£160 to spend - Nikon AF-S 35mm 1.8 a good choice?

Daysleeper40

Daysleeper40

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,184
Name
Fi
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I have £160 birthday money that was given to me with the intention of buying a new lens for my camera or some other togging gear - which is exactly what I am going to do with it :)

Question is - what should I buy?

I currently have:
Nikon D60
Kit Lens
AF-S 55-200 VR
AF-S 70-300 VR
Nikon SB-600 flash / off camera lead
Monopod (barely ever used)
Gorrilapod
Bag / SD cards / remote / extra battery are all covered.

I'm thinking my first prime lens could be the way to go - is the AF-S 35mm 1.8 a good choice, or would I be better off with a 50mm? Or there any other glaring holes?

I'm able to add a few extra pennies to the birthday money - but not a lot. Definately not more than £100. I would like a macro lens but that is a bit out of budget.
 
Last edited:
Maybe consider the 40mm nikon macro?..189 and sharp little lens
 
Last edited:
StuartH said:
Maybe consider the 40mm nikon macro?..189 and sharp little lens
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion - but I think I'd need a longer macro as I like shooting close up bugs. I've always covetted the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm... obviously I'd love the Nikon 105mm but that just isn't going to happen. Not for a while anyway!
 
yeah the 35mm af-s is great and only £145 on amazon.
 
rjbell said:
yeah the 35mm af-s is great and only £145 on amazon.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I understand it is better than a 50mm on the DX format as it is actually the equivelent of approx 50mm?
 
Daysleeper40 said:
Thanks for the suggestion - but I think I'd need a longer macro as I like shooting close up bugs. I've always covetted the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm... obviously I'd love the Nikon 105mm but that just isn't going to happen. Not for a while anyway!
Click to expand...

Just suggesting something within your budget..;) Nice prime with close up ability also.FWIW I preferred my 50mm 1.8g over my 35mm..I was just never really enthralled by it tbh.
 
Daysleeper40 said:
Thanks - I understand it is better than a 50mm on the DX format as it is actually the equivelent of approx 50mm?
Click to expand...
Yes that right. Or get yourself a nice tripod if you shoot landscapes i notice you haven't got one.
 
Last edited:
StuartH said:
Just suggesting something within your budget..;) Nice prime with close up ability also.FWIW I preferred my 50mm 1.8g over my 35mm..I was just never really enthralled by it tbh.
Click to expand...

I guess it is a matter of trade off between the close up ability and the aperture - I think the 40mm is 2.8 rather than the 1.8 possible with the 35mm. Something to think about though...

Interesting what you say about the focal length - any ideas why you preferred the 50mm? Could it be the type of subjects you like to shoot?

rjbell said:
Yes that right. Or get yourself a nice tripod if you shoot landscapes i notice you haven't got one.
Click to expand...

Thanks Robert - I didn't mention it but I do have a tripod. It's a bit old and rickety and I've only ever used it at home for self portraits and close up still life stuff. I honestly can't see myself lugging one around with me out of the house though - even if I did have a better one.

I havn't been bitten by the landscape bug (yet) - and I can honestly say I've never thought "if only I had a really good tripod..." - so would be wasted on me I think.
 
Last edited:
Dont get me wrong the 35mm was ok but if I could get away with using the 50mm I would.Just felt it produced better images,sharper with more contrast.Only my personal opinion though:thumbs:
 
went through same thing as you, i went for 35mm, i really like it,
if you are considering 35mm or 50mm, take out your kit lens and leave it on 35mm, then put it on 50mm without moving it in either, and see which you prefer,
 
wallyboy said:
went through same thing as you, i went for 35mm, i really like it,
if you are considering 35mm or 50mm, take out your kit lens and leave it on 35mm, then put it on 50mm without moving it in either, and see which you prefer,
Click to expand...

Now why didn't I think of that?! :bonk:

Thanks :thumbs:
 
I bought a 35mm 1.8 off of here...my only regret is that I didn't buy it sooner. It's brilliantly sharp, excellent for portraits and rarely leaves my camera ( unless I need to go wide or zoom ). I think I would have regretted a 50mm if ids bought it
 
Phil Young said:
You could sell your 70-300mm since you Have the 55-200 and buy an even better lens :)
Click to expand...

Good point i didn't notice that! You could sell the 55-200 and the kit lens and get a tamron 17-50mm which is as sharp as the 35mm. Slower though.
 
rjbell said:
? Maybe on your planet!;)
Click to expand...

I'm with Robert on this one - you'd have to pry my 70-300 from my cold dead hands! (unless you were handing me something way more exciting in return). No comparisson - it is clearly a better lens than the 55-200.

I did consider selling the 55-200 a when I got the 70-300 but I do still use it a fair bit... it is what I currently use as my 'walkabout' lens. I don't often use the kit lens but it's not really worth selling for the amount you'd get for it.

The other thing is that I'd really like to try something a bit different - not replace what I already have.

I think I'm decided on the 35mm.

