I would like to get an inexpensive wide or standard prime lens for my D600. Any advice about the 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, and/or 50mm f/1.8G? This would be just for a walkaround lens, no particular plans for it. I would just get the 50mm, but it might be a hair too narrow to work well for landscape shots. Any pros/cons to the other lenses? I'd love advice from you all, thank you!
Best wide/standard FX prime - 24mm 28mm 35mm 50mm
(41 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted 8 months ago #
-
Do not, I repeat do not get the 28mm F2.8D. It is soft, even at F8. 35mm F2D is soft wide open, but gets better. The 24mm F2.8D is the best of the wide primes, but needs to be at F4 to be sharp. The best of the lot is the 50mm F1.8G, no questions asked.
Posted 8 months ago # -
I can speak for the 24 f/2.8D and say that it's just fine as a wide prime. I have a picture taken with it on the August PAD I think and it's @ f/2.8 as well. It's sharper than the third-party 2.8 zooms are so I wouldn't worry too much about it wide open either.
I've never used the 28mm f/2.8 but much of what I've heard about it hasn't been good. The 50mm f/1.8G is a great lens and highly recommended.
Happy shooting!
Posted 8 months ago # -
Already great and helpful advice, thanks all!
By the way, I have the 24-85mm VR kit zoom with the D600, other than wider aperture, will these prime lenses be much sharper?
Posted 8 months ago # -
i took my d800 and 28 2.8D, 50 1.8G, 105 2.8G with me to germany over the summer, and used the 28 75% of the time (50 ~24% 105 ~1%)
i'm most used to the 50mm's fov, so in general that is what i use.my experience with the 28 when people say that it is soft is when you look at the picture at 100% view, and yes, it is soft. at 50% it appears fine (to me) and at 100% its perfectly fine. there are plenty of shots where the 28 was sharp enough(again for me). i have posted a few in the PAD thread using the 28mm lens
the reason i would see to get the primes over the wide angle is that the 24-85vr has a lot of barrel distortion towards the wide end. so in this case i would get the 24mm, since there the distortion is worst on the 24-85mm.
if you really want to get the 28, i'd pair it with the 60mm 2.8(G is preffered over the D), i would pair the 24 2.8D with the 50 1.8G
Posted 8 months ago # -
Sorry, but I don't see your need. You already have 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm in your zoom. That zoom should be sufficiently sharp for poster size enlargements. So what is your need? Do you need a larger f-stop for low light shooting? Doesn't seem so since you speak of this lens as a walk-about lens. I would use the lens you have for your walk-about lens and get a 50mm 1.8 for indoor low light shooting. The 50mm 1.8 is also a very sharp lens when used for landscapes, sharper than your zoom.
Posted 8 months ago # -
I was just wondering what prime to add, assuming it would be sharper than the zoom. If it isn't sharper, let me know as well, I don't need to spend the money on other lenses. :)
Posted 8 months ago # -
Having a prime lens is IMHO, a must for all photographers.; moreover, every photographer shod have a 50mm. Thus, I would recommend you getting the 50 1.8G.
Cheers :D
Posted 8 months ago # -
I have a new Zeiss 28mm f/2, which once I figured out how to use it is a very nice lens. For me, this is a "normal" lens for full frame as I like wide lenses. If one wants a normal prime for full frame and is in to the tradition of what the Speed Graphic used... a 135mm on 4x5, then a 35mm f/1.4 or 2.0 would be good. The 50mm "normal" came from somewhere but the diagonal is only 43.3mm on full frame 35mm. On 4x5 the diagonal is 150mm but the normal is shorter, thus the rational for a 35mm as "normal" in my book.
OK, so why am I talking about a $1300 lens when you wanted "inexpensive"? Well, if you have a D600, maybe you want the best glass you can get. And, IMO, I would rather have one good lens than three less share lenses. So, my thoughts are here and only my thoughts...hardly even a suggestion.
Posted 8 months ago # -
starralazn said:
the reason i would see to get the primes over the wide angle is that the 24-85vr has a lot of barrel distortion towards the wide end. so in this case i would get the 24mm, since there the distortion is worst on the 24-85mm.
Distortions are easily corrected during import these days so not really important. As to which length you should get, I'm a fan of reviewing your images to see what length your photography style ends up actually using. I, for example, am seriously thinking of selling everything I have to get a 14-24 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 with no primes. OK, they are expensive, but much sharper than my kit lens and not really that much less sharp than the primes. But then I like zooms.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Thank you all, this is a great conversation and very helpful! I would have already gotten a 50mm, as from what I can tell, it is the sharpest lens of this bunch. (Is that true?) But, like msmoto, I feel that a 50mm on a full-frame body is a bit narrower than "normal", narrower than what the eye sees. That is why I was looking at the wider primes.
