question re: prime lens

[petra_mallett]

I have been reading the archives and found that many experienced

photographers suggest using a prime (ex:50mm/1.4d) lens in lieu of a

zoom (ie:28-200mm/3.5-5.6) for optically sharper pictures. I agree

that the 28-200mm on a DSLR (D50) lacks clarity when the zoom is

maxed. And whereas my 28-105mm is crystal clear, it doesn't always

bring me close enough to the subject as the 200mm would. So my

question is this: How would the 50mm benefit my want/need?? (I

apologise in advance if this question has been asked repeatedly,

however I am but a mere babe in this world of photography and

desperately need guidance). Thanks in advance to all who respond.

[ben conover]

One reason to use primes is the extra speed for size. A 50mm 1.4 is very handy in low light, more useful than a slow zoom.

 

I think if you get a few fast primes used and cheap off ebay you can try to find good uses for them, since it is you that will be making that decisive moment anyway.

 

Perhaps it is about flexibility and the need to use differnt lenses for different needs.

 

Cheers.

[scott_linstead]

I guess the 50mm wouldn't benefit you if you want reach. It will just be advantageous over the zoom at 50mm for a number of reasons, including image quality considerations(contrast sharpness, etc.) as well as "handholdability" in low light and subject isolation (blurred out background) because of the large aperture.

 

One of the reasons the f1.8 version of the 50mm is pushed on everyone(not by salesman, however) is that it is the best optical "bang for the buck" around. It is simply a focal length that is easy to build to a high optical standard.

 

I guess the bottom line is that the 50mm would not help you for reach, only for other applications that you are not as interested in.

[websterforrest]

This is a very good question - so no need to feel bashful.

 

Another reason to consider a prime lens over a zoom lens is that not having the instant

zooming ability can also 'force' you into thinking more about how to frame a picture: with

a zoom it's easy, just zoom in or out until you get the framing that looks best. With a

prime, you may find that you develop the habit of looking out for new ways of presenting

a scene which are created by the limitation of having only one focal length.

 

Don't forget, Henri Cartier-Bresson - who many people would regard as one of the very

best photographers of all time - used the same lens for the vast majority of his work: a

50mm lens on a 35mm camera. His was a Leica, but the optical quality of that 1930's Leica

is not even as good as today's 50mm prime lenses from Canon or Nikon; but he made it

work for him by learning its strengths and weaknesses. A single prime lens can actually be

very LIBERATING, rather than restrictive. And the best part is, they are invariably cheaper

than the optically-inferior zooms anyway!

 

Best of luck, and enjoy!

 

Webster Forrest

[robbie_caswell]

I have the 50mm f/1.2 AIS version and the AFD version f/1.4 and of the two I like the autofocus version better. My F100 has the electronic RF so either works well in manual mode of needed.

 

The AIS version suprised me because it has some heft to it. For roughly $200 (Hint hint...look on ebay) it gives tremendous bang for the buck.

 

I dont own any zooms and just don't like them. For me faster is better. But to each there own, but I would think a fast 50mm should be a part of everyones bag.

 

I also own the 85mm + 28mm f/1.4 but 50mm is my favorite focal length.

[frank uhlig]

Petra,

 

your need appears to be a good 200mm lens, so "How would the 50mm benefit my want/need??" carries the simple answer: Not at all. The best number one srewdriver will not help you when you need a number 4 Phillips screwdriver. Understood, I hope.

 

If you want a good 200mm prime, look into the 180mm/200mm f/2 or f/2.8 primes. If you want a good wide angle prime, look into good wide primes. etc.

 

I do not quite know if I understood your question correctly, though.

To replace one 7 times prime like the 28 - 200 zoom, you would probably need one 28mm prime, one 50mm prime, one 85mm prime, and now you have options: a good 1.4 TC and a 135mm lens, or a 135mm lens and a 200mm lens.

 

So, a 7x zoom can be "replaced" only by a number of primes if you want to have the same angle of view range. Clear enough?

[petra_mallett]

Thanks so much to all who have replied. And yes Frank, I get it. And what I finally get is that unless I want to fork out a large sum of money (which my hubby would kill me for since I am SUCH an amateur) for serious lens, I need stick with what will serve me best (presuming I know what that is). Speed, sharpness, clarity, are more important to me at this point than zoom ratio, so you all have helped me to eliminate one part of my problem. Now I need to decide which prime I would most like to start with: 24mm/2.8D; 28mm/2.8D; 50mm/1.8;or the macro 60mm/2.8d?? I've heard the macro can be used as a standard and macro altho I understand the weight factor is not favorable. My current everday use lens is a 28-105mm, however the telephoto ratio is lacking. I have my kit lens (18-55DX) that came with my D50, however its performance is a little lacking (most of which I am sure is me). I realize I need to just practice, practice, practice, but I want the wider range two lens will give my learning curve than the range one lens will offer. Am I making sense?? Thanks again.

