primes...mmmm

[boinkphoto]

<p>Love my Nikon 60mm macro. The Nikon 85mm f1.8 is the sharpest lens I've ever owned and does great portraits (great DOF). Little far on the "close focus" though (with DX it's fairly tele though, so close focus isn't required as often).</p>

<p>Not so thrilled, though it can take good pictures, with the Nikon 35mm f2. Lots of a CA and some distortion. Not so bad that I'll ditch it, but not as good as it ought to be.</p>

<p>The 50mm f1.8 is great but, since I shoot a lot of macro, the 60mm makes a better walk around lens.</p>

<p>As far as the closest quality I've ever seen to a zoom that is a prime (you didn't ask but I'm putting it out there anyway) - the Nikon 35-70mm f2.8...</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>PS: I've seen a lot of great stuff out of the Sigma 30mm f1.4. The reason I avoided it was because it was DX only and I was trying to leave myself open for FX (of course, who wants to use a 30 or 35mm lens on FX? Yuck.)(Ok, don't flame me - but I don't want to!).</p>

<p>Quite a few here are from the Sigma 30mm f1.4:</p>

<p>http://meninenuotrauka.lt/</p>

<p>Some of the best available light wedding photos I've seen there.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>35mm on FX is one I like a lot, though! I shoot at 24mm on DX (the basic equivalent) a LOT!</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>There was a time of a few months when I was lazy and mostly used zooms. Switching to 12 mpix digital and doing more "slow" work, I realized that I'm getting better quality using carefully selected primes. I'll skip some specialty lenses since you wanted to shoot action, but here are some nice ones:<br>

Voigtländer 20/3.5 -- tine and performs very well when stopped down (the equivalent Zeiss lenses are better if you want super performance at all paertures).<br>

Zeiss 25/2.8 -- a very good lens (though not excellent), overall maybe the best choice at this focal length at the moment.<br>

<br /> 28/3.5 and 28/2 -- former is dirt cheap and great when stopped down, latter permits operation at larger apertures.<br>

35/1.4 -- incredible resolution in the center, requires stopping down to get good corners. I still consider this as one of Nikons classics (I've heard good things about the 35/1.8 if you want AF, spend less and onyl cover DX).<br>

Basically any 50. My choice is actually the 50/1.2 because it offers quite good resolution even at larger apertures and f2 is not a problem. But I often grab the 50/1.4 AF for action and I heard the new one is very good.<br>

85/1.8, 85/1.4 -- the former has very solid resolution with low vignetting even at larger apertures, the latter slightly more pleasing bokeh and better at the largest apertures.<br>

Basically any 105. I don't think Nikon made a bad 105. I don't use this focal length that much, though.<br>

Same goes for 135, except that the 105's seem to be slightly better. I'm hoping Nikon would ever so slightly improve the 135/2 to make a killer lens like Canon.<br>

As said, I left out a lot of specialty from this list even though specialty is where primes are the only name in town. I would get something like 24-70/2.8 if I would shoot action on a weekly basis, but I don't. For me the 24-70 would really be a matter of convenience, not of image quality, even though that lens is in general no slouch. As always, keep in mind that there are some excellent primes and some just so-so. OTOH, if you get a good deal then even the worse one can get the shot.</p>

 

[bms]

<p>Not necessarily preference, rather frequency of use, and I can all recommend them</p>

<p>35 f/2 AF-D<br>

24 f2/8 AF-D<br>

105 f/2.5<br>

105 f/2.8 Micro AF-D<br>

50 f/1.4 AF-D (very soft wide open)<br>

300 mm f/4</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>I carry a Zenitar 16/2.8 fish, Sigma 30/1.4, Nikon 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8.</p>

<p>My ranking of them and how I like the images roughly goes according to focal length.</p>

<p>If I have enough light and room to use the 180 I will. I've shot sunrises with it without any flare or ghost issues and it's light and small relative to the f/2.8 zooms. Wonderful for portraits, usable for sports but a bit slow on the focus.</p>

