What prime lenses worth getting for D5000?

<p>Hi all, I'm new to this forum (have been a dpreview regular). I recently bought a Nikon D5000, this marks my venture back into the world of DSLRs after 3 years in compact-land. Instead of the 18-55mm kit lens I opted for the 35mm DX f/1.8G and am glad I did--it allows me to get photos genuinely <em>different</em> from ones I can get with a compact that I can justify lugging the camera with me almost all the time.<br>

Photos like this one:<br>

<img src="http://jodoforce.smugmug.com/Other/Retouching/DSC0281-edited/900580575_ZaoWo-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /><br>

The out-of-focus background really makes you focus on my son with his new toys :) (I could have sat further to the right, straighten the focus plane to put the toys in sharper focus, but this wasn't exactly a planned shot...)</p>

<p>However with that out of the way, I'm not sure where I should go from here.</p>

<p>My interests are landscapes, people pictures, and people pictures in landscapes. I think that means I should be well covered with another wide and short tele lens, both of them preferably of wide aperture. Now that I'm having such a pleasant time with the 35mm I'm reluctant to go back to zooms--they seem too much like a good way to carry much bulk in return for getting compact-like pictures, unless I invest in monster f/2.8 zooms or get a flash and associated paraphernalia to soften flash shadows. (I seem to end up in dim interiors way too often)</p>

<p>However there just doesn't seem to be many good choices for me. My D5000 won't move AF-D lenses, so it's either AF-S for me or learn to MF. The 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 would be a no-brainer if not for this. On the wide end, there's no good choices even if I were using a D300s--the closest thing would be the 20mm f/2.8, but I could just as well get a 17-50mm f/2.8 or something like that from Sigma or Tamron. That also happens to overlap with the 35mm prime in focal length, so I'm considering the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or other wide zooms instead.</p>

<p>I could also get one of the Sigma f/1.8 primes in the 2x mm range, but the ones I tried when I was using a KM 5D in 2007 couldn't focus on the broad side of a barn, so I probably can't even use the rangefinder function on the D5000 and have to use liveview to focus...</p>

<p>The same goes for the Samyang 85mm, because as far as I see, a lens with no electronic contacts won't activate the rangefinder (this I tested by rotating my 35mm halfway off the mount to disable the contacts)...</p>

<p>Thoughts? I'm going slow on this as I won't have the finances to buy the next lens for a while anyway.</p>

<p>Folks like you should really be getting the D90 instead of the D5000. For an extra 200 bucks or so (for the body), you open yourself up to a much wider range of primes that will AF with your camera.</p>

<p>I think Nish has an excellent point. Consumer DSLRs such as the D5000, D3000 and D40 are intended for casual photographers who will buy no more than a couple of consumer AF-S zooms. The 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX works fine with them, but if the objective is to use some fixed-focal-lenght lenses and perhaps manual focusing, one should get at least the D90 for a better viewfinder.</p>

<p>I wonder why you want to use some "prime" lenses, especially if your background was digicams in the last 3 years. There are plenty of affordable DX zooms that can do a decent job, although perhaps a bit slow for indoors.</p>

<p>Shun wrote:<br>

"I wonder why you want to use some "prime" lenses, especially if your background was digicams in the last 3 years. There are plenty of affordable DX zooms that can do a decent job, <em>although perhaps a bit slow for indoors.</em>"</p>

<p>Exactly! If I have to use flash for anything but fill (and even then worry about flash shadows), and not get subject isolation from the small aperture, I'm not getting a picture significantly different from what I'd get from a compact. I sold a Canon G9 in exchange for a Nikon D50 with kit zoom last year and could not justify the extra bulk with this combination--sold it back for a Canon S90. Had to rethink everything when the S90 was smashed to bits and settled on the D5000 and 35mm prime... didn't have the money for the D90. I knew going in that buying the D5000 would constrict my lens choice, unlike entry-level models for any other make, but I like Nikon ergonomics. Might have bought Pentax though, if I had found a better deal...</p>

<p>why not just use the 35 exclusively like Henri Cartier Bresson? you've effectively ruled out fast zooms, slow zooms, MF primes, AF (but non AF-S) primes, and third party primes. oh, and the 11-16 wont AF on a D5000 and you dont want it for kid pics anyway. there's nothing left, except the 50/1.4 AF-S. and if you're trying to shed bulk, might as well stay with what you have going now.</p>

