Any point in keeping a 50 when I use the 35 more?

[astroNikon]

Unfortunately, I just don't have the funds to buy another lens and keep what I have. Its just not possible. But I feel the 24-120 would be a far more useful lens for me than to keep the 35 and 24-85 as a "just in case".

I used to have primes of 24, 50 and 85

Then I bought my 24-85/2.8-4 and decided to sell the primes

I meant to sell the 50 but kept it, and added 2 more but sold 1 (now 50/1.8D & 50/1.4G). I did the same with the 85 85/1.8D & 85/1.4D).

But I did sell my 24 LOL

Good intentions 'ya know

 

[nerwin]

Unfortunately, I just don't have the funds to buy another lens and keep what I have. Its just not possible. But I feel the 24-120 would be a far more useful lens for me than to keep the 35 and 24-85 as a "just in case".

I used to have primes of 24, 50 and 85

Then I bought my 24-85/2.8-4 and decided to sell the primes

I meant to sell the 50 but kept it, and added 2 more but sold 1 (now 50/1.8D & 50/1.4G). I did the same with the 85 85/1.8D & 85/1.4D).

But I did sell my 24 LOL

Good intentions 'ya know

After using the Sigma Mini Wide 28mm for a little bit, I kind of prefer 28mm instead of 35mm..I find it more versatile.

Its funny how your needs change as you evolve in photography.

 

[Derrel]

24,28,35...all three are different lenses. I know what you mean about the 28mm lens as a wide-angle on full-frame...it is a very handy length, and it has more of that wide-angle look to it than the 35mm has, but it is also free of the weird corner distortion that 20mm and 24mm give...which I guess is why the 28mm length has live on for so,so long!

I honestly think the really GOOD 16-35 or 17-35mm zoom lens was one of the key technological advancements of the 1990's-era in photography...getting that zoom lens into the realm of real respectability.

 

[nerwin]

24,28,35...all three are different lenses. I know what you mean about the 28mm lens as a wide-angle on full-frame...it is a very handy length, and it has more of that wide-angle look to it than the 35mm has, but it is also free of the weird corner distortion that 20mm and 24mm give...which I guess is why the 28mm length has live on for so,so long!

I honestly think the really GOOD 16-35 or 17-35mm zoom lens was one of the key technological advancements of the 1990's-era in photography...getting that zoom lens into the realm of real respectability.

When I was doing some lens research this morning, I am fascinated by the Nikon 28 1.8G..that shallow dof at such a wide angle provides much different results than the 35 f/2D. I know back in the film days and it may still apply today that 35mm was considered a normal wide much the 50mm was your normal lens. I'm not sure what the 28mm would be considered as, normal ultra wide? Haha. But for some reason, I've been seeing a lot of people prefer 28mm over 35mm lately.

After hopefully getting the 24-120 and maybe the 28 1.8..I want to start saving up for a good ultra wide zoom. I really really want the 16-35 but I don't think I can pull it off so its probably going to be the 18-35 3.5-4.5g which I think is still a good lens.

 

[astroNikon]

why don't you put on your 24-85 and test 24 vs 28 vs 35 vs 50 vs 80
and see if you wouldn't like to have all of those primes.

I nearly bought a 20mm/2.8, but got a 20-35/2.8. I just didn't really like that lens.
I went to the 18-35D instead

 

[nerwin]

why don't you put on your 24-85 and test 24 vs 28 vs 35 vs 50 vs 80
and see if you wouldn't like to have all of those primes.

I nearly bought a 20mm/2.8, but got a 20-35/2.8. I just didn't really like that lens.
I went to the 18-35D instead

I think I'm going to focus on getting the 24-120 f/4 right now. I already have a 50mm and a 105mm primes. I still would prefer a wider angle prime like the 28mm. But that can wait right now! Its winter and I don't do much photography during winter. Too cold. haha

 

[oldhippy]

I have the 28mm 1.8 and the 50 mm 1.8, also the 85mm 1.8. I had thought of getting rid of the 50. To help in the decision I installed the 50 on my 610 for a week to 10 days with no others lenses. \I was so impressed with the quality of the pictures that I will not be getting rid of the 50.

