nikkor 35mm f1.8 AF-s or 35mm f2 AF-D?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#1
hello gurus and newbies alike... i've decided on getting a 35mm prime lens for my D5000, but am confused on wether to have the f1.8 AF-s DX or the f2 AF-D. i know the AF-D won't AF on my cam but it's ok with me, i've used the 50mm f1.8 AF-D before (just sold it coz i find it too tight). anyways, performance wise... which is which between these two 35's? price wise... which one is well worth it? am gonna use it for close up shots. anybody who have tried these lenses, please do share your opinion and suggestions, thank you very much!:)
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#2
what lens do you have?

have you tried using close up filters?....can stack them.
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#3
Go read the technical specifications on the 2 lenses from Nikon website.

You'll see that the 35 f2 AF-D has a minimum focusing distance of 25cm and that the newer 35 f1.8 AF-S has a minimum of 30cm instead.

If you don't mind the manual focuisng and want a closer focusing distance... you'll know which one to get.
 

Oct 18, 2006
276
0
0
Singapore
#5
To TS, D5000 doesn't have an autofocus motor built into the body so the AF-D will become MF.
You want AF, then you must get 35mm F1.8 AF-S

35mm f1.8 afs is my pick.you can always add a canon 500d close-up filter
An excerpt from a website talking about the 500D


"Close-up lenses are cheaper than dedicated macro lenses, but more expensive than extension tubes"...
"A dedicated macro lens will give better results, but I've been very satisfied with the
quality of pictures taken using the 500D.


"They give a much better working distance than extension tubes, but the two can be combined to produce
greater magnification. They are very handy to use with 300/400 focal lengths: you can slip the filter into
your camera bag or pocket when you're out and just screw it on the lens, if you spot something small,
but photogenic. Although, depth of field is quite small, so handholding while possible is far from ideal."


Quoted from http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/18_500d-2.stm#pros


You may have a problem with the very off centre weight due to the close up filter being a heavy piece of glass right at the front.
 

luna_sea83

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,294
0
36
East
#6
The 35mm 1.8 is a DX which means meant for crop bodies, if you are looking foward to upgrading to a FF soon, 35mm f2 would be a good choice.

but it all stands between the AF and MF part.
 

PrimePhotog

Deregistered
Oct 25, 2007
1,736
0
0
www.flickr.com
#7
You may have a problem with the very off centre weight due to the close up filter being a heavy piece of glass right at the front.
Not really...The 52mm version is not that heavy.
 

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#8
what lens do you have?

have you tried using close up filters?....can stack them.
hi, thanks for dropping by in this thread... i currently have a tamron 17-50mm f2.8 in-built motor, and a nikkor 55-200mm f4-5.6 AF-s VR. i also have a +4close up filter...:)
 

Wurdelak

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2009
2,641
0
0
westcoast
www.flickr.com
#9
Go read the technical specifications on the 2 lenses from Nikon website.

You'll see that the 35 f2 AF-D has a minimum focusing distance of 25cm and that the newer 35 f1.8 AF-S has a minimum of 30cm instead.

If you don't mind the manual focuisng and want a closer focusing distance... you'll know which one to get.
thanks for this info Zac08!
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#12
hi, thanks for dropping by in this thread... i currently have a tamron 17-50mm f2.8 in-built motor, and a nikkor 55-200mm f4-5.6 AF-s VR. i also have a +4close up filter...:)
If I had a 17-50 f/2.8, I would consider that to be fast enough, and a prime lens in that range to be a little superfluous. I dunno.... that's just me.
Probably you want nicer bokeh?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom