Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 68 total)
  • Should I buy a prime lens?
  • keefus
    Free Member

    Having recently retired I’ve bought myself a Nikon DSLR with a 18-105 lens. I’m going to shoot mainly landscape and sports. I’m not really into portraiture. I’ve got this idea that my ‘kit’ would be a bit more complete with either a 50mm or 35mm prime lens. Your thoughts please.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Probably, yes. It does depend on use though.

    For my full frame dslr I sold all my primes except for the 50mm f1.4 which was the only one that got used.

    For my apsc mirrorless I have a range of primes because they’re small.

    So… I guess, if I was you I’d go for a fast 35.

    Gaz.dick
    Free Member

    You will have so much fun with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.7, super lenses!

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    thv3
    Free Member

    If you’re planning on shooting sports and landscapes, might be better investing in a wide angle or telephoto lens?

    Main advantage of those primes is going to be a wider aperture for a focal length you already have covered, so depends if this its something you desire?

    Mintman
    Free Member

    I’ve got a 50mm prime on my Nikon DSLR and as much as I love it I can’t help but think a 35mm prime would be more suited to the way I use my camera.

    That said I bought my 50mm lens for £100 so it was worth it!

    meehaja
    Free Member

    I’d quite like an 85mm for sports. I can get close enough for sports portraiture, but need the speed to catch the action. 18-105 is a very capable nikon lens. 50mm is also worth having and changes your attitude to photo taking quite a bit IMO. A good course is worth it as well, i didn’t “learn” much on the one i did, but I learnt a lot about things that I otherwise wouldn’t have tried, like fashion portraits and studio lighting. As a result my snaps of friends etc are much better, and my landscapes were getting rather dull. Need a wide angle next though,.,.,

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    if you only have one lens, you’ve wasted your money buying an slr.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Get some*, remember your zoom will be most comprimised at the extremes, so 18 and 105 mm might be the most usefull (more 18 than 105, telephoto primes are much less usefull) and the zoom will work perfectly well 28-90mm. But you may as well get the 50mm as well as its a great one for portraits even if you rarely use it.

    *plural

    jamesca
    Free Member

    I use mine often, good in low light, small and lightweight. Great for walking about.

    ski
    Free Member

    Another 18-105mm Nikon user here, I bought a Nikkor 50mm f1.4D and find it stays on most of the time, it’s great for being selective using the narrow depth of field to unclutter the backgrounds to photographs.

    stumpy01
    Full Member

    keefus – Member
    I’m going to shoot mainly landscape and sports

    I am not sure how this usage equates to buying a 50mm or 35mm prime. On a DX body (assuming that’s what you’ve got) they will probably be too long for a lot of landscape stuff and too short for sports.

    I’ve got the 50mm 1.8 for my Nikon and it is a great lens, so I’m not knocking getting one. But just make sure that you get a lens that suits your requirements, rather than a lens that everyone seems to get.
    You might be better off saving for a wide angle lens (Sigma 10-20mm?) or a longer zoom for sports (70-300)?

    grum
    Free Member

    I can’t believe anyone with a DSLR isn’t going to do at least a bit of ‘social photography’ – pics of family members, parties, cats etc 🙂

    In which case a fast prime is a great idea – allows you depth of field control too.

    On a crop sensor I’d go for a 35mm prime too – I have a 50mm 1.4 on my full frame Canon and it’s a great general purpose lens. If I had to only ever use one lens again that would be it.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    I am not sure how this usage equates to buying a 50mm or 35mm prime.

    I read this bit…

    I’ve got this idea that my ‘kit’ would be a bit more complete with either a 50mm or 35mm prime lens.

    …as to be more related to general, non-landscape use.

    You can shoot landscape at any focal lenght. 500mm + for mountains with a big moon for example, so adding one prime, regardless of focal length is unlikely to be that useful.

    thetallpaul
    Free Member

    I have a number of lenses, but the one that I always go back to is my 17-55 f2.8. It’s not cheap though.
    I’ve used it for portraits, but mainly for landscapes. It’s a really useful go-to lens for me.

    Saying that, a friends and I are going out on Saturday morning with our 50mm lenses to see what we can capture.

    The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is very highly regarded.

    TuckerUK
    Free Member

    The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is very highly regarded.

    It’s price/performance thing. The AF lens is one of the poorer iterations of the 50mm f/1.8 line. The Ai is the best, then the Ai-S.

