35 or 50?

[ronlane]

I wouldn't say that you are necessarily duplicating anything. Yes, you have those to focal lengths in the zoom lens but the primes are totally different animals and I would say most of the time produce a sharper image. Yes, I am using a generalization and I try not to do that but I from my experience with zooms that I own and primes that I have or have rented, I find that the primes give me sharper images.

That being said, for the OP's situation, I think I would look at the 35mm over the 50mm.

 

[KmH]

Nikon currently sells 5 five 35 mm prime lenses.
4 of them are FX lenses and 1 is a DX lens.
The DX lens has purple fringing issues and soft focus when set to wide open.
Which of the 5 are you consideing?

Nikon currently offer seven 50 mm prime lenses, all of them FX lenses.
Which of the 7 are you considering?

A couple weeks ago I got back from a scenic long distance train trip and the vast majority of my landscape shots were made @ 18 mm.

 

[Pedro_lopez]

I was considering the dx 35mm, and the Fx 50mm 1.8 with AF


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Pedro_lopez]

But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Pedro_lopez]

Definitely since I've read before about the purple fringing on the dx 35.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Gary A.]

But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Yes, wait and opt for the better lens. As your photographic skills and experience improve, you will/should be able to capitalize on the higher quality of a better lens.

 

[Braineack]

But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.

how is this a better overall lens? it's better at macro, but it's a very limited-use specialty lens.

 

[Braineack]

Definitely since I've read before about the purple fringing on the dx 35.

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

[jcdeboever]

But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

B&H, (a good bar for pricing photo gear), has:

1) Rokinon 16mm, F/2, MF, @ $349;
2) Rokinon 20mm, F/1.8, MF, @ $599 (rounded diaphragm blades for softer bokeh);
3) Samyang 16mm, F/2, MF, @ $419; and
4) Samyang 20mm, F/1.4, MF, @ $499.

Rokinon and Samyang come from the same manufacturer in Korea (IIRC). These are well constructed and very sharp lenses. You have to do some research to fully understand why the Rokinon 16mm is less than the Samyang 16mm. Some of their lenses have focus confirmation and some do not. I have never used a D3300 and I haven't a clue to how well MF works with a D3300. But if you're on a budget and the primary use of the lens is for landscape, I'd take a hard look at these lenses.

This is an excellent recommendation from an experienced professional, anyone of those is an excellent choice. He really has thought it out in consideration with a crop sensor. I have a D3300 and manual focus is not a big deal at all. Through the view finder (bright sunny day), you will see a green circle in the bottom left when you nail focus. If it is overcast, use live view (a little easier) and it is apparent visually.

 

[jcdeboever]

Definitely since I've read before about the purple fringing on the dx 35.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

The only way I can get my 35mm to do that is if I am shooting wide open when I shouldn't be. Stopping it down eliminates that. It goes away a f/2.8. I trust very little of what I read on the internet anymore. I have made a lot of terrible purchases based off what I read on the internet (35 1.8g was not one of them). I am sticking with a select few, experienced pro's, from here on out. I am a seriously frustrated Nikon DSLR user these days is what I can say.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Are you on a full frame or a crop sensor? And start are you looking to shoot with this lens besides landscapes. Anything?

 

[Pedro_lopez]

But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.

how is this a better overall lens? it's better at macro, but it's a very limited-use specialty lens.

I meant that way I use the 105 for macro specifically and then a wide angle lens like previously mentioned for landscape. That together would fit "my" overall needs.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Pedro_lopez]

I've also done searching here and noticed some tips about keeping the focal length at one distance for a whole week and seeing which one is more preferable so I will likely do this until which time I decided which lens to buy.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Braineack]

I meant that way I use the 105 for macro specifically and then a wide angle lens like previously mentioned for landscape. That together would fit "my" overall needs.

that's what I thought you meant, but wanted to make sure you just weren't buying a "nicer" lens, just to have one

I've also done searching here and noticed some tips about keeping the focal length at one distance for a whole week and seeing which one is more preferable so I will likely do this until which time I decided which lens to buy.

This is a really good idea. Primes are great, but if you buy one that doesn't mix with your shooting, you wont like it. For example, if you bought an 85mm 1.8g for your D3300, despite it being an amazing lens for the price, you may find you don't like it that much because it's such a long lens that you really can only use it in certain situations, or have to back up so far to actually use it how you'd like.

 

[Derrel]

Skip the wide-angle for landscape convention, and move right into using a telephoto for landscapes, and selecting interesting things you can see by using a narrow-ish angle of view. For the beginning shooter, wide-angle landscapes often end up being dull, or listless, because "wide-angle" also means "tiny recordings of faraway stuff". I am being serious....if you're new to landscape photography, you will very likely make more-interesting and better photos by using a normal to telephoto lens length.

MANY landscape shooters find that a 70-200mm zoom is one of their most-used lenses.