Welcome to a new Easy Exposure Photo Forum! I hope you will enjoy new features. It is still work in progress, so please be patients. Thanks!
Log In
Register
Members
Home
Topic RSS
(0 votes) 9:52 pm
July 25, 2012
Offline
Hello, I’m posting in order to discuss the 35mm and 50 mm nikkor lenses.
Here in Portugal prices for this lenses are the following:
35mm f/1.4G FX format, more expensive lens (1839 euros)
35mm f/1.8G DX format (200 euros)
1 euro= 1.26 USdollars
Imagine we want to upgrade to FX into 2 years, what to do in this situation?
Can you give any explication for that prices in particular the 35mm FX format, in comparasion with the 50mm:
50mm f/1.4G AF-S I believe it’s FX format (400 euros)
50mm f/1.8G AF-S also FX format (215 euros)
I mean… why the 50mm at 1.8 is almost the same price than a 35mm 1.8 DX format and then if we go to 50mm at 1.4 FX we double the value but (and this is important) why the 35mm is 9x the value and not double the value also, like the 50mm?
Many people discuss what lens to buy…the 35 or the 50, but if you have FF or expect to get one in future, you’ll look into the 35mm and 50mm f1.4…and then you notice that 35mm costs 3 times more than a 50mm. Is this normal? The difference of the lens in constrution are so different from each other?
Thank you for your feedback!
The price for 35mm f/1.4G FX format (1839 euros) is so high because it is a lens from they pro series (with golden ring on them) with better quality glass and mechanics. If it worth to pay this price for that lens, I am not sure. I think there are more useful lenses to buy if you can spend this kind of money.
If I were you I would get 50mm f/1.4G AF-S FX format (400 euros) or 50mm f/1.8G AF-S FX format (215 euros). Both of them are good. If you work it tighter space and feel like you need 35mm, get 35mm f/1.8G DX format, it is so cheep anyway. You can always sell it or use it latter on your FX body (as a second camera). If you are ready to spend up to $2000 for a lens for your FX, Nikon Zoom lens 24 mm – 70 mm F/2.8 or Nikon Telephoto zoom lens 70 mm – 200 mm – F/2.8 could be a better option and more versatile.
But ones again it all depends that you are shooting.
8:01 pm
July 25, 2012
Offline
I mostly shoot landscapes and architecture in particular interior small spaces. In my D7000 almost most of my shoots are 18mm that are 27mm FX equivalent…but if I had a lens more wide angle than that it would be great. Sometimes I also need to capture some details…but I think the 70mm should solve if I approach a litle bit. I’m thinking a lot in that 24-70 2.8, you mentioned, they said the sweet spot is F8 in that lens. Is there other alternatives in nikon that are compatible with future FF bodies? What do you think about the 24-120 F/4 ED VR…is there to much difference in glass, vigneting etc?
Most Users Ever Online: 239
Currently Online:
27 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Mandrake: 2719
nikonguy: 1594
mscharff: 1054
Muneer: 812
Silky: 554
intekhab0731: 553
sameerfulari: 466
Brian Copeland: 449
ergig: 307
Bjørn (Madman): 278
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 7
Members: 2769
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 14
Forums: 87
Topics: 2918
Posts: 15566
Newest Members:
Russelly, cyberheater, arielwilson, serenitygardengummies, ketosuprin, JessicaJohny, Mariszes, quickchargepro, vomjera, flexosamineforteAdministrators: easyexposure: 2164