[dean_tomasula1]

The reason most pros prefer primes over zooms is because in the past (when zooms first became popular in the '70s) they weren't very sharp. Today that's changed, as many zooms are very good.

 

Of course, a prime lens will probably be faster. But there are some good fast zooms out there from the camera makers that maintain their apreture throught the zoom length. They are expensive though.

[lex_jenkins]

It takes a while for a beginning photographer to discover the direction they wish to pursue. You may not be ready yet to add any other lens to your collection.

 

A 50mm "normal" lens (normal, according to the 35mm film paradigm) is an excellent value. Terrific sharpness at a low to moderate price. At around $100 U.S. the 50mm f/1.8D AF-Nikkor is the best lens in the entire Nikkor lineup when considered on a price:performance basis. You could spend 10 times as much money for, say, the 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor and not get a lens that is 10 times sharper or "better".

 

OTOTH, if your aspirations are to photograph wildlife, sports or other activities that require an excellent telephoto at a reasonable price, almost any 300mm f/4 or f/4.5 Nikkor is the best bang for the buck in a long telephoto. But $1,000 or so for a new 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor is nothing to sneeze at for many of us who have tight budgets for photo gear. I settled for an older manual focus 300mm Nikkor because it was a fraction of the price and still meters with my D2H dSLR.

 

The best value in a Nikkor telephoto may be the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor. There are several variations. You'd want to get one of the AF versions. The most recent version is the 180mm f/2.8 D AF-Nikkor. The "D" is designed to be compatible with the more sophisticated metering and flash available with the most current Nikon SLRs and dSLRs. A new one is almost half the price of a 300/4 AF-S Nikkor and all of the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkors have long been considered top performers. The autofocus of an AF-Nikkor is not as quick as that of an AF-S Nikkor, however, so while it may be suitable for many wildlife pursuits, it may be more difficult to use for really active sports. Or you can resort to manual focus, which really isn't that difficult to get the hang of. With a dSLR you have lots of opportunities for practice because you're not burning money on film when you make mistakes.

 

If your interests lean toward close up photography of bugs and buds the 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is a very good buy. Some photographers prefer a longer macro lens to put more distance between the subject and themselves, but many of us get by just fine with shorties. I've used 50mm and 55mm macros for years on my Olympus and Nikon SLRs and haven't been seriously tempted to switch.

 

So, the main decision you have to consider now is a primary pursuit - at least for the time being. Whatever interests you most, get a lens to suit. Don't get a 60mm macro lens if you have an itch to photograph kids' sports - you'd want a 180mm or 300mm lens for that. Don't get a 300mm lens if your main interest is available light (no flash) photography of moms and babies in a natural setting - you'd want a 50mm lens for that.

 

And just to add a bit of pepper to the stew, Sigma now makes a 30mm f/1.4 autofocus lens that is actually closer to a "normal" lens on any currently available Nikon dSLR. That's because the 30mm lens on a Nikon dSLR approximates the angle of view of a 50mm lens on a Nikon film SLR. The Sigma is a bit more expensive than the 50mm f/1.4D AF-Nikkor, but has certain advantages, among them quicker autofocusing. And it's received praise from owners and a recent magazine test rated it highly.

[Robert_Lai]

Petra, in reading your original question, I seriously suggest that you get a tripod before getting any more lenses. A 200mm focal length on your D50 is equivalent in view to a 300mm lens on a film camera. Any little shake from your hands will be magnified to give a blurry image. That alone may explain why the 200mm end seems deficient in your lens, especially when its wide open speed is f/5.6 and your camera has to use relatively slow shutter speeds.<p>You can search (google) the posts concerning tripods. They are rather a cult fetish object in themselves. However, at your stage any decent tripod should do. A basic aluminum tripod should do the trick. When you get really serious, Bogen (Manfrotto) and Gitzo are the names that crop up most.

[runkel]

Of course there are various prime lenses in the 180mm to 200mm range that would be sharper, optically, than a wide-to-tele zoom at the long end. You don't say whether your unsharp results were while using a tripod, but if not then camera shake could be your biggest problem, as you would be handholding the 35mm equivalent of a 300mm lens with an aperture no larger than f/5.6.

[jeff h.]

What is your need, optically sharper pictures or reach? You will get sharper, "better"

pictures with a prime lens, especially a 50mm lens. You will not get the reach or

perspective of a 200mm lens unless you get a lens (prime or zoom) that covers this focal

length. You will get nice, clear, colorful pictures hand-held if you get a 70-300/4-5.6D

ED lens. This lens will cost you around $300. You will get better pictures (on any lens) if

you use a good tripod (and good tripod head and a shutter release cable) (another $300).

You could also get "better" pictures if you get a $750 180/2.8 D ED-IF lens, or a

$900 80-200/2.8 ED AF-D lens, or a $1,300 200/4D ED-IF lens, or a $1,60070-200/2.8

G-AFS ED-IF VR lens (all Nikkor). IMHO, good additions to your lens lineup would be a

quality 70-300 zoom and a Nikkor 50mm prime lens.