Should I keep my Nikon 35mm prime 1.8

If a 16-85mm VR truly appeals to someone, then the only 24-70 f2.8 in existence that will do as a compromise in the stead of the 16-85 is the Tamron 24-70 version with vibration control.

The difference between 16mm and 24mm on crop can be significant as well, depending on the shooter's needs.
 
Get a 24-70 2.8 and you'll never upgrade that lens again.

Don't be too quick about that. We are fast approaching the successor of the that lens, and since it is one of Nikon's flagship lenses, it will get lots of new neat features.

Okay, so you'll upgrade your 24-70 2.8 for a 24-70 2.8 vrii, touché.
 
I'd keep it. I also love my 35 mm. As a rule, I do not really favor zoom lens, as they make me lazy.... 35 make you come closer, be closer to things, emotions....i believe this is really important in family photography
 
I'd keep it. I also love my 35 mm. As a rule, I do not really favor zoom lens, as they make me lazy.... 35 make you come closer, be closer to things, emotions....i believe this is really important in family photography

While I do agree with you to a point. When your on a job, some times you can't move around and are stuck in one spot and you need a zoom or your screwed.
 
Well if your not in a position where you need to sell the 35 mm, if it were me I'd hang onto it for a while. I'm a big fan of primes myself, I prefer them to zoom's for the most part, but that isn't the case for everyone. So I'd hang onto the lens for now and use it in conjunction with your other lenses, then make the decision later as to whether or not it's something you really want to keep based off of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have the 16-85 and it is pretty consistent across the board. I also have the 35mm 1.7 prime that I use in low light situations. I have no reason to get rid of the 35mm
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top