Based on donaldejose's question, I am clarifying my thoughts. I guess what I want is the sharpest. Something that will let the D600's sensor shine. He is right, I have 24-85mm covered by a zoom, so I have to ask myself what I want. I think what I want, in order, is 1) sharpness, sharper than a zoom, and 2) low light/bokeh.
Is the 50mm sharper than the rest and than my 24-85mm zoom?
Posted 8 months ago # -
As one who is sitting waiting for the rain to stop, LOL, I am monitoring things here on NRF. If I have a couple lense and want to know which is the sharpest, the only way is to test this out.
1) Good tripod Pick scene with details, medium focus range.
2) Shoot each lens wide open, and stopped down the first three or four stops, e.g.., f/2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, then 11, 22
3) When testing, use low ISO, set camera to have the mirror up and release remotely so as not to cause any camera vibration. You may want to have separate exposures in the corners and the center to determine focal point curvature of field.
4) Look at images in computer at high magnification. Examine the corners and all aspects of the images. Look at the amount of vignette.
Why? There are differences in lens quality and some variation in production samples. Not much but enough so that one person will think a lens is garbage and another will say it is fabulous. And, to evaluate a lens, we must first "learn" it.An example, I just received a Zeiss 28mm f/2 from B & H. First impression, the build quality is a piece of art. Smooth. Heavy. Then I started shooting a couple shots with a target at f/2.0. Looked into the corners....yikes, soft, fuzzy, ready to send it back. So, checked the focus by specifically focusing on the corners and it was absolutely crispy sharp in the corners. The plane of focus of the lens in close quarters, wide open is curved. No big surprise. Then in the field...the test... stunning lens. Has something to the image, much like the 24mm f/3.5 PC Nikkor. Just a depth some of the others do not have...
none of these conclusions can be derived from reading someone else's test or review. I think photography is such a "hands on" process that we must literally have the equipment in our hands and find out how we work with each lens and camera.So, my suggestion, take the zoom at 50mm, same f/stops, and shoot the test. You may be surprised at how good some of the lenses are.
Posted 8 months ago # -
@msmoto: My dear, how fun it would be to meet you some day and go out shooting...you passion for photography is addictive.
@roombarobot: Careful with the use of the word "sharpest" in here...it can set you back thousands of dollars. Now with that said, your original state your need for this lens was for "walk around" is that still true? If so then, one: by all mean, at this stage of the game, rule out any of the manual focus lens (i.e. msmoto latest toy the Zeiss lens). Second, for "sharp" and "walk around" lens, from my point-of-view the lens needs to light weighted, so that I can move easy around my subject and/or surrounding; nothing is more frustrating for me than when I need to take a shot and my gear is getting in the way...if you know what I mean. Third, comfort; by that I mean I do want a lens that hurt my arms, shoulders, and feet after my shooingt is done at the end of the day (ie D4/D7000 /w 70-200 walking up & down hills shooting for 6-7 hours). Lastly, keep these things in mind with your next purchase of sharp, walk around glass: what will your distance be to your subject, because this will have profound effect on bokeh (hence keep DOF in mind). You mentioned "low light" this means you should look at those lenses that have fast apertures (hence, 2.8, 1.8, 1.4). Like spraynpray, my beloved lens so far is the 24-70 2.8; I never go out shooting without her (yes it is a she in my book :P). But so does my 85 1.8G (thx to msmoto) & 50mm 1.4G. They are all amazingly sharp, work great in low light, produce outstanding bokeh, flexible, and are easy to walk around with.
But I digress, the answer to your question: "Is the 50mm (1.8G) sharper than the rest and than my 24-85mm zoom?" YES.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Thanks golf007sd, I guess what I really want is the sharpest lens that is inexpensive. I want to see what the D600 full frame sensor can do. I wonder if the kit zoom is able to maximize the image quality, or might it be holding the sensor back?
Posted 8 months ago # -
No kit zoom is as good as the sensor - if they were there would be little reason to buy pro grade glass.
Posted 8 months ago # -
You could try out some used ai-s or ai primes, they're sometimes better than their af counterparts. The 28mm f/2.8 ai-s for example used an 8 element formula that is usually regarded as superior to the 6 element construction of the 28mm af-d, as well as earlier and contemporary models such as the ai or series e versions.
