Primes with digital

[shawn_mcfarlane]

I have always used an FE with either 24 or 28mm / 50mm / 135mm

 

Recently I got a d80 and to go with it picked up an 18-35mm thinking this

would replace the lenses I use most of the time on film in digital (the 28 and

the 50). While the quality of the lens is good I find I just don't really

like using it and much prefer the feel of the camera with the 50mm AF I just

picked up. I really don't like the variable aperture of the zoom or the fact

that 99% of the time I only use the zoom ring to make sure its back around

18mm!

 

So I was thinking of replacing the 18-35mm with 20mm and 28mm primes instead.

Is anyone else using a primes set up on dslrs? Am I just a bit zoomphobic?

Should I just get over it as everyone else seems to love zooms?

[jorgen_udvang]

After starting out with zooms on DSLR, a Fuji S3, I've more or less completely gone back to primes. The 20mm is ok, although not stellar, on a DSLR. Instead of the 28mm, I would have a look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's faster than any current Nikon 28mm, and designed for digital.

[kayak203]

I have the 30mm Sigma and it's ok, also. You can find reviews for a variety of lenses at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html</a>, although the 30mm test was done on a Canon body. Neither lens is as sharp as the 50mm or 85mm.

[doug herr]

Shawn McFarlane wrote: <I>"Should I just get over it as everyone else seems to love

zooms?"</I>

<P>

Depends. Do you want to blend in to the pack or to stand out with your own distinctive style?

If primes are what works for you, don't torture yourself with zooms. Not a condemnation of

zooms, BTW. For those who work better with zooms, primes can be torture.

[dan_brown4]

The 35/2 Nikkor is just dandy on a DSLR. So are the 50's and the 85/1.8. The wide end is

a different story. The 24/2.8 is better then good, but not stellar. Frankly, I've had my eye

on the 17/3.5 Tokina, but I haven't shot with one yet.

 

Let us know what you decide.

[shawn_mcfarlane]

Thanks for the replies

 

I think I will get rid of the zoom and replace it with

 

20mm f2.8

35mm f2.0

 

I already have the 50mm f1.4, in my head this seems like the perfect set up, unless Nikon release a 14 or 16mm DX prime then I want one of them too :)

[stephen dohring]

There is not that much difference between the 20 and 35mm that is a waste of money to have those in primes. You can crop the 20mm shots and hardly loose resoulution to get to 35.

 

Get an 85 or 105 with the 50 and 20 that us much better. But if you have the cash the 17-55 2.8DX is as good as those primes in a zoom.

[Ed_Ingold]

There is an enormous difference between a 20mm and 35mm lens, or between a 20, 24 and 35! Cropping is something to be used sparingly with 35mm film or digital - you don't have enough "real estate" to compensate for a poor choice in focal length.

 

Just about any "prime" lens will work well enough with a 6MP DSLR, but you need something special for 10MP and up if you want to get everything an high-resolution sensor has to offer. These cameras will show chromatic aberation that is not noticeable on film or a lesser sensor. The 20/2.8 is not a particularly "special" lens. My 17-35/2.8 is as good or better. Prime lenses have less tendency to flare, so I use them when shooting into the sun. The 55/2.8 AIS Micro is exceptional in this regard, and has no visible CA.

 

Use a zoom lens to crop in the viewfinder, once you have set up the angle and perspective of the shot. If you always use the 18mm end, you have a lot to learn about composition in general.

[tri-x1]

My 20mm 2.8 D lens does a decent job on my D100. It gives me a 30mm lens. The only dowside is it is as heave as some of the modern medium digital zooms. And Edward is right--there is a huge difference between a 20mm and 35mm lens, whether you are using it on a digital or film camera.

[dave_powell2]

As Wayne alluded to, one advantage of buying wide primes that were designed for DSLRs is that they remain wide! There's no multiplicaiton factor (which can make great wide primes on the FE look not so wide on the DSLR)!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

[ShunCheung]

Sorry, the so called "multiplication factor" is due to the DX size sensor (18x24mm) being a lot smaller than the traditional 35mm film frame (24x36mm). The size difference is there regardless of whether your lens is a "prime" or a zoom, or whether it is DX or not.

 

Nikon has only one prime that is designed for the digital DX size sensor, namely the 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye. The 20mm/f2.8 Wayne mentioned was originally designed for 35mm film. For film, it is considered to be a super wide lens but on digital with the DX size sensor, it is merely a moderate wide lens.

