35mm and 50mm primes | Nikon Lenses | Photo Forum

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!


Please consider registering

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register sp_MemberList Members

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

— Match —

— Forum Options —

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
35mm and 50mm primes
Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 (0 votes) 
September 6, 2012
9:52 pm
Forum Posts: 131
Member Since:
July 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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!

September 9, 2012
3:25 am
Forum Posts: 2163
Member Since:
August 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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.

October 18, 2012
8:01 pm
Forum Posts: 131
Member Since:
July 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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?

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 208

Currently Online:
7 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: 2875

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 14

Forums: 87

Topics: 3373

Posts: 16063

Administrators: easyexposure: 2163

Comments are closed.