advertisement


One more question on Prime Lenses (honest)

garyi

garyi

leave blank
I have had to give up on Amazon ever delivering this 35mm lens, I have seen someone else has been waiting for in excess of 8 weeks and still has not received. For a saving of 20 quid this is ridiculous!

Anyway I have been doing some research and I have spotted a 28mm AF lens and a 50mm AF lens one second hand which would come in around the same price.

They are specifically: 50mm AF D 1.8 (new) and 28mm F2.8 AF (used)

I have 28 and 50 mm manuals which have been good for most of what I do, and I would like them in AF.

However would the 35mm be significantly better than either of these?

Cheers
 
The 35mm lens multiplied by the x1.6 crop factor of the Nikon works out at 52mm, near as dammit the 50mm lens used almost exclusively by Henri Cartier-Bresson and many many other great photographers. Look at some of their pictures. There's just a rightness about that lens length, making you learn to think and compose on your feet. It's the closest you get to a 'natural' perspective.

The 50mm will turn into a longer 75mm 'portrait' lens - also very useful, but less all-purpose than the 35mm. The 28mm turns into a 42mm, a really nice almost-but-not-quite wide length, like the 43mm Pentax lens in matthewr's thread.

But the point is, you can cover that whole 28mm to 50mm range with a 35mm just by moving back and forward a couple of feet. And you don't get dust on your sensor every time you change lenses either.

All these lenses are good though -there's not really a bad choice. 50mm's are very cheap new, and 28mm (including mine...) are cheap s/h on eBay.
 
I'll get the 35mm.

One other question there are AF D and AF, I am guessing the D is better, but why is it better?

Without the D second hand I can knock off £100.
 
There's little difference between the D and non-D - it's to do with the lens using distance (hence D) to calculate exposure when using the flash. But the non-D lenses will be quite a bit older. There was also a problem with some older 35mm non-D lenses with sticky aperture blades. I'd go for a 35mm AF-D if you can.
 
Yea I will, has anyone used microglobe? Or can I expect another 8 week wait for nothing?
 
Microglobe is actually a very small dusty shop on New Oxford Street in London. I've never bought from them, but they seem to be fine as online sllers from what I've heard.

There's also com2buy.co.uk on ebay:

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Com2buy-Yo...n-lens_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ3QQftidZ2QQtZkm

who has 35mm AF-D's for £179 every few days. Again, never used them, but don't seem to be many complaints. Are you cancelling the Amazon order?
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Yea, I have cancelled it, waste of time. They keep sending me put back dates.

I forgot about that seller on ebay I think I have a watch on him, I will check it out.
 
iGary - I bought a new lens from Microglobe via ebay (105mm dc) and it arrived next day. Can't fault them really, either for speed of delivery or price.
 
Gary,

Guybat's advice is sound. But if you want truly nerdy insight into Nikkors old and new, check out Bjørn's Rørslett site:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

This Norwegian has owned and tested pretty much every Nikkor ever made.

Joe

P.S. My advice is to get the 50mm f/1.8 AF and the 35mm f/2 AF-D, secondhand if possible.
 
Slightly off topic, but in broad brush strokes - if buying new "SLR" digital - name the body you feel offers best value for money...

I have a Nikon F80 with one lense - AF NIKKOR 24-85mm 2.8 - 4.0 D

On one hand this lense would still be useful if I bought, say, a D100 body, but is there a good reason to consider starting from scratch with perhaps Canon?

gary - hope this doesnt seem like a thread hijack?? :confused:
 
At the moment, you can get a Nikon D50 body only for £360 from a proper camera shop, and probably even cheaper elsewhere online:

http://www.parkcameras.com/digitalcameras/nikonindex.htm

Pentax's seem to have disappeared from the shops (I didn't see any on a recent trawl in London for a friend) as they being cloned by Samsung; Konica Minolta have sadly been assimilated by the SonyBorg, though could be a canny buy at a bargain price.

Canon 350D's are rarely under £550. Ergonomics and particular lens needs should really be the deciding factors between Nikon and Canon, who seem to be the most stable platforms at the moment.
 
Go for it Greg, makes it more interesting.

I cannot find a second hand 35 AFD anywhere in England I have been looking all day, there are however a couple of 35mm AF lenses for £100 a piece hense my question on the D bit. Will these lenses work fully with my D50 or will I still need to use manual all the time?
On the flip side a new 50mm is 75 quid which seems reasonable.
 
AF-D and AF non-D will work fine on all the D50 metering and auto functions, and to all intents and purposes identically. If the AF non-D is from a shop with a short guarantee and a return policy, it should be fine.
 
Oh decisions decisions, I cannot try it out as its miles away but if I were to go that route it would mean I could afford a 35mm and a 50mm AF.

ummm..
 
guybat said:
At the moment, you can get a Nikon D50 body only for £360 from a proper camera shop, and probably even cheaper elsewhere online:

http://www.parkcameras.com/digitalcameras/nikonindex.htm

Pentax's seem to have disappeared from the shops (I didn't see any on a recent trawl in London for a friend) as they being cloned by Samsung; Konica Minolta have sadly been assimilated by the SonyBorg, though could be a canny buy at a bargain price.

Canon 350D's are rarely under £550. Ergonomics and particular lens needs should really be the deciding factors between Nikon and Canon, who seem to be the most stable platforms at the moment.
Click to expand...
Cheers guybat. Do you know why bargains can be found with Nikon's but not with Canon's?

I really like the ergomics of the F80, so maybe I should stick with Nikon presuming Canon dont have a significant technical edge regards D SLR's.

I got my F80 from AJ Purdy's. In my experience and from other people's comments they seem very good. Plus they're v cheap...

Canon EOS 350D £479

Canon EOS 30D £999 inc 2GB memory

Nikon D50 £355

Nikon D70s £579

Does anyone know whether the D70s is intended to be the equivalent of the EOS 350D?
 
Gary,

One thing about the non-D AF 35mm f/2 -- oil tends to leak on the aperture blades, sticking them shut. Not with every sample, mind you, but it has happened enough that the Net is filled with such reports. Apparently, the problem was fixed in the D version, so caveat emptor if you buy a non-D 35mm used.

Joe
 
I've no idea why Nikons are cheaper than Canons. I prefer the feel and ergonomics of the Nikon D50 over the Canon 350D - though I'm not particularly a fan of any brand - and if you've already got an F70, it'll probably make sense to stick with Nikon for familiarity. The Nikon D70 is/was more aimed at the Canon 20D. I don't personally think it's worth the extra £200 over the D50 - it's got some more easily findable features, but to be honest, you get to learn the system with any new camera. I'd get the D50 and spend the extra on lenses.

Gary - I think it'd be good to just get the 35mm, glue it on your camera for at least a couple of months and really get to know how that focal length works.

Guy
 
Greg,

On a budget, my preference would be for a D50 with good glass vs a D70s with mediocre glass. But if you can stretch it, the D200 is the best of the Nikon bunch, provided you aren't so flush that a pro body is within reach.

Joe
 
Thanks Joe.

I have emailed the shop in question regarding two 35mm they have. One is 106 and one 149 and both classed as 'good'

Thats the whole description, and with your warning I am backing off.

Plus this has to be the first time I have seen these lenses come up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top