    The old AF 35mm f/2 is optically superior, and arguably a better focal length for DX, but costs twice as much.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    I’m going to shoot mainly landscape and sports. I’m not really into portraiture.

    I have the Nikon f1.4 50mm, but I use the Nikon f2.8 70-200 for Sports and the Nikon f2.8 14-24 for Landscapes.

    andy8442
    Free Member

    OP did you say if your Nikon was full frame or not? Traditionally landscape photography lends itself best to a wide angle, so I say yes to a wide angle prime somewhere in the range of 20-28mm. You won’t need a particularly fast lens as 1- you’ll be shooting outdoors and 2- you will probably be shooting f5.6 to f11. What I’m saying is don’t spend more money than you need to on a super fast lens, that aside the faster lenses were often the better built.

    makecoldplayhistory
    Free Member

    I bought a 50mm prime for my Canon as it was cheap and another thing to play with on my camera.

    For its cost (~75GBP), it’s the best value camera kit I’ve bought.

    One of the great things about prime lenses it is forces you to walk and move to get the best picture. Something that a lot of beginners* forget.

    Although I usually use it for portraits, f1.8 for that money is impossible if you want a zoom or anything else. The fast speed is great in lower light.

    *I am one

    cybicle
    Free Member

    Depending on what camera you have, I’d recommend the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF-D, as it’s a superb lens. Some reviews certainly have it as superior to the AFS-G version, although the af on the latter may be a bit faster. If your camera lacks the mechanical af conncetion, then you’ll be limited to the AF S-G version. For portraiture, you might prefer the f1.4 version, as it’s 9-bladed aperture gives a smoother bokeh. Expensive though.

    The advantage of primes over zooms, is that primes will be sharper across the entire image, at larger apertures. I have an old 28-70mm f2.8 zoom, and my 50mm is noticeably sharper wide open at the extremes of the frame. The zoom needs stopping down to at least f5.6 to get anywhere near as sharp.

    Large aperture primes are easier to manual focus in dimly lit situations, although with af this probably won’t be an issue. Easier to see what’s in front of you though due to the brighter viewfinder image. Many ‘kit’ zooms are quite murky at the long end.

    A 50mm lens would be excellent for using with extension tubes for macro work, although that might not be what you have in mind.

    If your camera can take the AF-D lens, s/h versions are relatively very cheap, maybe £50-60 on ebay etc. The 50mm is a small, light, very capable lens, and it’s quality will pee over any ‘consumer’ zoom. Get one.

    spectabilis
    Free Member

    If you can do without auto focus check Ebay for a Series E 50mm or 35mm – 1.8/4 from the 80’s these lenses have exactly the same extraordinary optics as today’s 50/1.8 AF-D.
    excellent build quality too with full metal body.

    Got mine for about £25

    more info here:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/cheapskate-lenses.htm
    and
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#e

    dannybgoode
    Full Member

    50mm prime on an APS C sensored camera makes a fantastic mini portrait lens, 35mm makes a fantastic walkabout street lens.

    Images will be sharper than the equivalent focal length of a zoom lens and you will get several stops wider aperture also.

    What camera for? The cheap prime 50mm for each Canon, Nikon and Sony are all around the £80 and represent smashing value

    jemima
    Free Member

    I’m a big fan of my 35 mm F1.8 on DX camera. I reckon I could happily use it 80% of the time and some of my favourite pictures (landscapes) have been taken with it.

    Hopefully get a 50 mm F1.4 for Christmas.

    I recommend it.

    keefus
    Free Member

    Thank you all….each one of you brought something to the table for me to peruse and digest. Again thank you for your input, greatly appreciated.

    50mm f1.8 it is then.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    50mm f1.8 it is then.

    if you’re using it for landscape on a DX body, download Hugin as you’ll be doing a lot of stitching to get any decent width…..

    trevh
    Free Member

    35 mm on dx equivalent to 50mm on old film cameras I use mine on my nikon 80 percent of the time quality far out performs the 18-105 love it

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Generally they are in the range that makes them good for portraits. I have a 25mm pancake which is really small and easy to carry about. I had it with me when I cycled through London to take snaps of my surroundngs and it was deeply unsatisfying. Not wide enough to take in the streetscape but too wide to get building close ups without getting off the bike and standing in the middle of the road.

