28mm to 35mm, which one?

[balga]

:gday:

I am looking for a fast prime in the 28-35mm range
I have shortlisted these options, what would you choose and why?

1. nikkor 35mm f1.8, cheap but the pictures don't come very three dimensional as I'd like.

2. nikkor 28mm f1.8, fx which is gooood, 28mm which is like my ideal lenght, but I've read that has focus shift issues, awesome colour rendition.

3. sigma 35mm f1.4, fx, f1.4 which is my drug, perhaps the focal is a little too close to my existing lenses, lacks weather sealing so it may suck in dust when focusing

4. sigma 18-35mm f1.8, I know, not a prime but definitely a serious contender in terms of image quality. Only drawback is that is an expensive dx lens.

what would you rather buy and why?

my current setup is d80 + 50mm f1.4g + 85mm f1.4d + sigma 17-50 f2.8 os

thanks

[Pixley]

I recently purchased the Sigma 35mm and it is awesome! Sharp wide open and did I mention awesome! Can't comment on the other lenses on your list and it will of course depend on what you want to shoot with it and if you want to shoot wide open.

[swifty]

Just wondering why you think the Sigma 35mm f1.4 would suck in dust when focussing.
I've never heard anyone comment on this as a problem and as far as I know, only the push-pull zooms have this reputation although I've never used one. Come to think of it I don't think I've ever had dust problems inside my lens. Dust bunnies on the sensor's a different issue.

In terms of your choices:
1. Best bang for your buck
2 and 3.:technically a bit wasted on your D80 since they're bigger than they need to be to cover the DX sensor.
But, depending in your preference, as you've said FL can be quite ideal on DX. I've tried the Sigma 35/1.4 briefly on my friend's camera and from my limited experience, it lives up to the Internet hype. I must comment though that my friend uses a APS-H camera so effective FL was around 45mm.
4. The most versatile and for those happy to stick with APS-C, it's the ultimate street zoom IMO. You'd sell your 17-50 if you got the 18-35 but will you be happy with the more limited range?

[I @ M]

what would you rather buy and why?

my current setup is d80 + 50mm f1.4g + 85mm f1.4d + sigma 17-50 f2.8 os

thanks

Swifty makes good sense I reckon.
I will add a few thoughts.

If you intend to stick with an APSC camera for a while and want great quality with versatility the 18-35 Sigma seems like the perfect option.
If you intend to move to an FX body in the future the Sigma 35mm is a proven winner at a bargain price.
If you want something to suit the D80 body at a bargain price the Nikon 35mm is a fantastic lens that will not disappoint.

Mt reasoning follows along the lines of ----

Of the 3 lenses I have listed above, the 2 Sigma units will out resolve your current body by a huge margin, the Nikon will be extremely compatible for now and into the future on that body.

Expense is really relative of course but if you move to an FX body in the future the Sigma 35mm will still be bargain in 6 months or 2 years and if you continue with a DX body ( D400 rumours anyone? :D ) the 18-35 will probably be a winner for quite a while yet.

For what it is worth, the Nikon 35mm I own is welded to a D200 body and simply works perfectly.

[arthurking83]

If you don't have any immediate plans to switch to full frame, then:

1. Sigma 18-35/1.8 seems to be about the best value for money overall.
2. Sigma 30/1.4. Just a touch more expensive compared to the Nikon 35/1.8, but at least it is just a touch wider and faster too boot.

I can't see why the Nikon 35/1.8 wouldn't render a scene 'as 3D' as any of the other lenses listed in your preferences.

The 3Dness of a captured scene is dependent more on how it's approached, more so than the particular brand/model of lens itself.

[balga]

thanks guys

I know that the two fx primes easily outresolve my tiny poor ccd, but you know, I'm trying to gather lenses to use in the years to come, so a few bucks spent on a good lens now can mean a potential saving in the future.

I have no plans of changing my d80, with the right lenses it works brilliantly and takes great pictures, great skin tones. Yeah it's grainy at high ISO but I never considered it a huge limitation, if you print or watch on a retina display the grain is minimal.
My plan is to keep it until it's 10 years old, or until it breaks down, whatever comes first. Then I'll probably go for a FX, but haven't decided yet.

I said that the sigma may suck air because it has got elements that move on the inside and a reviewer said this could result in sucking in air from the mount, don't remember wich website it was. I don't know if that could actually happen, it's just a thought.

nikon's 35mm is loved by many but I have rarely seen good pictures taken with it, it lacks something, can't explain why but that's the effect that I have.

What I'll do is to actually go to the local sigma dealer and ask to try them hoping they have the zoom available. And then I'll go to a nikon store tro try the 35mm and the 28mm.

At the moment I'm more prone to pick a nikon, the sigma 35mm is an awesome lens, but I want it to keep working on all nikon bodies of the next few years.