Posted 8 months ago # -
roombarobot said:
Thanks golf007sd, I guess what I really want is the sharpest lens that is inexpensive. I want to see what the D600 full frame sensor can do. I wonder if the kit zoom is able to maximize the image quality, or might it be holding the sensor back?One had nothing to do with the other. Personally, I would never buy a DSLR with a kit lens. Get the body only and start off with a 50mm or get a lens that suits your type of photography.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Probably the cheapest-sharpest lens would be a 50mm lens. I would consider first the 50mm 1.8 AF-D (about $85 used) but also consider the 50mm 1.4 AF-D (about $250 used). These AF-D lenses are "last generation" lenses. Shot at about f4 or f5.6 both the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 AF-D lenses should be very sharp on your D600. Current generation lenses would be G lenses. For about $220 the current 50mm 1.8 G lens should be a bit sharper. For about $450 the 50mm f1.4 lens will be even sharper. But you may not see much difference between these four lenses when used hand-held as a walkabout lens. You many have to put your camera on a tripod and use a cable release to see the maximum amount of sharpness these lenses can produce with a D600.
Now if you want a "double duty" cheap-sharp lens you may want to consider the 60mm f2.8 AF-D lens. Some comments and photos shot with it on a D600 are in this thread: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=9682 As I post this KEH Camera in Smyrna, GA, has 6 in stock ranging from $250 to $300. It could serve as a normal lens and as a macro lens.
You will find that sharpness is interesting but sharpness isn't as important to a photo as composition and light.
Posted 8 months ago # -
golf007sd said:
Having a prime lens is IMHO, a must for all photographers.; moreover, every photographer shod have a 50mm.Why? I have never found use for a 50mm. I shoot mostly with 24mm and 85mm primes.
The area between those two ends is something I feel I have no need for. For wildlife,
I plan to get a 500mm prime and the set is complete.50mm lenses are not for everyone. Everyone should get what they NEED for their type of shooting. That is my opinion.
Posted 8 months ago # -
I always thought 'Normal' when applied to lenses referred to the perspective not the angle of view. Shorter than 50mm (on full frame) stretches it and longer compresses it.
BTW Godless you didn't say what you are on - DX or FX? I generally agree with your point though. I find 50mm on DX completely <meh> but that is just my opinion.
Posted 8 months ago # -
-
Godless said:
Why? I have never found use for a 50mm. I shoot mostly with 24mm and 85mm primes.
The area between those two ends is something I feel I have no need for. For wildlife,
I plan to get a 500mm prime and the set is complete.50mm lenses are not for everyone. Everyone should get what they NEED for their type of shooting. That is my opinion.
I'm glad that you have found what work for you Godless. My recommendations was just that: recommendations. The only way a photographer finds out what works best for he or she is to get their hands on the gear..be it a lens or body, and shoot. If it works for them then all is good...if not then...that is what the used market is for. :P 80% of the lenses I have bought where second hand....which mean the owner had no use for it and got something that did. All is good in the world of photography. Good luck finding or getting that 500mm.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Hmmm, I hadn't thought about the 60mm f/2.8 micro/macro... I've heard that one is sharp as well, is that sharper than the 50mm f/1.8G?
I also hadn't heard of KEH camera, are they reliable/trustworthy? Their prices look as good as, or better than eBay.
Terrific discussion, everyone, keep it coming!
Posted 8 months ago # -
No one mentioned the 28 F1.8G...although a little more expensive, not too bad really. If you don't know though the 50 F1.8G seems like a cheap option to try.
Or since you don't really know what you want...wait and save to buy something nice like the 24 F1.4 or an F2.8 zoom.
Posted 8 months ago # -
@roombarobot - I'm trying to figure out what your goal is. Walk-around prime is one thing - finding the sharpest lens is another - trying to test the sensor is a third. The three don't go together in any lens invented for Nikon. You have to go to Leica's 50mm or 35mm 1.4s for that.
Walk around - useful all the time.
Sharpest lens - useful for doing a large amount of macro work.
Test the sensor - useful only once.I would suggest figuring out what you want to use the lens for a year from now when the newness has worn off your camera.
Obsessing over finding the sharpest lens is not what I would suggest. A sensor is not tested by the "sharpness" of a lens - it is tested by the person using it. If you are not shooting 100% of the time from a tripod, having the sharpest lens means little.
But if you really want the sharpest, here are my findings of what you have suggested:
-60mm - is the sharpest lens Nikon makes. G or D both are wicked sharp. I have passed on the G since the override and Nano coating mean little for my use.
-105mm (D or G-VR) - is the second sharpest lens Nikon makes.Beyond these two, everything else is really close. I would say the newest Pro zooms are sharper than the prime equivalents. Anymore with new optics, I no longer assume Primes are always sharper. I haven't used the 24-85vr yet but I'm sure it is quite sharp.
This is the order I would put the rest -
50mm: (1.8G followed by 1.4G) - 28mm 1.8G (from reports I have seen) - 24mm D 2.8 - 35mm D 2.0 - 18mm D 2.8 - 20mm D 2.8.28mm D 2.8 is one to stay away from.
Posted 8 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
