primes...mmmm

<p>I know a lot of photographers like to use primes, and that there are lots of plus sides to the use of primes, especially wide open. So my question of pure opinion, is what primes do you like to use? Which ones would you recomend? I'm looking into buying better glass to use on a DX format body, and while I've got good zooms I was thinking about picking up some good used primes.</p>

<p>Great title to this posting Scott, I can relate to it well.....</p>

<p>What sort of photography are you intending primes for?</p>

<p>I do a LOT of action work, but have also been known to walk around town and shoot from the hip. I occassionally do weddings and events too, some days I shoot portraits, and then other times I will do something completely different. I don't like to work myself into a niche and buy equipment specifically for it, because I could get bored tomorrow and want to do something else. But, on the other hand I do shoot a lot of action/sports.</p>

<p>The 85/1.4 Nikkor 77mm filter size and the Nikkor 180/2.8 are the two prime lenses that continue providing superior picture quality on DX and FX.</p>

<p>oh, another quick addition to the question, should I be looking for DX or 35mm format primes, auto focus or manual focus, etc.?</p>

<p>My primes are all full format, and when not shooting dance competitions, I ordinarily have sufficient time to plan my shots. I am particularly fond of my 85/1.8 and 180/2.8</p>

<p>My favourites are:</p>

<p>20mm f/4 Ai - small, light, sharp and contasty. Good for so many things, but makes you work.<br>

24mm f2.8 - easy to carry and sharp. One of the best primes.<br>

35mm f/2.5 - so light and yet with low distortion and close focus capability.<br>

45mm f/2.8 - my favourite prime. So contrasty and colourful it is nearly bursting.<br>

55mm Micro. All these are great - so sharp they almost cut - and they won't break the bank.<br>

85mm f/2 - Lovely portrait lens - and easy to carry for landscape work too.<br>

100mm E - Top pocket lightness, top drawer sharpness, bottom $$ price.<br>

105mm f/2.5 - "The One"<br>

200mm f/4 - Sharp yet smooth. Makes a cracking landscape lens - and will not set you back too much cash. The Ai'd early type with 'C' coating is a cracker.</p>

<p>Enjoy!</p>

<p>i'm really starting to like my sigma 30/1.4...mmmmmn.</p><div></div>

<p>Scott, if you're into skateboarding (I checked your profile) then get yourself the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye prime, it's a top shelf piece of glass for DX bodies.</p>

<p>My favourite prime when I used to have a DX camera was the 24/2.8AFD... the 35/1.8AFS has been released later. I think I`d have prefered this one.</p>

<p>There are not so many DX primes, it all depends on the focal lenght you need. Certainly some primes are not interesting for DX.</p>

<p>AF or MF lenses? Thinking on my needs my answer is definitely AF. My eyesight don`t let me to focus MF lenses accurately on dim light, or as fast as I`d like on AF camera screens. I use them on my D700, but in real life, with MF lenses I need to put extra care and time trying to get perfect focus. Many times it means to loose the pic.</p>

<p>People tend to overestimate "good old primes". Of course, they are the cheapest ans most lightweight option if you need F2 or better, but that does not say they are good that wide open. If you can live with around F8, you are far more flexible with a good zoom, and get the same quality. That's my fivecent oppinion only, of course.</p>

<p>Wow ian, that pretty much covers any focal length I could need! Thank you!</p>

<p>Rene, I'm not expecting primes to suddenly make me a better photographer, and I understand that just because they CAN do f1.8 doesn't mean they will necessarily do it well. For me it's just something I'd like to mess around with and experiment with. As I mentioned in my second post, I don't like to keep doing one thing for too long...photographer's ADD you could say.</p>

<p>Nikon's "old" FX primes are really not what you want. They ghost and flare more than you'd expect from a modern prime. Still, I have and use a Nikon AF 24/2.8, but I wouldn't necessarily suggest it to a friend :)</p>

 

<p>Primes that I own and recommend:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Nikon 10.5/2.8 fisheye: fast, sharp, much CA, but easily correctable</li>

<li>Sigma 20/1.8: nice wide-angle macro, focuses almost down to the front lens, nice bokeh</li>

<li>Sigma 30/1.4: ultra-fast, moderate wide angle, very sharp</li>

<li>Nikon 35/1.8: fast, sharp, light, cheap, excellent value</li>

<li>Sigma 50/1.4: fast, sharp, big, best bokeh in class</li>

<li>Nikon AF 50/1.8D: fast, sharp, light, small, cheap, excellent value</li>

<li>Lensbaby 2.0: a specialty lens, can be fun</li>

<li>Sigma 70/2.8 Macro: ultra-sharp macro lens, doubles as portrait and general use lens, no distortions</li>

