Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,439   Posts: 1,596,981   Online: 1124
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14

    Wide to Normal Prime Lens Recommendation for Nikon F6

    I am would be very grateful for recommendations for a wide angle, a 35mm, a 50mm lenses for a Nikon F6.
    I prefer AF but that is not nearly important to me as image quality and character. Price is not a huge factor. Thank you.

  2. #2
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,255
    The 35mm lens is too close to the 50mm lens. I recommend either a 24mm or 28mm lens with a 50mm lens.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #3
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,027
    Images
    2
    Everyone is different and it's a subjective choice, but I prefer the 28/50 pairing.
    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    143
    Um, no. The 50mm and 35mm lenses feel quite different. I like the 50mm f1.2 AI-S and the 35mm f1.4 AI-S. The 50mm f1.4 AF-D is a fine lens as well.

  5. #5
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,837
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by moranjr View Post
    I am would be very grateful for recommendations for a wide angle, a 35mm, a 50mm lenses for a Nikon F6.
    I prefer AF but that is not nearly important to me as image quality and character. Price is not a huge factor. Thank you.
    easy24f/2.8, 35f/250f/1.4 and 85f/2
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #6
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,255
    I have the Nikon 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens and the Nikon 28mm to 200mm AF zoom lens.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by frank View Post
    ...I prefer the 28/50 pairing.
    Thanks for your reply. Which 28 and 50?

  8. #8
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,518
    Images
    20
    If you like a lens with character, look at the Zeiss Distagon 35/2.0. I have it in M42 mount and use it on Canon FD and EOS, but it also comes in Nikon mount, manual focus.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #9
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,027
    Images
    2
    You're not going to get much lens character (as i define it) from modern SLR lenses. For character, I look for 20th century 35mm rangefinder lenses.

    For your Nikon, the lenses spoken highly of are the nikkor 28f2.8 Ai-s and 50f2 Ai long-nose version, both manual focus.
    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    464
    When I had Nikon I tried the following lenses in that range:
    20/2.8AFD, 35/2AFD, Zeiss 35/2, 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G, 50/1.4D, Zeiss 50/1.4, 20-35/2.8D, 17-35/2.8AFS.

    The 17-35 is simply spectacular, better than the old 20 and 35 lenses (obviously not f/2 at 35), fast AF, sharp, nice colour and contrast. The 20 I only used in digital and it was just not good but I don't know if it is any better with film. The 20-35 I used with both film and digital and found it so-so wide open but nice from f/4. It was a bit bland though.

    The Zeiss 35/2 was essentially a perfect lens, the contrast, colour and sharpness from wide open was outstanding and it matched in rendering character the Zeiss 50/1.4 (see below). My only criticism is that for a manual focus 35/2 it is quite long and heavy.

    From the 50s the Zeiss was outstanding but obviously manual focus, it has a distinct character in the rendering, was stupid sharp from f/2.8 and had a nice glow effect wide open. From the AF ones the f/1.8 versions were both junk, the 50/1.4D was a very nice lens, sharp-ish even wide open but a bit low contrast wide open but stop down to f/2-2.2 and it was great.

    Since money is not an issue note that there are a bunch of new lenses out nowadays from Nikon like the 20/1.8G, 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G and some zooms which would probably be a lot sharper than all these older lenses. So unless you want something with a bit more character (eg Zeiss) then these would give you excellent sharpness and colour with AF but that's all from what I read, never used these myself.

    If I was buying myself with an F6 I'd go 17-35AFS, Zeiss 35/2 and Zeiss 50/1.4. Or maybe swap the 17-35 for the newer 16-35/4 VR.

    If I was buying manual focus (eg an FM2n or similar), I'd go Zeiss 28/2, 35/2 and 50/1.4.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin