0

I'm currently shopping around for a 35mm prime for a Nikon D800. Now, my best bets seems to be one of the following

  • Nikon 35mm 1.4G
  • Nikon 35mm 1.8G
  • Sigma 35mm 1.4

Now, apperently the Nikon 1.8G has rather poor bokeh, so I suppose thats out. Now, the remaining two, seems to both be optically similiar, with a slight edge for the sigma (due to having less chromatic aberration).

Ok, with a price difference that big, but.. I worry about one thing. The lack of weather sealing..

All my lenses have weather sealing, so I don't know what the implications of not having it is. I don't really worry about water and moisture. My worry is dust and sand. Especially a 35mm would be used for travel photography quite alot, hence, it is very likely to be exposed to dusty and sandy environments.

I never had any problems in the past in such environments using weather sealed lenses. Will I get a camera full of cr** when using a lens without it? :D

1

In the face of blowing sand, weather-sealing is the difference between life and depth of your gear. While a few drops of water and even a light sprinkling does not do much to a non-weather-sealed lens. The same is not true of sand.

In the desert where there wind picks up blowing sand, it gets everywhere was you know. Unfortunately that gets into lenses and destroys its internals. One my last trip to the Peruvian desert, cameras stopped working extremely quickly. One Canon Rebel, for example, died within 15 seconds. Sand entered the lens and it could no longer focus or zoom. They were stuck until taken apart and cleaned by Canon which I was cold cost around $150 USD. Not to mention the inconvenience of not have a working lens for long.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.