Best Nikon Prime to add to the 50 1.8

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

04/23/2007 02:00:52 PM · #1

As I was sorting through pictures over the weekend, it seemed that almost every one that I flagged was taken with my 50mm 1.8.
What are the best primes out of the following that have this kind of sharpness and quality?
(I'm already on a wait list for the sigma 30 1.4 and plan to get the 85 1.8 someday)

Nikon
20 f2.8 AF-D
24 f2.8 AF-D
28 f2.8 AF-D
35 f2 AF-D

darnok

Nikon D850

04/23/2007 02:17:25 PM · #2

I would go for a 85mm f1.8 or the 105mm Micro-Nikkor.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

04/23/2007 02:21:15 PM · #3

The 35mm 1.4 is a beauty, tried it out in a store and fell in love with it. I covet that lens :)

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

04/23/2007 02:50:29 PM · #4

I'm definately going to get the 85 1.8 (not the 1.4 b/c of budget) sometime in the future.
What I am looking for is a temporary solution to a somewhat fast wide lens until I get the sigma 30 1.4.
Each of the ones I listed are available at my local shop used for a decent price.

Ursula, what 35 1.4 are you referring?
You mean the Sigma 30 or the old Nikon 30 1.4 AI-S?

Out of these which most favorably compares to the 50 1.8 in terms of sharpness?
20 f2.8 AF-D
24 f2.8 AF-D
28 f2.8 AF-D
35 f2 AF-D

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

04/23/2007 02:54:46 PM · #5

Originally posted by rswank:

Ursula, what 35 1.4 are you referring?
You mean the Sigma 30 or the old Nikon 30 1.4 AI-S?

this one. It was a bit over $1,000 in Spokane, too much for me right now (maybe someday when I'm famous, he, he). But they let me try it on a D200, and it was sweet, rather heavy though, very good looking, very clear to look through. I have no pictures from it, I just fell in love with it.

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

04/23/2007 03:06:12 PM · #6

Oh you meant 85 not 35.
Gotcha ;)
I had fantasized about that one as well, I finally relented to my pocketbook (and premonition of wife's impending furor) to consider for over half the price the f/1.8 for almost the same quality...
But back to the issue at hand.
Are any of these wide primes as sharp as the unbelievably priced 50 1.8?

Bugzeye

04/23/2007 03:06:25 PM · #7

I have the 20mm 2.8 it is a nice lens very crispy clear. I love it. And would recommend it. I would also recommend one you do not have on your list, the 10.5mm 2.8 Fisheye. very awesome lens.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

04/23/2007 03:18:21 PM · #8

Originally posted by rswank:

[RED FACE] Yes, I meant 85. Typo :)
So the 1.4 is just about as good? It is about half the price, and I haven't seen one in real life, but I'm thinking that maybe it would be good to have.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 15:19:45.

04/23/2007 03:38:23 PM · #9

Originally posted by ursula:

So the 1.4 is just about as good? It is about half the price, and I haven't seen one in real life, but I'm thinking that maybe it would be good to have.

That's what I've been told and have seen full rez comparison shots that support that claim.
Have used them though, just read reviews and opinions in boards and have seen a "shootout" test.
I really need to just bring my body in and try them on for size to see.

Originally posted by bugzeye:

I have the 20mm 2.8 it is a nice lens very crispy clear. I love it. And would recommend it. I would also recommend one you do not have on your list, the 10.5mm 2.8 Fisheye. very awesome lens.

Bugz, that sounds good to me - the 20mm - as that is the cheapest of the lot, just $259 USD for a 9+ used copy.
The fishy would be cool to have no doubt but not really what I'm looking for right now.

Anyone else have opinions on the best piece of glass wider than 50mm besides the 28 1.4 Nikkor and the Sigma 30 1.4?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/23/2007 06:53:53 PM · #10

my bumps, my bumps, my lovely lady bumps

Creature

Nikon D70s

04/23/2007 07:03:13 PM · #11

I have the 35mm f/2 ... I use it as my "normal" lens since it is 52mm with the crop factor. Produces very nice photos, bright and sharp, but it's a fairly slow focuser and needs a good 3 feet from the subject, so not good for a randomly moving subject (like the puppy I was trying to shoot last night!).

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/23/2007 07:16:23 PM · #12

I have the 35mm f/2 also. It's sharp and contrasty, but I find that I don't use it all that often. I tend to use longer primes in the studio, and zooms for walking around, so it doesn't get used much. It got used a lot more when I was learning to use my camera, and wanted a good, sharp "normal" lens to practice with.

FireBird

04/23/2007 07:43:33 PM · #13

Originally posted by rswank:

my bumps, my bumps, my lovely lady bumps

Howz bout the Nikon Nikkor 180mm F2.8
AF-n. You can get them for 250 to 450 bucks. They can be actually sharper than the famed 70-200 F2.8 AF-S. Of course you might not need that much reach. I does focus a lot closer than the 70-200.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

04/24/2007 08:42:58 AM · #14

Just to throw my penny in... Definitely check the 28mm f/1.4