<p>if money is an issue, why not try the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for portraits?<br>

if u don't mind MF on the D5000, and have the money, Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is the right lens to go!</p>

<p>You might want to try 12-24mm F4 tokina. It has an AFS version and F4 but still useful in most setting considering you can shoot at ISO 3200 at ease these day with DSLR. The soon to be sigma 85mm 1.4 has HSM so it will AF. Bokeh / OOF is a function of distant to subject ratio as well as aperture. It can be done with the "slow" 12-24mm f4</p>

<p><a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9246457_94234289e2_o.jpg" alt="" width="696" height="466" /></a> 12-24mm F4 <a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9246458_1692e8d3ac_o.jpg" alt="" width="696" height="466" /></a> 85mm F1.4</p>

<p>If you like landscapes, an ultrawide lens will be very fun (albeit, challenging) to take pictures with. It also makes for interesting portraits because of the perspective distortion.</p>

<p>Note however, than with ultrawide lnses, you're usually not aiming to throw the background out of focus, so don't chase f/2.8 expecting that you'll get prime-like bokeh (my coworker made that mistake when he bought that Tokina lens you mentioned). The meat of these APS-C ultrawides is done around roughly f/8, to maximize sharpness, and to increase depth of field so everything is in focus. The wider you get, the more depth of field you tend to have.</p>

<p>Just throwing something out there: I know you're focused on landscape and people, but how about the 60mm AF-S micro? It's good as a longer portrait lens, and gets your foot in the door for macro.</p>

<p>If still interested after reading all the responses up to here, ...<br>

I hate to say this somehow, but Sigma beat Nikon , they make a new 85mm 1.4 lens that will focus on the nikon 5000 and alike, since it uses HSM for focussing. They also used their new SLD glass for this lens.<br>

First impressions ( I tried it at a show in Belgium..) it looks and feels great and produces a pretty darn good imgage too ..... Don't know the price yet though ...</p>

<p>I generally don't like single length lenses as they aren't very versatile, but the new Sigma 85mm f1.4 has caught my imagination. I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and love it. Most of the time I greatly prefer an f2.8 zoom though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I also love primes more and more. The 35 was a good start. The 50 would be fun although it's focal length is awkward for DX imho. If you like wide and want fast, the 11-16 from Tokina is GREAT fun.</p>

<p>But for any tele action, I'm more and more convinced that most are better off with zooms. Too much of that stuff is action/moving and you really benefit from being able to crop as you go rather than zoom with your feet (not always possible with sports/kids/stuff like that). Birds are another story.</p>

<p>But whenever I'm shooting my kid with the 35 at home, I get a little frustrated with a prime, and end up with my 18-70 or 18-200 instead.</p>

<p>If there's a 85mm HSM lens from Sigma, that's likely my choice... (although depending on finances, I may yet punt for the Samyang *g* )</p>

<p>60mm sounds like an interesting focal length on DX, but I hear bad things about making a macro lens do double duty as a portrait lens from Joseph Wisniewski...</p>

<p>Still undecided on the wide. A wide aperture would allow me to shoot in lower light as much as it would make shallow DOF (maybe not so much of the latter)--but I'm finding that poor *quality* of light may yet force me to invest in flash and bounce equipment sooner than I think, although here again I'm loathe to move and shoot with the extra bulk. If I chuck the speed requirement, lots of AF-S / HSM ultrawides to choose from.</p>

<p>Does anybody have good things to say about the Sigma 20mm f/1.8? It's the only game in town for a fast wide prime, but image quality is apparently...?</p>

<p>the 35m f/1.8mm will not be a bad overlap with the tamron 17-50mm or sigma 18-50mm. in fact they will complement well for your camera and kind of shooting. when i have my sigma 18-50mm on, i still have the nikon 35mm in my pocket.......unless you're into ultra wide, then the sigma 20mm will complement well, too. have not tried that lens, though.</p>

<p>the nikon sb-400 is a nice little unit for but has its limitations --- as you already know, lesser power than the sb-600 and bounce only. i carry an sb-400 in my going-to-the-office bag together with the D60 and 35mm f/1.8. when i have less files in my bag, i mount the nikon 18-70mm.......... i have the same gear for the out-with-the-grandkids bag.</p>