<p>The 85 is just as sharp as the 180 but you do want to avoid blown out-of-focus highlights behind your subject as it will make ugly purple fringes. If you avoid that situation it makes some really nice pictures. I've taken tens of thousands of basketball images with it. In fact I just plain wore out a D50 doing that. I haven't noticed ghosts or flare issues, but avoiding the above situation might be why. Not AF-S but still very fast to focus. The patent on this lens makes a point of the small size of the rear focus group aiding focus speed.</p>

<p>The 50 is also good, a little softer wide-open than the 85 or 180, and gets used less often mostly because of where it sits in the focal length range.</p>

<p>I probably use the 30/1.4 more than the others (excepting basketball shooting), but that's a function of shooting low-light indoor stuff where a normal field of view is required. It is a bit soft on the edges as the reviews indicate.</p>

<p>I don't really recommend the Zenitar, even though I have fun using it occasionally.</p>

[osmankarabacak]

<p>Zeiss 85, 135, 35 etc... i can recommend these. i know they are working manuel but they are top of the MTF and bokeh.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I don't see many lenses for $100 at KEH. In fact, I am wondering where did you see the prices of less than $100 for a 28/2.8 AIS or 105/2.5 Dave?</p>

[michael_oxford]

<blockquote>

<p>Which ones would you recomend?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor. For the money, roughly $150-230 (depending on condition) there is no better lens out there, IMHO. My copy is tack sharp and produces alost ZERO chromatic aberation. Bokeh is also top notch. Seriously, no better lens out there for the money.</p>

 

[scottferris]

<p>Sorry Dieter, I was unclear with my last post. I am shopping around locally, as well as online at places like flea-bay and KEH. I tend to do most of my shopping with KEH (they've always been good to me) so I guess I only said that name. But yes, I am shopping around the local used market. </p>

[frank_field]

<p>Three Nikon primes that I much enjoy: 35 mm f/2.0D, 85 mm f/1.8D, 180 mm f/2.8D. I mostly use 17-55 mm f/2.8G and 80-200 f/2.8D zooms (both of which are very good zooms) and select the primes when I'm looking for something lighter to carry or for their special qualities. Images from the 35 mm f/2.0D are especially crisp (great color rendition, zero CA). The 85 mm lens is great for portraits; I've also used the 85 mm f/1.4D -- truly a fabulous lens but also at a fabulous price for a short tele. Nothing beats the sharpness of the 180 mm f/2.8D tele and it is about 1/3 of the weight of the tele zoom.</p>

[mike mcdermott]

<p>You should also consider a 14-24 f2.8 AF S zoom. It's the only zoom I own as I'm a big fan of primes. The reason that I bought this lens is because I like to shoot wide and it's the first zoom to out class all of the primes that you can buy within the same focal range.<br>

It really is that good, It's an astonishing engineering achievement, as a lens it needs to be experienced to be beleived.<br>

28mm AF D is a good cheap prime that is always in my bag, My 50mm f1.4 AFS G is on my camera 90% of the time but it's not much better than the 50mm f1.4 afd. If you have the AF D its not worth upgrading.<br>

The 105 f2.5 AIS is very good and great value.As is the 85mm f1.8.</p>

<p>Two really good primes that are rumored to be released soon in AFS G are the 28mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.4</p>

<p>If Nikon release these on to the market they will be on my shopping list for 2010.</p>

<p> </p>

[erik_jonker]

<p>For shooting from the hip I would recommend the 35mm f/2.0. Easy and versatile lens, but maybe the crop factor is a bit in the way for you.... A 50mm prime would be great for portraiture on DX. For a bit more distance between you and your model, consider the 85mm f/1.8</p>

[peter]

<p>I agree that primes make me a better photographer - they make me get off my bum and go looking for a shot - rather than standing there like I am nailed to the floor and zooming in and out while relying on that to compose. Which is what of course I do when I am armed with a zoom instead. (I am a lazy sucker.) But with a prime I <em>have</em> to move and that means I often find the shot that I would not have otherwise seen. My taste runs to longer lenses so my favourite primes are the 50mm f1.4; the 105mm f2.8 micro and the 180mm f2.8. All of which are great specimens in their own right. I also have the 28mm f2.8 AF but while it is OK it is not up to the standard of the other three. From time to time I will also shoot with my MF lenses including various MF versions of the 50mm f1.4 and f2.0; the 105mm f2.5 24mm f2.8; 35mm f2.0; 135mm f2.8 and 200mm f4. I am still slowly building my collection and my next will be an 85mm AF - the 1.8 probably or the 1.4 if I can justify it at the time. If you were to ask me which is presently my best lens then unhestitatingly I would say its the 180mm f2.8 That lens just about knocks your sox off in the quality of the images it turns in.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I agree with most: primes made me more mindful before taking a shot. They make me think better about composition and viewpoints. And because some of them are older designs with less resistance to flare and ghosting, they sure make me think better about light too.</p>

