Zoom Lens or Prime?

<p>Sorry about asking a "Which lens" question, but!<br>

I travelled some distance to get a particular shot I wanted, and not knowing the area around the location. I took my D300, 12-24 f4, 50 f1.4, and 70-200 f2.8, but unfortunately I needed something between the 24 and 50.<br>

At some expense I am travelling back to the location to re-shoot, so need something around 35mm with me. I never liked 50mm lenses when I shot with film, so do not own or really desire a 35mm prime.<br>

The only lens I have to cover the gap is a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, so I have been looking at 35mm f2 AIS and AFD primes. It is funny that Nikon knew my predicament and is rushing out a new f1.8 :-).<br>

I will be shooting a building at dusk from some distance, the camera will be on a sturdy tripod and I can use the best aperture f8 for the lens. The 18-70 will also be in the middle of of it's focal range, which should help.<br>

The question is will I see a difference in quality in this situation, between the 18-70 and a 35mm prime?</p>

<p>The 18-70 is kind of a junky lens. The 35-70/2.8 zoom lens is one of the best Nikon ever offered, and is widely available used at reasonable prices. A 24-70/2.8 AFS would be better, but at 3 times the price.</p>

<p>Edward, I do not use the 18-70 and do not normally want a zoom in that range. So would a 35mm prime not be a better purchase for this shot?</p>

<p>I've tested the 18-70mm against some primes and the 18-70mm is about as good as a low cost zoom can get. You'll have a faster lens in a prime but the AIS will only be manual focus, which can be a little tricky with a digital SLR. I love my 35mm f2 AI prime, but preferred the 28mm f2.8 AIS prime when shooting with my D300.</p>

<p>Anthony, sounds like a good job for Nikon's new 35 mm f1.8 prime. The price isn't a killer and the promo shots for it look good. Maybe that would be your best bet. Then you'll have it for other uses. Like you say..."it's funny that Nikon just released it." Maybe they were thinking of you:-)</p>

<p>The 18-70 is FAR from a "junky" lens--one of the real Nikon bargains. Yes, the f2.8 lenses are faster but it's also a matter of finances for a lot of people. If the 18-70 is used properly--stopped down on a tripod--the average viewer won't be able to tell if the image came from it or pro (expensive) Nikkor zoom.</p>

<p>The 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is a digital gem, because it uses the center of the images only.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan likes it: http://www.bythom.com/1835lens.htm</p>

<p>Another good choice would be the 20-35 f/2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I never liked 50mm lenses when I shot with film"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny, I loved the 50mm with film, hated it with the digital crop. That's why they make so many lenses, Anthony.<br>

<br />To satisfy myself, I picked up the 35mm f/2 and found 'normal' comfort again. However, the just announced 35mm f/1.8 may be even better plus it's less expensive. If you wait a bit for the stores to stock them, it will be an inexpensive way to fill in that focal length hole and get the shot you want.</p>

<p>Hard question. An f2.0 35mm prime is a very easy lens to design well, and they tend to be among the highest performers. You're talking "building at dusk", that's a really tricky lighting situation. Here's my 3 top choices, in order...</p>

<p>Pretty much the only zoom I've ever used that can really hold its own in that arena is the new 24-70mm f2.8, a $1600, 2 pound monster. It's easily as flare resistant as any prime 35mm or 28mm I've ever used (an amazing accomplishment, kudos to Nikon). It can hold up pretty well against a <a href="http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/F059B023D3F70687C12571EC0051BB9E#5">Zeiss 35mm f2 Distagon</a> , no small feat. It's sharp enough for slow B&W film like tech-pan or a D3X. In the center, with a D300, you simply never have seen anything like it. If there's expense involved with this trip, rent it.</p>

<p>The Zeiss would also be a good ghoice for this project, if you're comfirtable with manual focus. Tripod mode liveview on a D300 makes focusing a MF lens surprisingly easy in your kind of application.</p>

<p>If you're not going to shoot it wide open, the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 DX AF-S VR is far from a "junky lens". It's much more frequently described with phrases like "underestimated" or "a little gem". I was always quite impressed by what it could do at f8. It's also quite surprising on its flare control, much better than any f2.8 I've ever shot.</p>

<p>I'm not alone. <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS18-70G">Bjorn Rorslett</a> has this to say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Looks like Nikon has come forward with a real winner this time. For the high-resolution cameras such as D2X, however, the weaknesses of the design are easier to detect, but not all applications to which this lens is put will show them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main reason I no longer own one is that, out of about 35 lenses I own, it's the only thing that takes 67mm filters. I've become totally addicted to the B+W MRC coating filters (they really do stay cleaner than other filters and clean up easier when they do get dirty) a good circular polarizer, 80A, and ND would end up costing me over $300. I decided my 17-55mm f2.8 would get lugged around rather than spring for more filters.</p>

