Fast short prime recommendations

[chrisk]

am looking for a good fast prime in about the 20-35mm focal length. minimum sped is 2.8. i'm too lazy to MF so it must be an AF lens. i'll be using it for general use, no specific purpose. can anyone make some recommendations pls from their experiences. the 30mm f1.4 sigma seems plagued with QC issues and its hard to get good copies.

[Geoff]

The 35mm F/2 is a very nice little lens...Yi-p owns one and likes it, I have used it and find it a nice little lens too! $348 delivered to your door.

[chrisk]

yeah that one looks like a real winner. how does it compare to the other cheaper short nikkor primes ? Yip, would be inetersted to know if you considered any of these and why you ended up with the 35.

28/2.8
24/2.8
20/2.8

[SteveGriffin]

I love my 20/2,8 nikkor. I bought it 2nd hand on ebay for $200. Fast, sharp as and cheap to. I have got some great landscapes with it. I generally take it when I am hiking because it is light weight

Steve

[Yi-P]

Yip, would be inetersted to know if you considered any of these and why you ended up with the 35.

I had the 28 and 24... got rid of them and stayed with the 35...

Reasons being:
The 24 feels like a toy, and I'm not too impressed with the optics.
The 28 is ok, but focal length is nothing that I need. I have the 28-70 now to cover this range and speed. No need for it anymore.

The 35 is really nice for its focal length. It takes you back to the ~50mm crop view of those film ages. F/2 is nice, but leaves you craving for more speed. Sharpness is great from f/2.8 onwards, but if you plan to shoot it at F/2 all times, it might produce little bit of softness, but not to worry about if you PP sharpen your images.

Its a nice little lens and it have overtaken my 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 places, just because its fun to use! Lightweight, compact and "just right" field of view on a digital sensor. It can also focus very close (0.25m). I can get close up and even blow the background out with a relatively small aperture (f/4 or f/5.6) and image remains relatively undistorted.

Only thing I want it to be is having f/1.4. But if you really require the speed, go with the Sigma. Tho it will only work for DX sensors. Won't work on film or a D3...

I can take some sample shots for u with this lens if you want to...

ps. if you need something wider, then the 20mm is your choice. But I think it is bit more expensive.

[mickeyjuice]

the 30mm f1.4 sigma seems plagued with QC issues and its hard to get good copies.

FWIW, I'm really happy with my 30/1.4 (Canon mount, but can't see that making a difference).

[Reschsmooth]

I have the Nikon 20 2.8. It is a great little lens, however, I would say the 17-35 is sharper and less distorted at 20 than the 20mm. Still a great little prime. I understand the 24 is a better quality prime?

[chrisk]

thanks all. would be great if you could post some images YiP.
i think its between the 28 and 35. i love the closer MFD of the 35 but the slightly wider angle appeals to me of the 28.

[Yi-P]

I had a few quick snap this avro, the first two might have a little bit of handshake in the photo's softness...

Click the shots for FULL resolution:

This is a nice FOV that I like of the 35mm...


When you get up close, its still undistorted view, but you can blow out background nicely.
Shot at f/5.6:


This one was shot at a studio environment, showing absolute sharpness:

cropped version:

[chrisk]

excellent. thanks Yip.

[jamesw]

I have a 20mm f 2.8 and really like it A LOT, although have found myself using it less and less... opting for the convenience of a zoom lens (hardly ever need f2.

[chrisk]

I recently bought the 35mm f2 after i was able to borrow one for a while from a friend. what i thought was interesting is that str8 out of the box i could tell that the 35 was taking far nicer shots than the highly regarded sigma 18-50mm f2.8. 35mm should be right about the sigma's sweetspot aswell. so, i thought i'd do a quick test between the 2. so while this is one of those boring 100% crop tests, these differences i found are highly visible for everyday use and this is to show how much difference there is.

using 100% crop.
not altered at all, no in cam or PP done.
filters removed, so its just the glassitself.
set up on tripod and fired with remote to avoid any chance of camera shake.

things of note:
the sigma wide open is miserable in comparison not only in sharpness but also in the colour and the contrast. it's only when the siggie is stopped down to f5.6+ that it gets its contrast back and even then, the textures and sharpness of the nikkor is miles in front. look at the texture in the blue of the card...big differences here. the nkkkor renders the texture nicely while the sigma kind of smudges it.

now, before anyone pipes up about the tammie, i did a similar test of this with the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 when i had it to comparet the tam with the sigma and they were just about idientical; with the tammie maybe a bit sharper at f2.8 but not having the sigmas contrast or colour at any part of the focal range.

this is the sharpest lens i own wide open and it has the best contrast of any of them at f2 the results are really impressive...REALLY impressive, it leaves the 50 and 85 for dead up until f4. the 300mm f4 comes in a very close second wide open and then blows them all away stopped down. (although very difficult to tell with the varied focal ranges.)

thanks to all who helped. it would appear than the 35/f2 is a real hidden gem. given photozone's reviews and MTF information...make of this what you will...

(full size image on my flickr page here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10435080@N00/2409523551/sizes/o/)

[Alpha_7]

Interesting comparisions mate, thanks for taking the time to do it and post your results.

[shades]

I just exchanged my Sigma 30mm f1.4 for the Nikkor 35mm f2. I found the Sigma to have contrast and sharpness issues, and I wasn't very happy with the results.

I've just finished a day of shooting with the Nikkor and the reproduction is superb, much better than what I was getting with the Sigma. The image is tack sharp and the contrast much more controlled. I would highly recommend the Nikkor 35mm f2 over the Sigma from my personal experiences.

I didn't get my Nikkor as cheap as what was advertised further up on this thread, but I consider myself fortunate being able to swap out the Sigma 30mm for the IMHO much superior Nikkor lens.

[Justin]

I took a lot of hiking photos using the 28 2.8 - it really is very handy as an all round lens, and you can crop if it is too wide. Most of the shots here http://picasaweb.google.com/JustinPhoto ... 03Tasmania were taken with the 28 (click more info on the right, anything with a focal length of 28mm was def. that lens)

[DJT]

Rooz, that's a ripper comparison you have done.

I currently have the 35 f/2 which pretty much lives on my camera and is the widest lens I have. I was considering buying the 17-50 f/2.8 as my leave on lens, with 35mm not quite wide enough for the odd thing (like the Harbour Bridge, when you are right next to it.) but I'm not so sure now I'd bother wasting the money. Probably just better to get a 20mm f/2.8. While it can be a pain at times only having primes, I also enjoy the extra effort/thought I force myself to put into my photography.