Prime lens

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>While I am still debating with body (between d200 and d90), I should start looking for the right lens(es) for me as well.<br>

Actually I have two questions for you guys</p>

<p>1. I am planning to get 18-105mm for outdoor, landscape wide angle shots but I would like to pick up nice prime lens for these purposes:<br>

-Mostly will be hand-held<br>

-Everyday use<br>

-Indoor Sports<br>

-Portrait<br>

-Taking pictures at the Wedding (I have lot of weddings coming up this year and Im sure all the couples will hire professional photographer but I also would like to take some pictures and learn few things)</p>

<p>Someone told me about 28mm but I dont know... might be too wide?<br>

I have budget issue as well so I will get something like 28-70mm in future but for now since Im just getting into DSLR, I'd like something nice to learn before I move into big stuff.<br>

I guess it is going to be one of 28/35/50/85mm but I just dont know what... HELP?<br>

(*actually I'd like two recommendation, because my brother is also looking for prime lens as well so I guess we both can buy one each and share it time to time)</p>

<p>2. This is actually for my Brother who is into graphic design, he has little bit of experience in dslr photography but still beginner.<br>

He is going to pick up 50mm as secondary lens but he cant find right lens for primary.<br>

Tele-zoom is not his concern but this is what he would like to do...<br>

wide angle... and hmmm how should i put this... for example, lets say he is holding camera on his arm and he would like to be able to take picture of himself from that distance.<br>

Also when he zoom into say your cellphone on the table, i would like to be able to take a picture of it like a macro.<br>

I thought of 18-55mm but from his experience, he wanted something better.<br>

He also has $400 budge for this lens and I was hoping if you can find nice one for him as well.</p>

<p>Thank you guys!</p>

 

<p>On a Nikon with APS-C sensor (DX camera), my choice would be the AF-S 35 f/1.8. Very useful focal length, not very expensive and very good performance.<br>

However, the fact that 35mm works excellent for me does not mean it does for others. So, you may first want to test with the 18-105, and see which focal length works out best for you - and then find a matching prime. Same advice for both really :-)</p>

<p>On a DX camera, something over 18mm will not be so wide. That`s the reason of many all purpose zooms that start at 17 or 18mm. A 28mm prime can be called on DX an<em> almost standard</em> focal lenght. Don`t forget that 1.5 crop factor that is reducing the angle of view. It places the 28-70 zoom into the same issue. Thinking on that "self-portrait" system my choice would be something near 16mm.</p>

<p>I second that 35/1.8AFS as a standard lens. A 24/2.8AFD as a moderately wide. Any 50 prime as a short portrait lens.</p>

<p>BTW, I haven`t used them but the 16-85AFS seems right to me as an all purpose zoom, and from what I have read here, same for third party 11-16 wide angle zooms.</p>

<p>I just shot a couple's portrait session at the beach with a 50mm f1.8 and an 85mm f1.4D. Both of these are excellent for what you are saying. If I needed wider, I would have used my 35mm f2.</p>

<p>I'm using a 50 mm /1.8 for portraits, and loving it. I read that it's also good for basketball, although the pros I see at basketball games have heavy glass (fast zooms).</p>

<p>Your best bet would be to invest in both the 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8.</p>

<p>As far as your brother goes, you need to specify exactly what he means by "he wanted something better" Better in what way?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot guys, i hope I can get more answers but for my lens,<br>

since my brother is getting 50mm, Ill try out both 35mm and 85mm in store and compare.</p>

<p>Elliot, for my brother, i think he means slightly better zoom (not by a lot), and maybe more sharpness?<br>

I think he is mainly looking for that "macro-like" effect when you zoom into a small object...<br>

sigh... I really should take class or something to learn more about lens and their functions</p>

<p>a 35mm lens will be about the same as a 50mm lens on a film camera. Some don't think it's that good a lens by I do most of my prime shooting on my D300 and D50 with a 24mm f/2.8 D Nikkor. It's about the same coverage as a 35mm lens in film and I've always believed 35mm should be the "normal" film focal length.</p>

<p>Anthony,<br>

I am sold for fixed focal lenses... but for the broad applications you want for your lens I'd rather go for a f2.8 inexpensive zoom like Tamron 28-75/2.8. It's IQ is very good, it's a reliable performer, it's small and lightweight and cover almost all situations you listed above. At a later time, if you will find that f2.8 is not enough fast for you in certain situations, you can add a used 50/1.8 and you are settled well for every situation.</p>