</ul>

 

<P>Primes that I own and wouldn't recommend:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Nikon AF 24/2.8: ghosts, flares, usable but not great, though I like the focal length</li>

<li>Nikon 50/1.2: manual focus, hard to focus wide open, sharp, creamy bokeh, made some nice images with it</li>

<li>Nikon 85/1.8: ghosts, purple fringing wide open, fast, nice bokeh, but I would recommend the Sigma 70/2.8 instead</li>

<li>Sigma 150/2.8 Macro: Big, good macro lens, little use on the streets, because it's too heavy and not stabilized</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Send me an email or comment on <a target="_blank" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/">my blog</a> if you need a detailed opinion about a certain lens.</p>

 

<p>See my <a target="_blank" href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Lens%20index">lens index</a> for images taken with these lenses.</p>

<p>When I need to shoot snapshots or vacation photos or anything where quicker decisions need to be made, give me a zoom every time. I think EVERYBODY should have a "standard zoom" of some kind, and even the very cheapest kit lenses yield good image quality these days.</p>

<p>That said, when I'm shooting for "fun", I enjoy putting on a prime and moving my feet way more.</p>

<p>I have a 35mm AF-S (DX), I just got it, like it a lot. I have a 50mm AF-D f1.8, I've had it for three years and like it a whole lot. I have a 30-year old 55mm f3.5 micro and it's my favorite lens, even though I have no metering or AF. My Tokina 11-16 f2.8 gets treated like a prime a lot, since it's basically always stuck at 11mm.</p>

<p>I want an 85mm 1.8, and I'd love a 180mm f2.8, but will probably get some 80-200 AF zoom instead someday.</p>

<p>I think once upon a time, when zooms were new, they weren't very well designed. Single focal lenses had a hundred years development behind them and were clearly better. Things are different now though. With the advent of computer design, aspherical elements, and modern lens coatings the current line up of Nikon (and Canon etc.) pro zooms are clearly equal if not better than the old single focal lenses. I tried the so-called "prime" lenses and was very disappointed with both optical performance and the limitation of a single focal length. I ended up dumping them for Nikon's best f2.8 zooms. The problems I were getting included flare, lots of CA, and the old problem of missing fast breaking shots because of having the wrong lens on. I see single focal lenses as specialty lenses. I do have a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for use when the light levels are too low even for my f2.8 zooms. So far I haven't used it much. Image quality is just slightly less than my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 at 30mm. When one becomes available I will likely buy a Nikon 300mm f4 VR and sell my 80-400mm VR. With the 300mm I should be able to attach my TC-17E. And that's about it for me. I'm just not a fan of so-called primes. I tried them, they did NOT live up to the hype. Modern zooms have passed them by. They are much more versatile, faster to use, and often the image quality is better too. If this was 1979 I'd have a different opinion, but this is 2009 and things have dramatically changed.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Love my 24mm f2.8 D lens on my D300. Also have a 55mm f3.5 micro Nikor that has been ai'd by John White that is SHARP!</p>

<p>By their nature, primes <em>should</em> be better than the zooms - they only have to do one thing - and no shunting groups of elements to go out of alignment (apart from the rare CRC models). Primes also have the advantage of being lighter and tougher (metal).</p>

<p>Last week on holiday I tested my prime lens against an equivelent zoom. The results were rather a suprise. I found the following:</p>

<p>Lenses tested: Nikon <strong>36-72mm f/3.5 </strong>zoom vs Nikon <strong>35mm f/2</strong> prime.</p>

<p>The zoom lens was almost as sharp as my prime - good detail shown. The colour was good on both lenses, with the zoom being around 95% as good as the prime. The clincher was flare though. With bright sky or sun in the frame, I could detect a loss of contast in the zoom that did not seem to affect the prime. Please note - I did not have a top 'pro' zoom lens to compare - that may be better than my more consumer oriented type.</p>

<p>I think that it is wonderful that Nikon produces primes and zooms for us to use and enjoy, but for high contast scenes I still feel that the prime lenses have the edge.</p>

<p>Other than speed, smaller and lighter, and some better distortion control, the zooms are competitive with Nikons primes.</p>