    Oly do a nice 12mm prime on m43 (24mm equivalent) which could be useful.

    kayak23
    Full Member

    To answer the original question, yes..
    I think you get a noticeable improvement in image quality and speed and they’re very portable on the bike.

    35mm f1.8 here on my D7100. Brilliant lens. I went for the 35 over the 50 as it’s 50mm equivalent on that crop body.

    Just succumbed to a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro too. Absolute cracker of a lens.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    IQ on mine is better but you really have to look for it. Shallow DoF is nice though.

    The OP should get one, and then start taking pictures of people.

    petemcd
    Free Member

    I used a 50mm 1.4 exclusively on a 5D II for a couple of years. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with one lens.

    As has been said, your Nikon has an APS-c sensor so a 35mm lens will give the same angle of view as the classic 50mm. The 35mm would be a bit more versatile as an all round lens. A 50mm would be lovely for portraits though.

    The nikon 35mm 1.8 DX is a stonking lens. It’s small, light and fast. I tried it out on a friend’s D90 and was very impressed. Here’s a cracking one for £119 including a hood from MPB Photographic. I’ve used them a few times and they’re a great seller.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    It’s amazing what you can’t accomplish too, with only one focal length.

    But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use one at all 🙂

    My f1.7 50mm is my lens of choice to keep stuck on my camera, I love it – obviously if I know the focal length is going to be limiting, then it gets swapped.

    zokes
    Free Member

    If you only have a prime and need to zoom, just walk closer to the subject

    That’s one of the daftest statements I’ve heard, yet it keeps getting trotted out.

    I’ll just move in a little closer to that flying bird, mountain range, sun setting over the sea, bridge architecture, motorsport action, wild animal etc etc then shall I? 😉

    I love primes, but accept their limitations. Some situations will allow you to achieve the correct focal length, but by no means all.

    zokes
    Free Member

    That’s one of the daftest statements I’ve heard, yet it keeps getting trotted out.

    I quite agree. The only thing that’s dafter than that statement is taking it for real, the posting your indignation about it.

    PePPeR
    Full Member

    I’d go 35mm wider the angle the better especially on a cropped digital camera.

    cybicle
    Free Member

    It’s amazing what you can accomplish with one lens.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm lens for the vast majority of his photographs.

    10 Things Henri Cartier-Bresson Can Teach You About Street Photography

    I take a short zoom (28-70) out with me if I’m unsure of what I might photograph, and I don’t want to take a bulky load with me, but I prefer the quality of primes over the convenience of most zooms. Some high end zooms, such as the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, offer fantastic quality to rival any prime lens, which is why many Nikon users use them rather than a collection of primes within that range. But a lot of lower end ‘kit’ zooms really are too compromised in design (squeezing a huge range like 18-200mm into one lens without it being enormous is always going to involve compromise) to be fully effective across the zoom and aperture range. Plus most people tend to use mainly the extreme ends of the zoom, which is often where optical quality is most compromised.

    Having one ‘do-it-all’ lens on the camera can be a real bonus in some situations, like travelling or situations where having loads of kit/changing lenses a lot isn’t practical. But you can have a relatively lightweight outfit with say a 24/28mm, 50mm and a short telephoto like 105/135mm. But everyone has their own preferences and style, so different strokes and all that.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    I’ll just move in a little closer to that flying bird, mountain range, sun setting over the sea, bridge architecture, motorsport action, wild animal etc etc then shall I?

    More importantly you change the perspective. Zooming with your feet just means take a completely different photo.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Given stitching is so easy, if you only have one lens better to go for a longer focal length as you can always stitch to get a wider aperture. Whereas cropping for zoom is lossy in terms of resolution…..

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Henri Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm lens for the vast majority of his photographs.

    You miss the point. You can take fabulous photos with only one focal length, of course. But you can only take one kind of fabulous photo 🙂

    Zooming with your feet just means take a completely different photo.

    +1

    My widest prime is 25mm* – they do a 17.5mm on m43 that I wish I could use, that would be a lot more useful I reckon.

    * well I guess the 8mm fisheye is a prime technically 🙂

    I quite agree. The only thing that’s dafter than that statement is taking it for real, the posting your indignation about it.

    Ah, my mistake – I missed the irony in your delivery, it blurred the lines between sarcasm and a real comment 😕

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 68 total)

The topic ‘Should I buy a prime lens?’ is closed to new replies.