35mm f2 or 28mm f2.8


Status
Not open for further replies.
I have tried the Tamron 28-75 f2.8... I know it is a very good lens but I am thinking of buying the 28mm f2.8 next month instead... The pics quality are very very good... :thumbsup:

Heard from the friend who has both lens that Nikkor lens have special coating on the element thus giving better colour...

True? :think:
The tamron 28-75 that I used to have tend to have lower contrast then my nikkors. Would need to do a curve on the pics to bring out the color.
 

Have not tried the 35mm/2 before.

I have a 28mm/2.8... I find it sharper than my 20mm/2.8 when wide open... at about f8, both are equally sharp...

Ask yourself...

Do you NEED the f2 or is the f2.8 sufficient?
Do you NEED the 35mm or is 28mm good enought (just "zoom" with your feet")?
Are you willing to pay-up the extra bucks for the 35mm/2?

Sometimes, it just boils down to personal preference and you just buy one or the other and learn to work around it...... or can make a wish for a 28-35mm/1.4 zoom ;p

Happy hunting... :)
 

since u so unsure and want sharp, why not 17-55?
 

The tamron 28-75 that I used to have tend to have lower contrast then my nikkors. Would need to do a curve on the pics to bring out the color.

yup so the bottomline, is are you satisfied with the picture right out of cam? Do you always do some minor PS to it to bring out the contrast + color?

Personally, I am an amateur so I don't shoot a lot of shots and I ALWAYS do PS to bring out the best in my shots... so seriously there isn't much difference with the tamron and nikkor after PS.

People always say nikkor, nikkor, but unless the lens is soft to begin with, things like contrast/color are OVERWHELMED by any minor PS that you do to your shots.
 

so ..... i finally got this idea to try either the 35mm or the 28mm to solve my problem. relatively cheaper. any idea which one i should get? care to share from your own personal experience with the lens?

thanks! :)

Have you try a sharp copy of 12-24mm :thumbsup:
 

thanks all for all that valuable feedback and opinions. longkangman ... haven't tried the 12-24mm. really good ah? =P

latest update folks: i bought a VERY sharp copy of a 24mm f2.8 (non-D) from a CSer last night. yes, caved in to the temptation. our friend was very kind enough to let go of his lens at a very reasonable price.

my impressions so far = the lens is SOOOOO sharp, it's incredible. now i understand why some of the reviews said that this is possible one of the sharpest prime ever made. just blows my 18-200mm and 50mm f1.8 away.

second observation: with 24mm i still need to get pretty close to the subject ... sigh ... the quest continues. arrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhh .....

=P
 

oh yah wahZe ... you asked a good question. do i need a f2 or is f2.8 enough ... the truth is, i don't know??!?!? can any expert out there advice on this one ... share real life experience with all of us poor newbies pls??!?!?

do i need a 35mm or 28mm or can i zoom with my feet? i don't mind zooming with my feet but the problems as i have stated is that i scare people off if i move too close. but at 50mm sometimes there is not enough room to back out.
 

oh yah wahZe ... you asked a good question. do i need a f2 or is f2.8 enough ... the truth is, i don't know??!?!? can any expert out there advice on this one ... share real life experience with all of us poor newbies pls??!?!?

do i need a 35mm or 28mm or can i zoom with my feet? i don't mind zooming with my feet but the problems as i have stated is that i scare people off if i move too close. but at 50mm sometimes there is not enough room to back out.
Depends on what you're after. Wider aperture has the advantage of being able to shoot better at low light. f/2 to f/2.8 is one stop, which will allow you to use double the shutter speed and especially at slow shutter speed, 1/15 and 1/30 can be quite a big difference in the amount of shake you will get.

Also for shorter lenses like wideangles, it would be easier to achieve selective focus because the DoF would be reduced with a larger aperture. At f/5.6, you will probably get most of the field sharp, which would not be the case with tele lenses.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top