<p>bottom line, i think, is that you are going to be challenged in what you want to do--use fast primes for low-light/bokeh--as long as you have a d5000 as your primary body. i have the 12-24/4 tokina, but there's a big difference between shooting wide open at f/4 and shooting wide open at f/1.4. and the bokeh is only so-so, and only then when you focus real close. nobody has mentioned the Voigtlander 40/2 and 58/1.4, but these are MF lenses. and, to be honest, MF is not optimal for kid pics, especially at narrow apertures. also the d5000 has a small viewfinder which will make MF difficult. the sigma 85/1.4 will likely cost as much or more as the nikon version when it comes out--at that price, you'd be better off IMO selling the d5000 and getting a D90, which gives you much wider latitude in prime selection, as shun has (once again) pointed out.</p>

<p>Here are some to consider with approx. prices:</p>

<ul>

<li>HSM Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC Fisheye $650</li>

<li>AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED $2000</li>

<li>HSM Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC $440</li>

<li>AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G $440</li>

<li>HSM Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG $500</li>

<li>AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED $550</li>

<li>AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR $500</li>

<li>HSM Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG $900</li>

<li>AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $890</li>

<li>HSM Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX APO DG Macro $750</li>

<li>a whole load of Nikkor $1000+ AF-S telephoto primes</li>

</ul>

<p>If I were you, my next lens would be based on what I want to shoot. Landscapes? For a reasonable price, a wide zoom is the best option. People? This is going to depend on how far away you are, how much of the person you want to show, and how much "flattening" of facial features you desire (more flattening = longer focal length). A lot of people love the 105mm micro as a portrait lens, others prefer the 50mm, and still others the 85mm. Some even shoot portraits with the 200mm f/2! </p>

<p>If you're going to be in a normal house, you may not have the space to back up and use a long lens, in which case the 50mm is a better choice. If you want to give your subject room to move without sticking a camera in their face, and/or your living room is like 100ft long, then go with something longer. People debate a lot about what distance to photograph people from; in fact, academic research has been done on the subject:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Realistic portraits, whether paintings or photographs, are traditionally obtained using perspective projection. Pictures of the face taken from different distances along the same viewing direction (e.g. frontal) may be scaled to occupy the same size on the image plane. However, such portraits differ systematically: e.g. when the center of projection (the camera) is closer to the face the nose is proportionally larger in the picture. These differences are small (for typical camera distances of 50-500cm): do they have an effect on how the face is perceived? <br /><br /><em><strong>Ten naive subjects of both sexes, viewed equally scaled frontal pictures of 15 neutral-expression adult male faces, each photographed from distances of 56, 124 and 400cm. </strong></em>The photographs were corrected for lens distortion to obtain ideal perspective projections. The subjects were asked to rate each portrait according to 13 attributes (evil-good, repulsive-attractive, hostile-friendly, pushy-respectful, sad-happy, dishonest-honest, introvert-extrovert, violent-peaceful, dumb-smart, distant-approachable, evasive-candid, week-strong, unpleasant-pleasant). While the subjects were unaware of the manipulation, their ratings are systematically correlated with the distance: <em><strong>faces imaged from the closer distance appear significantly more benevolent (good, peaceful, pleasant, approachable), those taken from a larger distance appear more impressive (smarter, stronger). Intermediate-distance portraits appeared more attractive.</strong></em> The remaining attributes are not significantly different across distance. <br /><br /><em><strong>Our findings suggest that painters and photographers may manipulate the emotional content of a portrait by choosing an appropriate viewing distance: e.g. a formal and official portrait may benefit from a distant viewpoint, while an effect of intimacy and opennes may be obtained with a close viewpoint.</strong></em> Multiple inconsistent viewpoints found in classical full-length portraits may be explained by the need to combine close-up views of some body parts, within an overall undistorted figure. <br />D. Freedberg, S. Shimojo, R. Adolphs, P. Hanrahan<br>

<a href="http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/" target="_blank">http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>settled on the D5000 and 35mm prime... didn't have the money for the D90.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Folks, before you follow up any further, please pay attention to that comment by Joe, the OP.</p>