<p>Without going to a true macro, the 18-55mm actually focuses pretty close, I believe it is around 12". The 18-55mm also gives very sharp images. But it is not a macro lens. Your brother may need more than one lens to meet his needs.</p>

<p>Lighting is typically poor for indoor sports. Fast lenses (aperture wise) give you the ability to shoot at lower ISOs with faster shutter speeds in less than ideal lighting which is why those lenses are being recommended to you. The ideal lens is Nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 VR or the 80-200mm (non-VR) but those options tend to be a bit pricey. The 50mm f1.8 is about $125. You can get a used 85mm f1.8 for about $350 or so, and that lens will give you a bit of extra reach.</p>

<p>I use an 18-70 when I need to zoom, but just to walk around I ADORE the 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX. Check it out.</p>

<p>+1 on 35/1.8</p>

<p>Third call for the Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX prime. At $199, even at $229, it's a bargain and a superb lens. Wish Nikon could make more affordable DX primes for us common folk. Not everyone can afford $1400+ for a prime lens!! f1.8 is plenty fast for me, don't need f1.4. Used to be the f1.4 lenses were just a few hundred more, now they are $1000+ more!! Too rich for my blood.</p>

<p>Anthony,<br>

For your brother : He also might like something like a Tokina 35mm MAcro ?<br>

Here's a review : <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/158.1-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_M35_PRO_DX_35_mm_f_2.8_Introduction.html">http://www.lenstip.com/158.1-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_M35_PRO_DX_35_mm_f_2.8_Introduction.html</a></p>

<p>Hmmm, this lens has to be at one centimeter from the subject to get 1:1... too much close to my liking. Anyway, it seems to me a very interesting option.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>one centimeter from the subject to get 1:1... too much close to my liking</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jose, i do not see where the OP asks for 1:1, but i think this lens does answer to the requirements from the OP's brother, I think ..</p>

<p>The request from the OP :</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>wide angle... and hmmm how should i put this... for example, lets say he is holding camera on his arm and he would like to be able to take picture of himself from that distance.<br />Also when he zoom into say your cellphone on the table, i would like to be able to take a picture of it like a macro.<br /> </p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>Agree, you`re right... with no focus limit and f2.8 this lens looks to be great for fun... I sincerely think it`s a very interesting option!</p>

<p>But wait... I was thinking with my <em>FF minded</em> head... maybe you too! The viewing angle of a 35mm lens on DX is not even <em>a bit</em> wide! It could be something difficult to get the head into the frame in that self-portrait!</p>

<p>I would recommend the 18-70 over the 18-105 for either of you. It lacks VR and a little extra zoom range, but it's sharper and built better. As mentioned, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a great choice still, and I rely very heavily on mine.</p>

<p>As far as your brother goes, the 50 1.8 is a MUCH better choice for graphic design than the 35 1.8. If he's okay with manual focus, the 50 1.4 AIS would be a better choice still. For most design applications, the most important thing is lack of distortion and chromatic aberration, followed by sharpness, and THEN the 'look' of the lens. More often than not, the quality of the out of focus areas takes a backseat. Even though many people (including myself) prefer the 'look' of the 35 to the 50, I think the better resolving power will make it much more suitable for graphic work; especially since smaller objects will typically be shot at f/8-f/11 anyway. You'll also find the slightly tighter angle to be more useful in those situations.</p>

<p>I'd also recommend budgeting for a set of close-up filters. They won't turn a lens into a super close-up macro without a massive loss in quality, but if you just need to get a couple inches closer they'll do a great job on the cheap with little or no visible quality loss, provided you're using them with a sharp lens like the 50.</p>

<p>Jose,<br>

Just tried it, for me at arms length my head fits into the frame in portrait orientation :-)</p>

<p>A prime lens should fit your "prime" view. How do you see the world you want to present in your images? For me a prime lens in DX format would be around 10mm. I like a wide view, because that is how I "see" my world most of the time. I think the concept of a "prime" lens is a bit of a trap. There are times I want a tighter view and something in the range of 300mm may be too short. Remember the image is formed in your mind, not in the camera. <br>

Think about how you see things most of the time and get a lens that fits with that vision. That will then be your "prime" lens.</p>

<p>I suggest 50 mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.8 / You are looking at $650.00 for both ( max ) and you will have 2 good primes in your hand. 50 f/1.8 is very good but the f/1.4 is much better. </p>