm giving me a three lens kit
    Problems with oil on blades reported but said to be fixed since???? a new lens shouldn't suffer
    Sharpness? Reported not the best.
    28mm f/2,8 AFD I'm really not sure here it would fill the gab between 20mm and 50mm its cheap even new but there is reports both for and against it.
    28mm f/1,4 way to expensive though it would be nice in a fast line up :smile:
    In the AIS line I have heard nice things about 35mm f/1,4 and both the AIS 28mm lenses the f/2,8 even has a nice close up feature (20cm) I had this one but now the price has gone up.
    Maybe I should bite the able and get a 28 AIS anyway.
    Any one know the 28mm f/2,8 AFD?
     
  9. cotdt

    cotdt Member

    Messages:
    171
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    28mm f/2,8 AFD is pretty average. I think it's based on the old Series E lens. The AIS version is vastly superior.
     
  10. PhotoJim

    PhotoJim Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    Regina, SK,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    To correct cotdt, the AF 28/2.8 non-D is based on the Series E lens and is average. The AF 28/2.8D is exceptional in quality and has one more element.

    Here is how I would make this decision:

    If you prefer to shoot scenics, buy the AF 28/2.8D.
    If you prefer to shoot environmental portraits of people, or do street photography, buy the AF 35/2 (D or non-D).

    If you do both equally, you probably want both lenses eventually.
     
  11. zenrhino

    zenrhino Member

    Messages:
    697
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Location:
    Minneapolis,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I have one and really like it, but I don't do a whole lot of scenery shots. It's fast enough for me and is nice and sharp with good bokeh.

    I also use it as my normal lens on my d1gital nikon body.
     
  12. narsuitus

    narsuitus Member

    Messages:
    807
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    When I carry a 35mm film camera with four primes within the focal lengths you list, I choose between the following two options:

    Option 1
    105
    50 f/1.4
    28
    18

    Option 2
    85
    35 f/1.4
    24
    18

    Based on my personal preferences and the lenses you have (20mm, 50mm, and 85mm), if I were in your place, I would keep the 20mm and the 85mm; trade the 50mm for a 35mm f/1.4 or f/2; and use a 3-lens line up of 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm.
     
  13. snegron

    snegron Member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Location:
    Hot, Muggy,
    Shooter:
    35mm

    As far as the Nikon 35mm 2.0 AF-D goes, I must disagree with some of the popular myths. I have one I purchased new last year and it is very sharp. It has absolutely no oil leak problem, and it is just as sharp as my manual focus Nikon 35mm 2.0 AIS. The major difference, other than the AF factor, is that the manual focus version is much better built. The manual focus version is mostly metal and glass, whereas the AF version is mostly plastic and glass (except for the metal lens mount).

    Depending on your camera and shooting style, you would preffer one over the other. If you like the feel of shooting with a good manual focus lens, the AIS version is great. If you prefer AF shooting then the AF version would be the best choice.

    The Nikon manual focus 35mm 2.0 AIS lives on one of my F3HP's, (the other has a 105mm 2.5) however my 35mm 2.0 AF-D lives on my D200. Ironicaly, I have a Nikon manual focus 24mm 2.8 AIS that lives on my Nikon D1X! :smile:

    If you decide to get a new 35mm AFD, remember that it will still be under warranty. If you don't like it you can always return it.