<p>For DX, find a 30 1.8 Nikkor Ais to start. </p>

<p>Scott: to play and experiment with I would recommend a 55 micro 2.8 ais, I got mine for a $100. It does close up but its not a 1:1, very, very sharp, great color and contrast.</p>

<p>I agree. Today the most important aspect of a prime is not its technical quality. Pro zooms are frequently as good or better now. For me, most important is, that a prime forces your creativity, exactly <strong>because</strong> you have the "<em>wrong</em>" focal length mounted most of the time.</p>

 

<p>I admit though, that this forced creativity is not for everybody. Some people like it, for them it works. Some don't like it, for some (e.g. photo journalists) it would be detrimental. I wouldn't use a prime for fast work under uncertain conditions either. Luckily I only produce for my photo blog, not for a living :)</p>

<p>I get superb results from all my old Nikon primes, they are a bargain in my opinion (usually sell for less than $100). I use:<br>

Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS<br>

Nikon 35mm f2 AI<br>

Nikon 55mm f2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor<br>

Nikon 105mm f2.5 K (f32 version with AI factory ring)<br>

I also have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 E which I don't use too often. I have the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D that I prefer over that one as I no longer use any Nikon manual focus cameras.<br>

I also have my late fathers Nikon F FTn that he bought new in 1969. With it is a Nikkor-H 50mm f2 and a Nikkor 28mm f3.5 C wide angle lens.<br>

A Nikkor prime is a Nikkor prime. Even if they do not have the latest coatings, they can still produce brilliant images.</p>

<p>I currently have 3 primes in my bag.</p>

<p><strong>50 1.4 AF-S</strong> - Wonderful lens. I actually like the length on DX for head and shoulders, it also nice on my F100 for walk around. Makes me want a D700 real bad. Very sharp, especially if you stop it down a bit, it starts getting super sharp at f/2. AFS isnt super fast, but its very accurate,this lens almost never hunts.</p>

<p><strong>180 2.8 </strong> - Just a great lens, very sharp. Long enough for some wild-life/sports on DX, but also short enough to frame up things when they get closer.</p>

<p><strong>300 f/4 </strong> - My sports/wildlife lens. I really wish I could afford the AF-S version (aside from the crappy tripod collar) or the 300 2.8 AFS, but this one does me for now. Its very sharp and focuses pretty fast, but if it hunts it really hunts. I get pretty good results w/ teleconverters also.</p>

<p>Primes I'd really like to add...<br>

105 VR, 20 2.8D, and if Nikon would ever make it, a 500 f/5.6</p>

<p>The only zoom I think I'd every really use is the 70-200 VR, but I'm really waiting for an upgrade so it will not vignette on my F100.</p>

<p>I agree with Andreas. I take much better pictures when I put a prime on and leave the zooms at home, because it forces me to think a little more. Sure, I occasionally lose shots. But the shots I get end up being more interesting.</p>

<p>Whereas, when I have a zoom, I find instead I tend to take a lot more "snapshots"; i.e., hey, there's something interesting, I'll just stop where I am, quickly zoom to how I want it framed, and press the shutter! I don't put any thought into what focal length I WANT to use to capture the best photo. Granted, this is my own fault rather than the lens', but for now, I'll stick with my primes at least until I can learn to think more about focal length and perspective rather than just popping off shots.</p>

<p><strong>So my question of pure opinion, is what primes do you like to use? </strong><br>

55mm 2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor - because it rocks as a 1:2 micro lens, and works really really well at infinity - pretty sums it up as dual purpose micro/walkaround lens. Affordable. Relatively compact. 1:1 with extension tube.<br>

300/4 AF-S - Not much choice really. 300/2.8 is too expensive, 70-300VR is one stop slower. Kickass image quality, do not like the bokeh in certain situations. Wish it had VR. Works very well with TC. Built-in hood rocks.<br>

<strong>Which ones would you recomend?</strong><br>

Focal lenths that YOU use the most often :) For example, I would be very unlikely to use a 35/1.8, 28/2.8 range.</p>

<p>wow, Andreas, I like that you gave me a list of primes you DON'T like, that's very cool.</p>

<p>from the sounds of things I have a bit more shopping to do, but I've been looking on KEH and have seen quite a few for cheap enough that I won't really feel ripped off if I don't like the lens ($100 or less). There are a few more (like the 10mm fisheye) that I just want to have for that specific special purpose. Then there are lenses like the 50mm f1.4 that it seems everyone agrees on. Thank you all for your input!</p>