** Sigma Super-Wide II f2.8 24mm. Very good value for money. **
I third that.
After a very good experience with the similar 28mm for Nikon, I got the 24mm (auto focus version) for my Pentax. It's bright, sharp, and well corrected. The AF version focusses fast. Build quality is nice, it looks a bit like contemporary Nikon lenses.
My other camera is a Pentax
The other advantage of the Tamron Adaptall II, is that,
Originally Posted by mudman
you can change the mount, to use it, with your
Pentaxes & Olympuses, fully coupled.
A good match to this is the Tamron 17 mm f 3.5 !
If you want the best of both a low price and a Nikkor lens, don't overlook the Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 (*not* the PC lens). I haven't priced them lately, but I used to own one and it was a solid lens for not much money.
Please please don't sell your FE2!!
I'm puzzled about what you mean by fortune. Sure Nikkor lenses have never been cheap but their price are much lower than in the 1980s, comparatively.
A 35mm f2 mint is usually sold around 200 dollars, is that kind of price what you mean by fortune? Used lenses can be grabbed for much less.
A 35mm f2.8 is much cheaper.
This focal length does everything except coffee
The Nikkor 24mm is a great lens - I have the f/2.8 AIc. Just be aware that it is a REAL wide angle lens and you will have all sorts of headaches if you shoot scenes of church steeples, etc., if you're not careful about what you're doing. The lens will bend the steeple backwards if you don't shoot straight. This was the lens that prompted me to buy the grid screen for each of my Nikon bod
Originally Posted by Chaplain Jeff
I think the same way.
The 28mm was my standard lens until I found a short 28-100 zoom, the 85mm was my other most used lens, the 35 was never used - I eventually gave it away. I guess I'm saying I'd choose the 24 over the 35, or save your money if you have a 20, 28 and 40.
I'm also of the opinion that having too many lenses is not a good thing. I have too many for my RB, but not the 75mm (37mm equivalent). After paying retail prices for lenses some years ago I went overboard picking more at current prices. Now I feel that having closely spaced focal lengths is somewhat foolish, it's more difficult to choose which ones to go out with, and lugging them all is equally foolish. At one point I felt I had too many 35mm cameras, so I gave a couple of them away to friends - finding the 28-100 zoom was also a factor in that decision.
"Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
What do you have against the PC Nikkor, other than it is big and slow, it seems to have wonderful optics...
Originally Posted by rthomas
Two fairly affordable choices:
Nikkor-N or NC 24f2.8 with AI conversion ring (or mill job)
Nikkor-O 35f2 with AI ring, or again, mill job.
Should be able to pick up both in decent condition for $150.
Always under construction. Currently:
Nikon: F5, F4, F2AS x2, F, FM2n, Nikomat FT2, FT2*, D200 (yes, off-topic) - cameras marked with a * are chrome - the rest are black
Lenses (Nikkor unless otherwise marked): 24/2.8 AF, 28/3.5 H, 35/2 O & AIS, 50/1.8 AF, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/1.4 S, 50/1.4 AI, 85/1.8 K, 135/3.5 Q, 200/4 Q, Samyang 18-28/4-4.5
- My flickr stream
I have a 20mm, a 24mm and a 28mm. I find myself using the 20mm; other wise an 85mm a Micro-Nikkor 55mm or a Micro-Nikkor 105mm or the 200mm f/4
Some of the e series are great, some not so much from what I've heard. I've used two - the 50mm f1.8 which is decent, but not as nice as the AIS Nikkor and the 70-150 f3.5 which is a great lightweight lens that I sometimes use when I need reach but don't want to haul around the 80-200 or several focal lengths. sometimes if I'm really weight concious I'll just bring a 28mm AF, 35 f2 and the 70-150.