<p>I use the 35 f/2D, 50 f/1.8D, 85 f/1.8D, AF-S 300 F/4 and a Tokina 100 f/2.8 Macro. Of these, my least favourite is the 50mm. I don't like it as portrait lens on DX, it's too short, too sharp for portraits and the bokeh is not ideal for portraits.<br>

The 85 f/1.8 is a far better portrait lens; my copy is not hair-splitting sharp below f/4, which for portraits I find better (since skins are never really perfect, except for babies and toddlers).<br>

I love the 35 f/2. It's got plenty lesser sides (flares, and at f/2 the sides must be rather unsharp since AF on my D300 will not work on the outer AF points, it just hunts). But typically, I use it at f/4-f/5.6, and then it rocks. And I love this focal lenght on DX, it just "clicks".<br>

The Tokina is a fine macro lens. Sturdy built, easy to use AF/MF switch, MF is well damped, and it's very sharp from f/4 on. Lovely bokeh, really very good. I only use it for macro work, since for all other things the 85 f/1.8 is nicer, in my view.</p>

<p>But if I'd have to choose 1 prime to keep with me, it would be the 300mm f/4. I love long lenses and I love working with this one. It is sharp at any aperture, built to last and it just feels great. And with a TC, it's a tad more versatile too :-)</p>

<p>On the wishlist... a 24mm, preferably maybe the Zeiss 25mm. I notice I like that focal lenght on DX. And I'd like to have a 105 f/2.5. I do not have any need for it, it does not add anything, but I used one a few times and it just feels so good. And the IQ is brilliant.<br>

I did consider the 35 f/1.8 DX (as replacement for the f/2), but tests made me see that the IQ difference with the 35 f/2 is too small. If I'd buy now, it would be the DX, but no need to replace the F/2D. Unless I can find the funds for a Zeiss 35mm, or the 35 f/1.4.<br>

And a longer prime.... well, I can keep dreaming about a 400 f/2.8 or 500 f/4.... probably for a really long time.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>You should also consider a 14-24 f2.8 AF S zoom. It's the only zoom I own as I'm a big fan of primes. The reason that I bought this lens is because I like to shoot wide and it's the first zoom to out class all of the primes that you can buy within the same focal range.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If this is true, it is quite a sad reality. This just means that Nikon are not investing in primes as they do with zooms but one can always buy Carl Zeiss glass for their Nikon's now.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I'll stick with my "1979" prime lenses any day. The 28/2 AIS, 50/1.4 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 200/2 AI, and 400/2.8 AIS are all excellent. The 200 and 400 are superb even wide open. I use them all on a D2X and full frame Kodak SLRn.</p>

<p>I do have one modern prime, the 14/2.8 ED AF, also incredibly sharp, but with some moustache distortion that does not rear it's ugly head too often.</p>

<p>I have recently added a TC-16A for very good autofocus ability and it works very well with the 135, 200, and 400.</p>

<p>At the right price I might add a 50-300/4.5 AIS or 80-200/2.8 ED AF, or 300/4 ED AF. The zoom would be handy for soccer. </p>

[photo5]

<p>Dieter, these were purchased on ebay. The 105mm f2.5 was purchased as a buy-it-now for $49.99 in mint condition, and then I had a Nikon factory AI ring installed from another 105 in not so mint condition, purchased for $68, and then resold for $77. The deals are out there if you wait for them, although I did pay $150 for my current Nikon 35mm f2 AI lens, because it was in near mint condition and I had owned the AIS version before, and sold it, and decided I preferred the AI version over the AIS version. The only prime I bought that I sold again was the Nikon 45mm f2.8 P lens. I like the look of the images, the out of focus areas are wonderful and very "Leica-ish" if you will. But ergonomically the lens is a nightmare, at least when used on a digital SLR. So I sold it for slightly more than I paid for it. And the 45mm focal length isn't the most exciting when shooting in DX format anyway!<br>

