Zoom or Fixed Focal Length

<p>I made the plunge last year to digital after 35 years of convential color and B&W photography. During that period of time I got along fine with my Nikormat FTN and three fixed length lenses (28, 50 & 105mm). I never needed anything longer or shorter than those. I bought a Nikon D40x just to get accustomed to things with the 18-135 zoom (kit version). I'm going to upgrade the body as I prefer manually to set exposures to get the depth of field I want and the 40x is somewhat cumbersome in this regard relative to either the D80 or 90 (I have not decided on which body to get). <br>

My question is whether I will get better performance with the new 18-85mm zoom or pick up the three fixed focal l ength lenses as I had before (I realize there will be a price differential particularly with the cost of the 105mm l ens). I would appreciate any thoughts on this.<br>

�</p>

<p>It is a personal thing. Some prefer the lightness and compact primes and some prefer the convenience of zooms. In general you can get a little better image quality with a prime at similar price point. Of course there are lots of exceptions.</p>

<p>either the D200 or D300 will allow you to meter with some older fixed focal length Nikon Lenses</p>

<p>I would use the lenses I had on the D40x. If you want them to meter, but sure they are Ai or later and put them on a D200 or 300 or better yet a 700. Since you already have lenses, the 700 is not a big stretch and they will operate just like they did on film.</p>

<p>The 18/135 can fully operate in a 5 MP crop mode on FX cameras. The results are amazing. Full Fx is even better.</p>

<p>For grins i made a 40x60 inch blow up of my D700 file on 24" iMac. Sharpness was maintained and way better than 35mm film I have seen blown to 5`. </p>

<p>If you usually shoot within the middle range, the main reason to get primes would be for a faster f-stop. If bokeh is important to you, definitely go for something like the Sigma 30 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 (or new Nikon 50). But if a slower lens is fine, a midrange zoom would be just as sharp in practice and would save you a lot of lens changing. Dust on the sensor is more of an issue than dust in a film SLR. It's best to not have to change lenses outside on windy days. I'd suggest looking at the Tamron 17-50 2.8, the Nikon 17-55 2.8, or even the Nikon 18-55 VR. Those are all excellent lenses. One of them should fit your shooting style at any price range you are looking for.</p>

<p>I use my old 24,35 and 85mm lenses on my D300. Slight modification to allow it to clear the apature prong on the body. </p>

<p>I use the histogram to get exposres. I do not use the auto function. I think their IQ is lower than the 16-85mm but thier look is great.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>As Hansen said, it's a personal thing, but for what it's worth, I shot film with fixed focal length lenses for 30 years before going digital. I find that I still prefer fixed focal lengths in most situations. A lot of it is weight and f# speed related, but not all. I'm not opposed to zooms, but I use them in situations where it's impractical to be swapping lenses as I need. I don't use them if I can avoid it, because I actually find that the zoom feature gets in the way compositionally. Maybe that's a personal deficiency, but for me the fixed focal lengths seem to provide some helpful structure as I'm composing. Not that I'm any great artiste.</p>

<p>You're dealing with a crop factor now so you could consider a 20/2.8, 35/2, and 85/1.8 to match what you have. So that's about $1200 USD. I would not limit myself to this range but if I did I would also have to consider the 14-24, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 for an extra $400. </p>

<p>If you are used to manual focus as I am then your option could be a better body, like the D200/D300/used D2X, and used AI and AIS lenses like the 20/2.8, 35/2, and 85/1.8, so about $800 in lenses. Perhaps you even have an AI lens or two.</p>

<p>Alan, I'm going to join the chorus for using the lenses you have - the old adage "if it works, don't fit it" seems to apply here. Those lenses have been serving your needs for field of view, focusing, brightness, sharpness for along time, so why change? The effective focal length will change with a DX camera, but they'll cover almost the entire range you are used to, plus some on the longer end. That means you'd just need to look for a wide angle, and since it would be the only lens you'd need to get, you could afford to be a bit fussy about the quality.<br>

I still use the 28 and 50 I got with my Nikkormats, but I don't use the 105, 135, or 200 since I got an 80-400 VR. The old AI lenses don't meter with my D70 or D80, but that hasn't been a problem - the shots I use them for don't require rapid exposure-setting decisions. But the old 28 and 50 lenses are the sharpest glass I own.<br>

As for the impracticality of swapping lenses sometimes, I recommend you also keep the D40X to carry with a different lens on it.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the answers, these are very helpful. Regarding my old lenses, the only one that may be compatable is the 105mm since it is a PC lens. the other two are older HC lenses which I don't believe will work on digital cameras (at least I cannot find anything in the literature that says they will; and in any case I have the 1.5 multiplier factor to consider).</p>

<p>Hi Allan,</p>

<p>Any AI or AIS lens can be mounted on the D80/D90, but the camera will not meter. Non-AI lenses can be converted. I have used John White at <a href="http://www.aiconversions.com/">http://www.aiconversions.com/</a> and was very satisfied with his work.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the D300 (and older D200) will meter with your manual focus lenses, once the lenses have been converted to AI. I realize the D300 is more expensive than the D90, but is it more expensive with replacement lenses than the D300 using your converted lenses?</p>

<p>Alan, I too am going to join the chorus for using the lenses you have, and the D40x. The D40 will even work with non-Ai lenses without conversion. If you really wanted to upgrade, go for the D300 or higher, but don't expect the D80 D90 to be a vast improvement. You can still set manual exposure on the D40 with the one wheel and the ev button for the other control, if i recall. Use the kit lens for the wide angle. I have the D300, but the D40 fits in my pocket more easily.</p>

<p>Alan, just to clarify. The D40/D40X (and maybe the D60?) are the only current Nikon DSLRs that can mount pre-AI lenses such as the H.C and P.C but with no metering. The aperture is set on the lens and the shutter speed on the body (so only one wheel is needed). Exposure is fully manual and set by guesstimating and fine tuning after looking at the histogram on the LCD or by using an external light meter.</p>

<p>If I was using the same three lenses for almost my entire life, I have a hard time imagining that I'd be happy with three new focal lengths just because I bought a new camera. So it would be a choice of 3 new primes or a zoom.<br>

I tried shooting with a zoom, just could not get used to the size and the loss of 2 stops. I ended up right back with a prime lens that best matched my favorite focal length (50mm), it was the Sigma 30/1.4. Once I went to full-frame I bought the 50/1.4. I bet money that's where you'll end up too.</p>

<p>Again, many thanks for the further comments. I tried my old lenses on the D40x and the mount without a hitch. I still have my auxiliary Sekonic zoom light meter so TTL metering is not an absolute must. The problem with the 28mm lens is that it's largest aperture is f3.5 so I don't save anything on using it over the zoom I presently have. The 50 and 105mm lenses are both great and I'll plan on seeing how they work in terms of resolution and ease of use. I'll stick with the D40x for several more months to see if I really need to step up and if so I'll take various commenters advice to move up to the D300 if necessary. I do think I'll look into the 16-85mm zoom and see if it's less bulky than the 18-135mm that I have.</p>