66 replies to this topic

[Squibs]

Well! After having the 35mm prime lens for a little while, I can say that it's almost constantly on my camera. I had a small shock and feeling of doubt when a uk Nikon publication binned it as its worst on test. However they were looking at bokah.

 In low light conditions, the f1.8 comes into its own and I find myself skulking around at night or early mornings in my home town. A nocturnal photographer this lens is creating.

As for what is known in the UK as being a tackle tart. I've stuck to and will for the foreseeable future stick to the 35mm and the two kit lenses. The only thing that I might (if money allows) is up grade the quality of the kit lenses. The telephoto is are a bit sloppy when extended and creeps more than I would like. As an engineer type person I like close fitting interfaces and understand that you get what you pay for. 

[SchranzPhotogFilm]

I have my 35mm 1.8G lens and absolutely LOVE IT! I hardly will even use a different lens, I almost wish that the d3200 would come with it, it really teaches beginners how to use a camera. Not sure if this helps, but hope it does.

[Chrisf]

Even the older af primes are good. You should be able to pick them up at a good price. I have the 50mm 1.8 and 85 1.8 and they are good sharp lenses

[Merco_61]

Even the older af primes are good. You should be able to pick them up at a good price. I have the 50mm 1.8 and 85 1.8 and they are good sharp lenses

The problem with this is that very many photographers just starting out have D3xxx or D5xxx bodies that won't AF with AF or AF-D lenses.

Focusing manually with the pentamirror finders in the cheaper bodies is not easy either.

I agree with your opinion on the older lenses, they are often sharper than the later G versions but have a bit harsher bokeh.

 

/Peter

[K-9]

And nearly all the G series primes have more distortion than the D versions.

[Tony892]

Remember that the 50/1.8D wont focus on a D3200. The 50/1.8G will though, and is a very nice portrait lens on DX format sensors.

What have people found as the main differences between 35 and 50. I have a 35, but the 50 is on my wish list. Actually I would prefer a prime under 35 to use with my 7100, but it appears to be an expensive business. I am going to a large photography show in March, perhaps folk could give me tips as to what to look out for?

[Merco_61]

A 50/1,8D is very useful as a "short long lens" on your D7100, both for portraits and as a long walk-around lens. I won't call it a short tele since it is, strictly speaking, not a telecentric lens.

 

For something wider than your 35 why not look at the good ol' 24/2.8D, list price is somewhere around £370, but I would not be surprised if you can find it with a HN-3 hood for around that sum. The "correct" hood for the 24 is a HN-1, but the HN-3 works better on DX.

 

Those three lenses would approximate the set of lenses that most serious nikon amateurs started out with before zooms, a 35, a 50 and a 85 mm lens (the 24 and the 105 were expensive).

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the D7100 can use all nikkor lenses produced after 1977 with metering. There are thousands of even older lenses that have been modified in the late seventies and eighties for the FE, FM and F3 bodies that also work brilliantly. Look for the terms AI, AIS and AI'd in lens descriptions to identify them.

[DanielJamesVersace]

I would not be surprised if you can find it with a HN-3 hood for around that sum. The "correct" hood for the 24 is a HN-1, but the HN-3 works better on DX.

 

A hood on a 24mm, :/ why even bother with a hood. Not even worth using a hood on the 50mm let alone the 35mm, Heck wouldn't even chuck a hood on a 20mm.

[Merco_61]

A hood on a 24mm, :/ why even bother with a hood. Not even worth using a hood on the 50mm let alone the 35mm, Heck wouldn't even chuck a hood on a 20mm.

The reason for a hood on a WA is not losing shots when you have spotlights or other hard light sources a few degrees in front of your front lens, so that it hits the glass at an oblique angle. This gives a flare that obliterates all contrast. Lights that come more from the front are no trouble for the NIC coating to handle. It is not common, but I've lost shots to this effect before I got hoods for all lenses when shooting events and none since...

 

/Peter

[Tony892]

A hood on a 24mm, :/ why even bother with a hood. Not even worth using a hood on the 50mm let alone the 35mm, Heck wouldn't even chuck a hood on a 20mm.

Interesting that you do not feel the requirement for lens hood. Here is a recent article that may provide you with additional info on this subject: Lens Hoods - Why I Always Use One | Fro Knows Photo

[Ron]

There seems to be two camps on lens hoods... which strikes me as being quite similar to the two camps on using a clear filter to protect the lens.

 

I see a lot of people... most perhaps, who eschew lens shades at any time, even when using wide range zooms where image degrading flair is probably the most acute. I can remember an occasion where I was using my old 24~120D zoom which has a very wide (non-tulip shaped) hood. I got some of the most peculiar stares from other photographers, most of whom were not using any hood at all. 

 

Anyway, my position on this is this. It (the hood) was made for a reason and, especially if it came with the lens, it's probably a good idea to use it whenever possible. 

 

--Ron

[Merco_61]

There seems to be two camps on lens hoods... which strikes me as being quite similar to the two camps on using a clear filter to protect the lens.

 

I see a lot of people... most perhaps, who eschew lens shades at any time, even when using wide range zooms where image degrading flair is probably the most acute. I can remember an occasion where I was using my old 24~120D zoom which has a very wide (non-tulip shaped) hood. I got some of the most peculiar stares from other photographers, most of whom were not using any hood at all. 

