Help choosing a 35mm

[Nwcid]

I just had a shoot yesterday in a small space and I feel like I need a 35mm lens. Could you please help me sort out my thoughts.

I have the lens listed in my sig line. Typically when I am doing indoor sports team photos (for schools) I am either using my 50mm 1.8 (not at low aperture) or my 85mm 1.8 (not at low aperture) and this has worked well when in a gym or other large space.

I rarely work in tight spaces, and when I do I end up using my 24-70mm 2.8 (again not a low aperture). The problem is these images seem "softer" or not as high of a quality as images taken with my primes. Basically I am not happy with the images taken with the 24-70 when used "studio/portrait" style with lighting.

This makes me feel like I need a 35mm prime. Is the quality of a prime likely going to be better then my 24-70? I known how wider lenses effect compression, I am a little concerned about that, but I know the 35mm is a very popular focal length.

If I do make the jump to a 35mm, as I use it so little I would like to keep the price to under $1000. While I have no current plans for needing a f1.4 lens should I just "buy once cry once" and do it?

Really I am looking at the following lens and struggling to chose:
Nikon f1.8 is $500. This is the cheapest.
Tamron f1.8 is $600. I already have many of their lenses and a TAP.
Sigma f1.4 ART is $700. It comes with dock and I have heard amazing things about this lens.
Tamron f1.4 is $900. Same as above.
Nikon f1.4 refurbished is $1100. It is a little over my budget, but is a Nikon.
Nikon f1.4 is $1600. It is out of my budget based on the amount of time used.

I think my real debated is between the two Tamron and the Sigma.

 

[Derrel]

You have left out the Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2...It is low- cost.

 

[Derrel]

Both of these were with a 35 f2 AF-D, about 9 years apart.

 

[Nwcid]

You have left out the Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2...It is low- cost.

That is because somehow I missed. I think I skipped over it when searching, assuming it was a manual lens based on body style.

That just might be the best option. I don't want to be cheap just to be cheap, but the price and performance of this seem right.

 

[dunfly]

View attachment 186663 View attachment 186664

Both of these were with a 35 f2 AF-D, about 9 years apart.

Damn, she grew up fast.

 

[otherprof]

View attachment 186663 View attachment 186664

Both of these were with a 35 f2 AF-D, about 9 years apart.

Wow! She grew up fast!

 

[Derrel]

You have left out the Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2...It is low- cost.

That is because somehow I missed. I think I skipped over it when searching, assuming it was a manual lens based on body style.

That just might be the best option. I don't want to be cheap just to be cheap, but the price and performance of this seem right.

It focuses fairly fast.... the D500 or D850 will drive it to focus with authority... price is reasonable. It uses 52mm filters. Lightish in weight.$150-$200 used, i would guess.

 

[Braineack]

I borrow the 35mm 1.4G from a friend a lot. I love it.


DSC_2019 by Braineack, on Flickr


Tri_and_Duyen-69 by Braineack, on Flickr

 

[Braineack]

The backwards action of the sigma zoom turns me off from them.

 

[jcdeboever]

The 35mm f2d that Derrel mentioned is a wonderful lens, full of character, and you can focus pretty close if ever needed. I love the rendering from this lens. It's sharp enough and the out of focus areas are very nice. Wonderful lens for black & white and film.

 

[Nwcid]

You have left out the Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2...It is low- cost.

That is because somehow I missed. I think I skipped over it when searching, assuming it was a manual lens based on body style.

That just might be the best option. I don't want to be cheap just to be cheap, but the price and performance of this seem right.

It focuses fairly fast.... the D500 or D850 will drive it to focus with authority... price is reasonable. It uses 52mm filters. Lightish in weight.$150-$200 used, i would guess.

New they are under $400 which is a very reasonable price to spend based on my budget and use.

 

[Derrel]

I looked on eBay last night and around $149 used seems to be about the going price. I believe the brand new price is $357. I used mine, which I bought used, From 2001 to 2014. I also own the 35 mm f / 2 AI-S , which is a different optical formula, And is a heavier lens. The 35mm f/2 AF-D is very light in operation, and is quite compact.

I think that the 35 mm focal length is really quite handy for people pictures in all types of social situations, as well as for portraiture use. It is actually a pretty good event lens.

 

[Derrel]

I think that at events, the sheer physical size of the 24 to 70 mm f/2.8 Lens works against you, in a couple of ways. the lens is quite large and heavy, and that leads to fatigue over several hours. The sheer physical size of the lens also is off-putting to some people. I think that you get better expressions from camera-shy people when you use a much smaller lens.

 

[DarkShadow]

Wow some great looking images all of them

 

[Derrel]

Only one other 35 f/2 AF-D frame on my phone...ISO 32O @ F8, D3X, 24 mp.