<p>The 35-70mm f2.8 was quite an achievement in its time, but by today's standards it's kind of long in the tooth. It has a much greater tendency to flare than the 24-70mm f2.8 or the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5. That practically screams out "avoid a building at dusk". Two things that may not matter to you, but do to me: the flare varies dramatically with changes in angle (which renders it a really poor choice for stitched panoramas) and I'm also not that fond of lenses whose front elements rotate when focusing (I like my polarizers too much).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you have a 18-70mm and will be shooting at f8 I don't see the need to purchase another lens unless you will be enlarging beyond 11x14. I suspect a prime will be a very few percentage points better and you would not tell the difference at 11x14. I enjoyed my 18-70 with my D200 and I like my 35mm f2 AIS on my D700. I have yet to print more than 11x14 but I do pixel peep.</p>

<p>My preference is increasingly moving towards prime lenses in many situations. Zooms are convenient and the best modern zooms are close to the best primes. But its very seldom that you hear anyone claim a zoom is better than the equivalent prime in image quality. The other thing that is pushing me towards primes, is that using a prime forces me to take more care and LOOK at the picture I am about to take form various angles. Its too easy with a zoom to stand where youa re and zoom in and out. Maybe missing the really great shot that was available from a vantage point just around the corner. Finally the maximum aperture of primes is a big advantage in some situations. The ability to isolate a subject from the background has been forgotten in a lot of situations.<br>

Having said this I still use both as there are times when you just want one good lens and a camera.</p>

<p>I would have to agree that the 18-70mm is quite a good lense, at least my copy is. In addition to the above quoted Rorslett's opinion of it, you might want to check the review of it at photozone.de, in comparison to some of the higher priced non-kit lenses. The only real failing of it, is wide open at its widest focal length setting.<br>

Anyway, if you have one, use it. I have one that nearly lives on a D200. I also have a 35mm f/2 AF D. The 35 is my favorite lense on my digital bodies (DX). Yes, it's IQ is better than the 18-70, but its IQ is better (again, see photozone.de) than nearly all the digital period Nikkor lenses. But; <br />The 18-70 you have is no slouch. Use it, and wait to see the test results on the new 35mm DX, in comparison to the older 35mm AF D, before deciding.<br />And, have fun making that special picture.</p>

 

<p>Thank you all for your replies.<br />I do not think the 18-70 is "Junky" that is why I have not sold it. But I just do not use or need a zoom in this range.<br />I'm hoping the new 35mm f1.8 is going to be a killer lens, but it will not be available in time for this project. But that is the rub, I don't want to buy an older f2 in case it is.<br />Joseph, I will be using a tripod f8 and middle of the 18-70 focal range, but do worry about flare. Your suggestion of renting is a good idea, and I have a local pro shop so could easily pick up the 24-70. So will I see a difference in quality between the cheap 18-70 and expensive 24-70 at f8? Or what about renting the 35mm f2 instead?<br />The one zoom I would be tempted to purchase is the 17-55 as they are now available used for £500 GBP. The advantage of shooting DX now the format is deemed amateur by the FX owners.<br />But the 17-55 would be more susceptible to flare than a prime surely?</p>

<p>Resistance to flare is probably the best reason to use a prime lens in preference to a zoom. You still need to observe certain precautions. If you use a protective filter, remove it when shooting into the light or bright background. If there is a bright light just outside the field of view, move the camera or shield the lens with a good shade (compendium is best), hat or even your hand.</p>

<p>A 17-55 is an optimal lens for events and weddings, but is said to be a little soft at infinity. If your main objective is landscapes or architecture, a 17-35/2.8 would be a better choice (and about the same cost), and is a full-frame lens.</p>

<p>Just a comment about your last entry, Anthony...do you really think that shooting DX is deemed amateur by FX owners? Personally, I think you have to look at DX as just another format, not necessarily an inferior one.</p>

<p>Joseph, I reread your post, so the 24-70 is going to give the best quality even at f8.<br>

I will hire one for the trip, and worry about the prime when the new 35 is available.<br>

Thank you all again, you have helped me come to a decision.<br>

The crazy thing is I was paid for the first shoot, and the client was very pleased with the 50mm images. Now I'm spending any profit made, scratching an itch to get the image I should of bagged first time around.</p>

<p>Edward, Thanks for the heads up on the 17-55, you have reminded me why I never bought one.<br>

Richard, There are plenty of comments by FX owners describing the DX format amateur. I of course don't think so because that is what I have :-)<br>

I was just observing how the Jump to FX has reduced the price of used Pro DX glass.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that all but a few of Nikon's single focal lenses are older design with older pre-digital coatings. I tried them but had major problems with CA. I switched to Nikon's best modern zooms (17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8) and the problem was greatly diminished. As for OP's question, if you are stopping the 18-70mm down to f5.6 or f8, I highly doubt you'll see a diference. From my experience, most of the time the quality difference between a mid-priced lens and a high priced fast lens comes at the wide open end, not the middle.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>