 

[astroNikon]

Old Hippy .. you have to find different subjects for your pictures .. that one gives me the willies ..

 

[Derrel]

"18-35 3.5-4.5g which I think is still a good lens"

Yeah... I've seen some good work from that lens. This is the **new** 18-35 lens, not the one that's been around a decade. As far as what a 28mm is considered--depends on how old you are! Me? I'm in my fifities...to me a 28mm is the wide-angle length...to young people, it's barely considered as a wide. I'm not kidding...in the eighties, the 28 was considered "wide", 24 very wide, 20mm was extremely wide, 17mm was ultra-wide and very rarely seen. A lot of what a lens is considered depends on how/where it is used; for outdoor landscapes, a short length makes space appear much bigger, makes backgrounds appear very small and insignificant, but indoors for news/weddings/social the distances are much smaller than in outdoor shooting, so the shorter lengths are sometimes needed just to get in what you want in the frame at CLOSE shooting distances.

You seem to have your situation well understood, and have a plan. I would go with your plan.

 

[nerwin]

"18-35 3.5-4.5g which I think is still a good lens"

Yeah... I've seen some good work from that lens. This is the **new** 18-35 lens, not the one that's been around a decade. As far as what a 28mm is considered--depends on how old you are! Me? I'm in my fifities...to me a 28mm is the wide-angle length...to young people, it's barely considered as a wide. I'm not kidding...in the eighties, the 28 was considered "wide", 24 very wide, 20mm was extremely wide, 17mm was ultra-wide and very rarely seen. A lot of what a lens is considered depends on how/where it is used; for outdoor landscapes, a short length makes space appear much bigger, makes backgrounds appear very small and insignificant, but indoors for news/weddings/social the distances are much smaller than in outdoor shooting, so the shorter lengths are sometimes needed just to get in what you want in the frame at CLOSE shooting distances.

You seem to have your situation well understood, and have a plan. I would go with your plan.

So if 17mm in the 80s was ultra wide, what would a 14mm be? Haha.

 

[astroNikon]

the nikon 13mm f/5.6 was released Dec 1975

but I only remember 50 and 35 mm lenses mostly back then though I only shot for wasting film and money.

 

[nerwin]

So I decided to attach the 50 1.8G and use it for a little bit and I forgot how pleasing it actually is to use. I really REALLY love the 35 f/1.8G when I had my D7000 and thought the focal length was perfect for general photography so that's why I got the 50 1.8G when I bought the D610 but it didn't feel the same because the 35 1.8G focused a lot closer than the 50 1.8G and that's what intrigued me to buy the 35 f/2D. If the 50 1.8G focused as close as the 35 did, I would have never bought the 35.

So I'm going to leave the 50 on the body for a while and see if I can get that feeling back when I had the D7000 + 35 1.8 setup.

 

[photoboy2005]

The 35 and the 50 are so close there is no reason to have both IMO. I have both currently, but I only have DX bodies right now, so I use my 35 on that. But I use my 50mms on my film body.

 

[nerwin]

I did it!

I bought the 24-120 f/4 VR on eBay for $675 brand new. Its a US lens too. No box, but I can deal with that. The pictures he posted of the lens were fantastic so it helped my decision. He tested it to make sure its a good copy and it was. So I think I got a pretty good deal.

 

[nerwin]

Look what I got in the mail today!

I am surprised how much more hefty it is over the 24-85 VR. The lens hood is huge! I can see why some people break it.

Anyways so far I really like how it handles, zoom is smooth, focuses better and the VR is really good. I can't wait to shoot some video with it.

It appears to be pretty sharp but I wont know until there is more light to do further testing. But I did do a quick bokeh test and I can tell you that the 9 rounded aperture blades totally make a difference over the 7 aperture blades in the 24-85 VR. Well now I have to get out there and starting shooting!