<p>Invest in Nikon glass for the long run...even if you have to learn to manually focus. Upgrade your body when you can afford it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Folks, before you follow up any further, please pay attention to that comment by Joe, the OP.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, I agree with you on that, but some other remarks from the OP :</p>

<blockquote>

<p> My D5000 won't move AF-D lenses, so it's either AF-S for me or learn to MF. The 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 would be a no-brainer if not for this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thoughts? I'm going slow on this as I won't have the finances to buy the next lens for a while anyway</p>

</blockquote>

<p> still made me suggest to have a look at the new sigma 85mm ... , knowing it is not available in the shops yet ( at least not here in The Netherlands)</p>

 

<p>My point is that the idea to use "primes" (other than the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S) on the D5000 does not make a whole lot of sense; that kind of restriction simply leads to the suggestions of a lot of silly combinations. I see no reason why using zooms would be a problem, and if the OP has the money to buy some expensive lenses that are close to $1000 or perhaps more, he might as well upgrade the body first.</p>

<p>This is most interesting reading, seeing as I have a D5000 as well. I still use the 18-55 kit lens, but find I do quite a bit with my 50mm F1.4 AF-S. Was not really cheap, but I think a good investment.<br>

I find it is quite usable for alot of stuff. You do adjust to the lens it seems.<br>

And yes, I have been eyeing that Sigma 85 as well. Hopefully the price is decent.<br>

Will be following this thread with some interest.</p>

<p>"bottom line, i think, is that you are going to be challenged in what you want to do--use fast primes for low-light/bokeh--as long as you have a d5000 as your primary body. i have the 12-24/4 tokina, but there's a big difference between shooting wide open at f/4 and shooting wide open at f/1.4. and the bokeh is only so-so, and only then when you focus real close."</p>

<p>Eric, what AF-D wide lens am I giving up that would have f/1.4?</p>

<p>In the long run, guys, do you suppose Nikon will come out with more AF-S primes at different focal lengths? I'm not speaking in terms of lens speculations, but just general Nikon policy. I suppose the current situation with AF-S only low-end bodies came about mainly because Nikon realized it would be at a long-term cost disadvantage vs Canon if it committed to AF-D in the long run... but would updating all lenses to AF-S like Canon be the goal in the long run, or does Nikon intend to use AF-D as a bar for entry to high-end permanently? That would seem inconsistent with the fact that AF-S is usually superior to AF-D... another complication is that there may not be much customer demand for primes anymore, even among pros.</p>

<p>Joe. looking at the latest releases from Nikon, my guess is they are going to be pushing AF-S.<br>

Their most recent lenses are not cheap hobby grade lenses, and they were all AF-S.<br>

BTW, I have at times had to use manual focus on my D5000. With the focus assist light, it's not a huge problem. Just manual focussing the kit lens is a pain.</p>

<p>The 105/2.8 VR would be an excellent choice. It will work with your D5000. It's great for landscapes, portraits, and macro work. You should be able to find an excellent condition used one for around $750.</p>

<p>OK, first, how do you quote somebody on here? Copy & paste doesn't work, and clicking on the " symbol does nothing...</p>

<p>As for the topic, I wonder what the reasoning is behind all of the D5000 sentiment on here. Is it just because it's cheaper than the D90 and so deemed inferior? Invariably, whenever someone mentions they have a D5000, someone has to pipe in and say "<em>Why don't you just get the D90, it's only $200 more for the body</em>"</p>

<p>That's all well and good, IF you have the extra $200 to spend, some people don't. And of course, you still need a lens, how much more will that cost? Another $200? But that's always conviently left out, because the D90 body is only $200 more, right? Sounds better than saying you have to really pay $400 more if you actually want to take pictures with the D90. Nothing against the D90, it's a great camera for a great reason. I just don't understand all the hate towards the D5000.</p>

<p>End rant.</p>

<p><em>"Eric, what AF-D wide lens am I giving up that would have f/1.4?"</em><br>

joe, i was referring to the tokina 12-24/4's usage as a low-light/wide solution. i'm just saying that in dim light, shooting wide open at f/4 isnt going to be as effective in those situations as shooting at 1.4, 1.8, or f/2. to answer your question, there is the older 28/1.4, but that's cost-prohibitive, i suspect, since the lowest used price a quick web search reveals is about 3x the cost of the d5000.</p>

