I recently sold my nikon 17-35 2.8. I felt it lacking in resolution, especially shot wide open. It's fairly soft in the middle and in the corners, vignettes like hell and too heavy to act as a walkaround lens. It's better for tripod huggers since and especially when stopped down to f8, it's free of all softness throughout a 35mm frame.
I was set on getting a 50mm f2 makro-planar when I ran into the 35mm distagon, which gave me some pause for reconsideration. Let me explain why.
My 100mm f2 makro covers the telephoto end for portraits, products and macro work. I needed a shorter and more versatile lens for walk-around. Say, when I'm around the city, a lens that could allow me to shoot buildings, minor landscape, people, portraits and on occasion, very close up. At first I thought maybe, the 50mm f2 makro would be perfect for all of what I need, but then realized its' focal length is similar to my 100/2. The 100/2, in my earlier posts, is perfect for portraits and close up but, needed something wider and 50/2 isn't wide enough for my next lens.
The 35mm f2 would not only replace my 17-35 at the long end, it's also much lighter, damn sharper, has better bokeh and renders richer colors, all from what I've read. I will find out soon enough how good this lens is, and I have a feeling it's not going to disappoint. Don't get me wrong, I'll eventually get the 50/2 makro, but because I already own a 100/2, the 50mm range is of no priority for me. The 35/2 will satisfy my longing for some real decent walkaround shooting.
I'll post some pics once I get it next week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good luck and congrats on your new 35mm. Aside from the 100mm, I have the 21mm Distagon (truly outstanding), and the 50mm F2 Makro - this also of course gives really excellent results. I suspect you will end up getting it in due course. Jon
Post a Comment