 

Anyway, my position on this is this. It (the hood) was made for a reason and, especially if it came with the lens, it's probably a good idea to use it whenever possible. 

 

--Ron

If you think people stare at the old 24-120 dog-dish shaped thing, you should see the looks I get when setting up a Lindahl compendium on an 80-200 AFS or, even worse on the diminutive N-Nikkor 50/1.4. Those lenses are very prone to flare, even with the "correct" hoods.

[Ron]

If you think people stare at the old 24-120 dog-dish shaped thing, you should see the looks I get when setting up a Lindahl compendium on an 80-200 AFS or, even worse on the diminutive N-Nikkor 50/1.4. Those lenses are very prone to flare, even with the "correct" hoods.

 

Yeah, I can imagine. 

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

Just like the filter, the hood can also help protect the front of the lens - not suggesting one, the other or both, but I choose both if possible.  One photographer I know has the 200 2.0 and has no filter or hood, same with his 70-200 2.8 - always scares me...on the sidelines of a game, you will have to move out of the way or get run into / run over at some point...not in every game, but it will happen...at that point you may not have an option to protect anything, let alone the front element of a very expensive lens...neither may save the lens, but to me it just isn't worth the chance...I even use them indoors - I've been run into there too!

[B Grace]

The best way to tell if you should be shooting with a lens hood on your lens is to look through your camera viewfinder holding your camera in one hand while holding your other hand out in front or above the front of the lens moving it about seeing if your view changes due to differing lens flare.  We're talking about having bright light sources such as the sun on a sunny day with that light source out of the frame of view but close enough at an angle so as to place light across the front element of the lens.  If you move your hand into the perfect spot to block sunlight from striking your lens you will instantly see the difference in the finder.  In a pinch you can shoot while using your hand as a sunshade blocking that flare from the side.  At a minimum, lens flare reduces the contrast of your images.  Yes, I do get throwaway shots with one of my hands in the view now and then.

 

And, yes, lens element multi-coating has reduced the effects of indirect light source flare but it hasn't completely eliminated the issue.  Even a 20mm lens can benefit from the use of a proper hood albeit not as much perhaps as a 200mm.

 

Finally, if shooting an FX prime or zoom on a DX camera and you have a selection of lens hoods available you can use a hood for a longer FL lens.  I routinely use the generic lens hood I bought for my 28mm lens on my 20mm lens due to the crop factor of my D40x.  Provided the filter thread diameters match, of course.  And going the other way, I routinely use the metal lens hood for my 50mm on my 105mm micro.

[Chrisf]

The problem with this is that very many photographers just starting out have D3xxx or D5xxx bodies that won't AF with AF or AF-D lenses.

Focusing manually with the pentamirror finders in the cheaper bodies is not easy either.

I agree with your opinion on the older lenses, they are often sharper than the later G versions but have a bit harsher bokeh.

 

/Peter

I agree with what you said about the 3k and 5k bodies not supporting the af lenses, however the d90 does support af on those lenses. Just an after thought .

[Merco_61]

Trying to get a beginner to even consider the *much* better d90 is an uphill battle when their Galaxy s5 is 16 MP, and "more megapixels must be better". The megapixel race is totally stupid, but the supermarket salesdroids don't know any better than the first-time customers.

We (advanced amateurs and pros) tend to forget about the crippled F-mount in the entry-level and one step up bodies. This thread started out asking for advice for the D3200, even though it has drifted some.

[Chrisf]

Yeah, I do forget at times that they aren't capable of mounting  them while retaining af. Then again that's the reason I opted to go to the 7k instead of a 5200. Not to mention the controls are much more user friendly.I also have a tendency to think that they are putting high mp sensors in entry level cameras to basically force them to buy newer high quality glass. Since the higher resolution sensor will make the deficiencies of kit/entry level lenses much more apparent.

[TBonz]

The best way to tell if you should be shooting with a lens hood on your lens is to look through your camera viewfinder holding your camera in one hand while holding your other hand out in front or above the front of the lens moving it about seeing if your view changes due to differing lens flare. 

 

While I agree with most of what you've said, I would argue that the best way to tell if you should use a lens hood is to not worry about it at all.  Go through your normal routine of mounting your lens on the camera and make sure that routine ends with putting on your lens hood.  Think of it as the last step before (or after) removing the lens cap in prepping the lens for use.  Obviously this wouldn't be true if you were looking to have some flare effect in your image, but I expect you won't be doing that in 90+% of your images.  Barring a situation where you want that effect, the lens hood will not hurt your photo.  That leaves only two other options - helping the photo or having no impact.  And, if you have an impact onto some hard surface, it may help your lens even if it doesn't help the photos you are taking at the time.  If you get in the habit of putting the hood on, you won't regret it...

[Kenafein]

 

The problem with this is that very many photographers just starting out have D3xxx or D5xxx bodies that won't AF with AF or AF-D lenses.

Focusing manually with the pentamirror finders in the cheaper bodies is not easy either.

I agree with your opinion on the older lenses, they are often sharper than the later G versions but have a bit harsher bokeh.

 

/Peter

 

 

And nearly all the G series primes have more distortion than the D versions.

 

 

With the exception of the 85/1.8G.  It is the superior lens, over the D.  I love my 50/1.8D lens.  I haven't read any reviews yet, but maybe the new 35/1.8 will surpass the 35/2D.  One thing about the old D lenses is CA; it is dramatic.