<p>my basic point was that if you had a d90, you could AF with a wide prime like the sigma 20/1.8 or even a fast UWA like the tokina 11-16, and that manual focusing a 1.4 or 1.8 lens wide open to capture a moving subject such as children will be nigh impossible, especially with a small viewfinder. i wouldnt recommend anything wider than 20mm on APS-C, actually, for kid pics, since you can end up with distorted body parts and faces where you dont want them. i'm also not quite sure why you aren't considering the tamron 17-50. i have that and the sigma 30/1.4, and they only overlap at exactly one focal length. i think there is some romanticism to using a prime, but not as much practicality in real-world usage. the 17-50 has pretty decent bokeh, btw, and it's fairly compact so it wouldnt unbalance your d5000.</p>

<p>IMO your basic conceit, that a DSLR with a variable aperture zoom gives essentially the same results as a P&S in a much larger package, isn't quite true. the nikon 18-70, for instance, is fairly compact and is f/3.5 at the wide end up until about 24mm i think. it's also only 4.5 at 70mm, as opposed to 5.6 for all the other nikon kit zooms. but DoF aside, this is really only true if you are shooting a DSLR like a P&S and printing no larger than 4x6.</p>

<p>also, there are P&S cameras that actually have better DoF control than DSLRS with kit lenses, like the canon s90 and the panasonic lx-3, both of which have f/2 lenses and full manual controls. those can probably handle printing at 8x10, though they wont be as good above ISO 800.</p>

<p>if you're saying you really like the effect of shallow DoF and sub-2.8 apertures and prefer primes over zooms for this reason, that's one thing, but you are limited by your current body in this regard, which affects your lens selection choices. there's just no way around that without compromising performance or usability, i'm afraid. that's why i suggested just learning to love the 35/1.8 a lot.</p>

<p><em>"In the long run, guys, do you suppose Nikon will come out with more AF-S primes at different focal lengths?"</em></p>

<p>the short answer here is, don't hold your breath.</p>

<p>the long answer is, nikon satisfied its consumer market with the 35/1.8 and the pro/ advanced enthu$ia$t market with the 24/1.4. if you have an entry-level body, you are expected to use the 35 and be happy. i think we will see more primes from 3rd party makers which plug gaps in nikon's lineup, because these guys have to get in where they fit in. but you are correct that modern zooms are so good, there is less demand for primes among both pros and consumers. nikon practically has to add AF-S to the 85/1.4 once the sigma HSM version comes out, but that lens is going to be much more expensive than the AF-D version, which is already costly. and sure, it would be nice to see an AF-S 180/2.8, not to mention an AF-S version of 14, 18, 20, and 28mm primes. but if and when these appear, and they may not ever appear, they will be marketed toward FX users, not the consumer market.</p>

<p><em>"I'm not speaking in terms of lens speculations, but just general Nikon policy. I suppose the current situation with AF-S only low-end bodies came about mainly because Nikon realized it would be at a long-term cost disadvantage vs Canon if it committed to AF-D in the long run... but would updating all lenses to AF-S like Canon be the goal in the long run, or does Nikon intend to use AF-D as a bar for entry to high-end permanently?"</em></p>

<p>many of nikon's marketing decisions dont make a lot of sense to a lot of people<em>--</em>thom hogan has a lot of thoughts on this-<em>-</em>but the basic idea is that they want to maintain market share in segments which are growing. unfortunately, the DSLR market may have already peaked, if thom's analysis is correct.</p>

<p>what this means is that nikon wants to move you up the ladder. if you have a d5000, they want you to move to a d90. if you have a d90, they want you to move to a d300. if you have a d300, they want you to move to a d700. if you have a d700, they want you to move to a D3X. the way to do this is by not offering a full range of choices across all market segments. which makes sense, actually, because an entry-level body owner who develops an affinity for primes is not going to represent the majority of purchasers by a long shot.</p>

<p><em>"That would seem inconsistent with the fact that AF-S is usually superior to AF-D..."</em></p>

<p>not necessarily. there are two kinds of AF-S. consumer AF-S, i.e. 18-55 and 55-200, and pro AF-S, i.e. 17-55 and 70-200.</p>

<p>also you have to define "superior." do you mean focus speed or IQ?</p>

<p> </p>