I'm looking for the best ever made autofocus 35mm prime. Currently using the Nikkor 1.4 g. Seems like I'm still missing some pop.
I'm willing to buy any camera body to achieve this.
Mike...
Mike Danahy wrote:
I'm looking for the best ever made autofocus 35mm prime. Currently using the Nikkor 1.4 g. Seems like I'm still missing some pop.
I'm willing to buy any camera body to achieve this.
Mike...
Hmm, best ever. I can't answer that. But I think the Sigma 35 Art might be a contender.
The Sigma 35/1.4 ART is a superb lens, at least in Canon format. However, o cannot compare it to other 35mm lenses, only my many other lenses, all of which are/were not as fast.
Don
Shellback
Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas
I shoot Canon & enjoy my 35mm 1.4 L --- as said - I agree - That Sigma could be a good one --- However since your talking "The Best Ever" -- My take on lenses are --- if your lens does not have Leica or Zeiss stamped on it then there are always better lenses --- Only downside is cost, weight & manual focus
Mike Danahy wrote:
I'm looking for the best ever made autofocus 35mm prime. Currently using the Nikkor 1.4 g. Seems like I'm still missing some pop.
I'm willing to buy any camera body to achieve this.
Mike...
Whatever one I have on my camera when I need it!
Chasing hardware absolutes is sort of irrelevant to the art of image-making. It's nice to have a good lens, but no one other than a photographer looks at a great photo and says, "Wow! Look at what that super-multi-coated, anti-astigmatic, apochromatic wonder glass 35mm lens did."
Almost any lens can yield crappy results or good results. Be sure you are not using too small an aperture for the sensor size in use. Diffraction rears its ugly little head as you stop the lens down past the "diffraction limiting of sharpness" aperture. That's somewhere around f/5.6 on Micro 4/3, f/7.1 on APS-C or DX, and f/9 on full frame. Diffraction limits sharpness, reduces contrast, and mutes/smears colors.
When you buy a lens, put it on a tripod and photograph a highly detailed scene at every aperture on the lens, using a fixed ISO and a shutter speed range that will allow correct exposure at all apertures. Compare the images at 100% on a monitor. That will tell you what you can expect...
"Seems like I'm still missing some pop" as in soda?
--Bob
Mike Danahy wrote:
I'm looking for the best ever made autofocus 35mm prime. Currently using the Nikkor 1.4 g. Seems like I'm still missing some pop.
I'm willing to buy any camera body to achieve this.
Mike...
Thanks... the Sigma keeps popping up. I had a Zeiss manual focus which I bought for a glacier fly-over in Alaska. Great lens...great results...but I'm just not a manual focus guy.
The Sony System beckons me in several areas....including the 35 prime.
It just money...right?
Mike...
burkphoto wrote:
Whatever one I have on my camera when I need it!
Chasing hardware absolutes is sort of irrelevant to the art of image-making. It's nice to have a good lens, but no one other than a photographer looks at a great photo and says, "Wow! Look at what that super-multi-coated, anti-astigmatic, apochromatic wonder glass 35mm lens did."
Almost any lens can yield crappy results or good results. Be sure you are not using too small an aperture for the sensor size in use. Diffraction rears its ugly little head as you stop the lens down past the "diffraction limiting of sharpness" aperture. That's somewhere around f/5.6 on Micro 4/3, f/7.1 on APS-C or DX, and f/9 on full frame. Diffraction limits sharpness, reduces contrast, and mutes/smears colors.
When you buy a lens, put it on a tripod and photograph a highly detailed scene at every aperture on the lens, using a fixed ISO and a shutter speed range that will allow correct exposure at all apertures. Compare the images at 100% on a monitor. That will tell you what you can expect...
Whatever one I have on my camera when I need it! ... (
show quote)
Thanks for the lecture. I started with a Russian twin lens reflex in 1967. Been "making images" a long time. Your statement that hardware is sort of irrelevant to the art of image making is total BS. The hardware is a means.
My point was to gather the experiences of other photographers who already tested and compared.
Mike...
If you're not getting sufficient "pop" from your 35mm Nikkor 1.4 g, don't expect miracles from any other 35mm lens. The lack of pop has more to do with how you are using the 35mm lens, rather than which 35mm lens you are using. The Nikkor may not be the very best, but it is a darn good one.
mcveed
Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
The "guru" on Nikon lenses thinks you already have the ultimate 35mm lens. However, there are some stipulations for getting the best out of this lens. Follow the link to Bjorn Rorstett's site and read his take on this lens.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html
Mike Danahy wrote:
I'm looking for the best ever made autofocus 35mm prime. Currently using the Nikkor 1.4 g. Seems like I'm still missing some pop.
I'm willing to buy any camera body to achieve this.
Mike...
I use the Nikon 35mm 1.4; and am happy with it. I don't suggest that it is the best, but what kind of "pop" or whatever else are you are missing?
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
Seems to me your'e looking for perfect. There is no such thing, it's a fools errand.
Mike Danahy wrote:
I'm looking for the best ever made autofocus 35mm prime. Currently using the Nikkor 1.4 g. Seems like I'm still missing some pop.
I'm willing to buy any camera body to achieve this.
Mike...
Maybe you should visit some camera shops and try out the most recommended 35 mm primes, then buy one and a camera for it. Nobody but you can tell what you like best.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.