Thanks for all the suggestions - appreciated :thumbs:
 
I prefer the 35mm over a 50mm. I find the 50mm f1.4 to be pretty terrible wide open, not entirely sure if the f1.8 is any better. The 35mm seems good at f1.8 though. Overall I think you've made a good choice ;)

Also you can turn either one the opposite way round to make a micro lens. Its a bit cumbersome but its a nice experiment until you can afford a micro lens.
 
Last edited:
Hey, I was in the same position as you wanted a cheap Nikkor prime but didn't know if the 35mm was going to give me the length I needed as I do a lot of music photography.

I went for the 50mm 1.8 in the end as it works on my D80 as a short telephoto, and the wide aperture is great for low light. So I reckon the 35mm will be just as good :)
 
Phil Young said:
Optically the 55-200 is sharper and wouldn't get much for a second hand sale.
Click to expand...

Mate this is the second time in a few days I have seen you give poor advice or simply incorrect advice. If your not sure about something don't say it as it will only confuse other people.
 
Soda Farl said:
Mate this is the second time in a few days I have seen you give poor advice or simply incorrect advice. If your not sure about something don't say it as it will only confuse other people.
Click to expand...

+1. Don't give bad advice to people!
 
Double team Tony & Tommy...

You didn't witness me give bad advice before - I said the OS version was much sharper and then gave a test to prove so...if people don't want to go by MTF sharts and sharpness comparison tests that's their privillidge - it's not bad or incorrect advice though. I understand it would have been less confusing had I have said "this test shows..." but that still doesn't make it "bad" or "incorrect" advice.

Regarding the 55-200mm vs the 70-300mm there really isn't that much between them. I understand if you own the 70-300mm and want to preserve it's integrity as a high performance lens...but you have to look really hard to tell the difference. Ok it was a bit bold to say the 55-200mm is sharper, It's fairer to say they are much of a muchness.

Either way, the size & weight of the 55-200mm is a big positive and with the £300 you could get for the 70-300mm, that could go towards a real nice piece of kit and I doubt it would be missed...

Each to their own and there are positives to the bigger brother but I'm merely giving an alternative solution to the OP's predicament.
 
Phil Young said:
Double team Tony & Tommy...

You didn't witness me give bad advice before - I said the OS version was much sharper and then gave a test to prove so...if people don't want to go by MTF sharts and sharpness comparison tests that's their privillidge - it's not bad or incorrect advice though. I understand it would have been less confusing had I have said "this test shows..." but that still doesn't make it "bad" or "incorrect" advice.

Regarding the 55-200mm vs the 70-300mm there really isn't that much between them. I understand if you own the 70-300mm and want to preserve it's integrity as a high performance lens...but you have to look really hard to tell the difference. Ok it was a bit bold to say the 55-200mm is sharper, It's fairer to say they are much of a muchness.

Either way, the size & weight of the 55-200mm is a big positive and with the £300 you could get for the 70-300mm, that could go towards a real nice piece of kit and I doubt it would be missed...

Each to their own and there are positives to the bigger brother but I'm merely giving an alternative solution to the OP's predicament.
Click to expand...

I was trying to be nice about it son but its become clear from reading some of your other posts that you are some sort of forum troll and have not got a clue what your talking about.

The dissapointing thing about this is that some poor soul starting out may actually follow your extremely poor advice.
 
Soda Farl said:
I was trying to be nice about it son but its become clear from reading some of your other posts that you are some sort of forum troll and have not got a clue what your talking about.

The dissapointing thing about this is that some poor soul starting out may actually follow your extremely poor advice.
Click to expand...

Lol forum troll?!

Haha. You sound like you're being bullied - get over it jeeze .

"Poor soul"??? Come on you are being a bit special now...

OK mate I'll leave this one to people that know everything about everything...I'll step down as my job as a forum troller just for this thread! ;)
 
Soda Farl said:
I was trying to be nice about it son but its become clear from reading some of your other posts that you are some sort of forum troll and have not got a clue what your talking about.

The dissapointing thing about this is that some poor soul starting out may actually follow your extremely poor advice.
Click to expand...

I agree totally again.. I have thought the same for awhile about this guys posts. I'm not one for wanting to row with others but phil any time I see your name pop up on a thread it's a oh here we go.....
 
Phil Young said:
Lol forum troll?!

Haha. You sound like you're being bullied - get over it jeeze .

"Poor soul"??? Come on you are being a bit special now...

OK mate I'll leave this one to people that know everything about everything...I'll step down as my job as a forum troller just for this thread! ;)
Click to expand...

Childish insults????

I am not surprised. :cuckoo:

Over 1500 posts in just over a year kind of proves my point.
 
Last edited:
Er... This has gone a bit downhill.

For the record - I now own the 35mm and very happy with it too.
 
Good choice, a fast prime was the biggest hole in your kit.
 
FYI - I am a she, not a he :)

For the person that asked - I got the lens from curry's.
 
No worries!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top