[r_johnston]

As a psychologist for over 45 years, can tell you that within 12 weeks of using the lens you have, you could feel like they are what you used all your life. It takes that long to totally adjust to new things or develop new habit patterns, and you may be very surprised how much you like it then. So, instead of spending money now, I'd wait to see how you feel then. Then, if you feel the same way, go for the Len's you still feel is best. You might also try using it manually.

 

Making creative images has _nothing_ to do with equipment. Teaching boy scouts photography for merit badges, Ive seen some of the most creative work, with used cameras which cost less than $15. F16 and 1/100 of a second on a camera that cost $1700 or one that cost $15 can produce the same image. One may be sharper than the other, BUT it is the thinking behind the camera which makes it a SUCCESS. One may communicate something, the other may fail. The only difference in most modern lenses is sharpness. Then for many of them it depends if handheld or on a tripod to tell the difference. The only thing important, is what we DO with them.

 

Ive had people with $2000-5000 worth of equipment say, "why are my pictures the same as those I used to take with my old cameras?" They had learned no more, so the value of the equipment or sharpness, and biggest lens openings, did not improve their work.

 

Like all artists, you can purchase the most expensive brushes, and not paint, like the artist who uses the cheapest ones. The difference is in creativity. Does everyone have "it" YES, it just needs to be developed. You develop it by using it, and studying what others do, then go out and create your own individual style. Can anyone paint? Yes, I learned to do so at 65 and have paintings in a Gallery. We only need to learn how to use the tools, as well as we know how to use a camera.

 

In the 30's, by the time I was ten, was selling pictures to the Boston Record, Herald, and Globe of fires in the neighborhood. Was I a "BETTER" photographer, no. Using a "Vest Pocket Kodak" that I got when five, and because my Dad was a fireman, I had an advantage. Hung out at Engine 12, and if a second alarm came in, Id ride my bicycle to the fire. Usually Id get there before any reporter, and had pictures. They had Speed Graphics, using 4x5" film, but by the time they got there, the fire would be almost out, and not as spectacular.

 

They had no opportunity to get the picture, no matter how much more expensive the equipment. Being in the right place at the right time, and with the knowledge you need about your equipment is a big advantage.

 

Spend the next three months using what you have, as you learn to use it, your pictures will improve, with this equipment, and you will feel better. BUT, never be satisfied totally, with knowledge. Today, at 78, I am still learning. Ive used a Nikon F2 for decades, and basic 50mm lens, plus a 135mm, and finally wore it out. Am here to learn about digital camera's find one to replace my F2. A year at NY Institute of Photography in the 50's, and One class with Ansel Adams in Yosemite did more for my pictures than thousands of dollars of Photo equipment ever has.

 

A friend who worked at National Geographic once told me, "My pictures are as good as they are, not because of the equipment, or I'm a better Photographer, but because I TAKE SO MANY. They pay me to take a LOT of pictures. When I went to Japan to shoot a series, made 30,000 slides. Nat. Geo. chose the pictures from them to make an 8 page spread. Any photographer could do as well if they had the time, when not under pressure to get the ONE good picture for the front page."

 

INMO an advanced amateur is judged more strictly on their pictures, because they have all the time to get the best possible. The professional must "produce" acceptable work for a deadline. We can only do that, by using our equipment so much that we instinctively use it in each situation, in a manner to get the best possible image. Know as much as possible about Photography. IF it communicates something about the subject or image and us, then it is successful, even if we never make a dime. Some of the most successful images communicate important emotions or feelings and other things, are taken by those who "SEE" things in the world, like no one else sees them.

 

Practice, practice, practice, saturating our mind with images others have created, is much more important than the equipment used.

 

Bob

[jonas_yip1]

I primarily use primes on my DX-sensor digital cameras (SLR and RF), and manual focus ones

at that. I don't really miss the zooms on the DSLR, though I still have them for when it's

appropriate or just convenient. I have primes from 12 to 135 to choose from, but most of the

time something like 24/35/50 is just fine for my purposes.

 

j

[dan_brown4]

One nice thing about shooting primes is that when you shoot a project, all the images are

constrained to a few angles of few. This results in a subtle consistency to the results that

unifies the portfolio. Especially true if you have a 2x lens set. Like a 24/50/100 in film,

or 17/35/85 in digital, etc. With zooms, you lose this consistency, unless you are real

careful ;-)

[unohuu]

35mm f/2; 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8...these are three of my favorite lenses for both film and digital. I would also like a 17mm and a 24/28mm.