mbphoto_2.8 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Hey there
Since, my goto astro- and landscape lens will be the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, I thought I should maybe also get a lightweight, fast walkaround lens.
It must have AF and shouldn't cost more than, say 800$ new.
I really like the 28mm FOV, used it on my Fujica ST901 throughout our trip in the US.
Unfortunately, only Nikon sells a 28mm f/1.8G for a reasonable price.
It costs 600 CHF new here, but can be had for about 400 bucks used, so I'd buy used.
It's only 330g, which is awesome, but the astigmatism falcons are a little off-putting..
Now, since the Nikkor isn't the very sharpest wide open (and MAN do I find myself shooting wide open a lot..) and suffers from significant astigmatism (for the occasional astro image when the Tamron and tracking mount didn't come along), I also looked at other lenses.
Enter 35mm focal length
Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 for 720 CHF vs Tamron 35mm f/1.8VC USD for 640 CHF
The Nikkor 35/1.8G wide open cannot compete at all, although it costs only 490 CHF new.
While the Sigma Art only has very minor coma, the Tamron shows a tiny bit of astigmatism in the FF corners, and the Nikon produces huge astigmatism falcons..
The Sigma Art weighs in a whopping 670 g, whereas the Tamron weighs merely 480 g
Also, the Tamron has an optical stabiliser.. yummie!
Too bad I don't really like 35mm all that much. Often found the 23mm f/2 on my Fuji X100s to be too narrow (so I sold it and got an X-T10 with 23/1.4; I sold the lens after not using it at all.. lol )
So, enter the 24mm focal length
For 710 CHF, there's the Nikkor 24mm f/1.8G with a weight of only 355 g and the astigmatism is quite well-controlled in the corners.
The Sigma Art 24mm f/1.4 for 750 CHF weighs a whopping 670 g (again?!) and shows massive coma and astigmatism in comparison.
Let's summarise:
The Nikon 28mm f/1.8G is light and fast and relatively cheap when bought used. It's not the sharpest and not useful for astro stuff, though.
Among the 35mm offerings, the Tamron 35/1.8G is a clear winner. Incredibly sharp throughout the frame, image stabilisation, less than 500g in total and good performance in the coma/astigmatism test.
Among the 24mm offerings, the Nikkor 24mm f/1.8G is the winner, only 355g light, can nearly keep up with the Sigma Art resolution-wise and beats it hands down in the astro corner.
My question now is:
Why the heck didn't Tamron build a 28mm f/1.8 VC USD lens?
Just take my money, guys!
And then, what would you do if you were me?
- Get the 28mm Nikkor, accept the fact that all the other lenses listed here would've been sharper wide open, and that I cannot use it for astro, but pay 200 bucks less when buying used?
- Get the Tamron 35mm, accept the fact that I will often end up with shots I'm not perfectly happy with, because the framing was too tight?
- Get the Nikkor 24mm f/1.8G and get used to a little bit of cropping when the framing is too wide? (Or even shooting the D810 in 1.2x crop mode, with still 25MP left?!)
|