If you had to choose between this and the 35mm Nikkor, which would you select?
794539
It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be helpful on broad landscapes. It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be... » Read More It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be helpful on broad landscapes. « Show Less
794540
The 24mm no matter what D series camera you have. You can find cheaper and equally good alternatives to cover the 35 mm range or just grab a 50mm 1.8. But you can't find anything as wide with a large aperture and as sharp as the 24mm. And then get the 85mm 1.4g as well and you'll be all set.
794541
The 24mm because of the ED elements. The 35mm Nikkor skipped the ED elements and the result is occasional chromatic abberation which is quite annoying in a lens of that price. The 35mm Sigma Art series is nice but without the weather seal I would take a pass. Your other choice is the 24-70 f2.8 if you do not absolutely need the 1.4 large aperture. That gives you range and is pin sharp at 24mm and 35mm.
794542
You're going to hate the answer because it's "depends". It depends on what you're shooting and what you need.The 24 mm is one of the finest Nikon lenses ever made. It is a solid wide angle with limited to zero distortion. For me, it is almost a thrill to use. It is great for close-in shots, it is great for urban shots, it is great for low light. It is a great wide angle lens. I wouldn't be without it. Price-wise, they are in a different league. You may be very very happy with the 35 mm, and that's great. I am biased. I have the 24 mm and I use it a lot and I am very happy with the results. You're going to hate the answer because it's "depends". It depends on what you're shooting and what you need.The 24 mm is one of the finest Nikon lenses ever made. It is a solid wide angle with limited to zero distortion. For me, it is almost a thrill to use. It is great for close-in shots, it is great for urban shots, it is great for low light. It is a great wide angle lens. I wouldn't be without it. Price-wise, they are in a different league. You may be very very happy with the 35 mm, and that's great. I am biased. I have the 24 mm and I use it a lot and I am very happy with the... » Read More You're going to hate the answer because it's "depends". It depends on what you're shooting and what you need.The 24 mm is one of the finest Nikon lenses ever made. It is a solid wide angle with limited to zero distortion. For me, it is almost a thrill to use. It is great for close-in shots, it is great for urban shots, it is great for low light. It is a great wide angle lens. I wouldn't be without it. Price-wise, they are in a different league. You may be very very happy with the 35 mm, and that's great. I am biased. I have the 24 mm and I use it a lot and I am very happy with the results. « Show Less
794543
I would pick the 24mm because since you are dealing with a non-zoom lens the 35mm will be more limiting than you might think. I rented both the 24mm and the 35mm before I made the purchase and I found myself switching back to the 24 frequently to capture the shot I wanted. Also, the distortions one might expect to see with "cheaper" 24mm lenses are virtually non-existent with this lens.
794544
i would get 24mm, wider angle is more useful and it's sharper than 35mm, also try the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, bokeh is irritating, quality, built not up to Nikon's, but it's sharper and cheaper.
794545
I'd always prefer a more extreme wide angle... So the 24mm is my favourite. The f/1.4 aperture is all the more glorious when the angle is wider.
75885
I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor... » Read More I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. « Show Less
1818662
Or the 35mm F1.8 AF-S which is closer in price to this lens. (I have the 35mm and its fantastic for what that is worth).
2193888
Close, but no. If you're looking for the speed of the 35 mm lens, you'll want the 18-300 mm lens, approximately $900.00. But the speed is so close that I don't worry about it, I just change settings to try and compensate with the camera.
2103068
Its really a budget decision. Both produce sharp images and good in low light, but with the sigma your packing more focal range without having to swap lenses.
2127540
As you are probably aware, the 12-24mm f4DX is equivalent to an 18-36mm in 35mm. I would consider anything over 20mm (35mm equivalent) to be a little long for regular house sized rooms but would be fine for larger spaces. I think you would find the 10-24mm Dx Nikkor a little more versatile - unfortunately, for a lot more money. I would also consider one of the Tokina DX ultrawides if you can find one. They are excellent optically, even if a little less robust mechanically, and are usually about half the cost of the Nikkors
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
1041292
I agree with the 35 F1.4 response. It is a very sharp lens and with the sale, it's priced great. WELL worth the $.
709666
The difference between the two lenses is the focal length. I personally have both lenses in my arsenal because they are NOT the same or even that similar, as some have said. The nifty fifty, as it's known, is great for portrait close-ups. It produces creamy bokeh that is absolutely gorgeous. The 35mm can also be used as portrait lens but it won't give you anything near the beauty of the composition of a 50mm shot. Also, it's a wider angle (the smaller the number the wider the lens) so basically if you were to stand at the back of a room full of people with a 50 on and look through your viewfinder, then stand in the same spot but change your 50 to the 35, you'll find that you can see more of the room (hence, wider angle) through the 35. I recommend buying both but if you're just getting started and looking to save money, definitely go with the 50mm.
433204
I have both, but use the 50mm more (for portrait). Now that I have a tokina 11-16mm 2.8, 35mm won't be used as much, but I did get some good shoots from it.
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.
1625585
You can consider the specifications, both lenses are very highly reviewed. You are right, you are making a choice between zoom range and aperture. For me aperture always wins, but, that is me.
2256733
I usually think of zooms for versatility, but if you were just interested in a prime, I'd say this one was the best combination. 14mm is too wide. 35mm a bit too close (remember it's actually closer to 50mm when you take into account the cropped sensor). 23mm is a bit more flexible as well as being a great lens.
1773128
Well if your camera has only supports AF-S lenses then you might take one. If your camera has a autofocus driver motor then you can choose between the two (assuming you WANT autofocus). I haven't ever used the D version but many like it. Right now the G version is on rebate so if you want it get it SOON before its over (probably done March 1st). The G version will hold its value as it is highly regarded and one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes. If it were me I would probably go with the G version while it is on rebate.
1312084
get the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake Lens - sharper, cheaper, betterThe Nikon 35mm 1.8 is not sharp until f2.8 anyway
2128265
It would be personal preference. My family have other Nikons so that is what I went with.
2103069
Yes! I have both these lenses and i think it's so much better than the 35mm 1.8. Plus i use it with the Metabones SpeedBooster on my BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera and it's Killer!!!