I too, when shooting with my D700, preferred using manual focus Nikon primes over a zoom. With my D300 however, I prefer the 16-85 Nikon zoom. It's just wonderful.</p>

[bmm]

<p>For me, Andreas and ben are on the money.</p>

<p>Quality is only one of the factors in favour of primes and one that I'm happy to admit is diminishing as zooms get better.</p>

<p>More important than quality is size - when travelling nothing beats being able to wander around in a city or down and alleyway or in a market with nothing bigger than a 24/2.8 or 35/2 mounted.</p>

<p>Most important of all though is the "forced creativity" issue that both point out. You simply have to think far more with a prime on board, and consider creative ways to utilise the fixed focal length.</p>

<p>Oh and to answer the question, my primes are 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 180/2.8... plus about to get 135/2. The 35/2 and 85/1.4 get the most use - in fact this is my travelling combo. I use a D80 by the way.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I think the new 35mm 1.8 AF-S would be a great prime lens for a DX body. I have the 50mm 1.4 on my FX and love it, it's my favorite lens. I think the 35mm on the DX would be very similar and useful, getting too long and it can limit its uses.</p>

[kivis]

<p>Primes I use:<br>

28mm/f3.5 Ai'd - so so on FX but perfect walkaround on DX.<br>

40mm/f2 Voigtlander - extremely sharp pancake lens. Great walkaround on my FM3a. Very short throw so hard to use on a D200<br>

50mm/f1.4 Ai'd - The Old workhorse for film<br>

50mm/f1.4 AF-D - Great short portrait lens on my D200<br>

60mm/f2.8 micro AF-d - A dream of a lens<br>

105/f2.5 AIS - A perfect lens for FX & DX if ever there were one</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Primes I've seen to work very well on DX:</p>

<p>20/3.5 Voigtländer, 28/2 Ai-S Nikkor, 28/3.5 Nikkor, 35/2(D) AF Nikkor (it's very sharp on DX except at f/2 where there is too much CA; at f/2.8 clearly sharper than the 17-55/2.8 DX), 35/1.8G DX AF-S Nikkor (this is fabulous at wide apertures), 50/1.8(D) AF Nikkor (from f/2.5 on is just fabulous; wide open it is soft), 180/2.8(D) AF Nikkor, 300/4D AF-S Nikkor, 100mm f/2 ZF. There are many more that work well of course, and some that I would not recommend on DX but would recommend for use on FX. E.g. the 105 DC I found to be truly great at f/3.5 or smaller on DX but not wide open whereas on FX it's great at all apertures (well I don't know about f/16, probably crappy at that ...) The 24/3.5 PC-E performs well also on DX but it's such a huge lens to be used as a moderate wide angle I probably wouldn't use it even if I still had a DX camera. </p>

<p>When using an FX prime with DX there can be flare and ghosting problems that you don't get with FX when the light source is just outside of the frame. With FX you can see where e.g. the sun is in the frame so you can avoid this situation easier - with DX you might have the light source just outside of the DX frame but inside the FX frame, the light bouncing in the lens and contributing to flare and ghosting - it's difficult to assess these effects that are outside of the DX frame through the viewfinder... take test shots when shooting into the light! Anyway, for wide angle I think it may generally be better to use a DX lens on DX rather than an FX lens though some manual focus primes do earn high marks also on DX. Depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Certainly lenses like the 12-24/4 or the 17-55 perform well and are compact solutions with good performance overall. The 50/1.8 does run rings around the 17-55 at 50mm especially at wide apertures though - way sharper. But the 17-55 is very good for portraits at the long end.</p>

<p>On FX I mostly prefer the primes at all focal lengths except 24mm at which I happen to think the 24-70 is my best lens for wide aperture use. I use the 24-70/2.8 1) to reduce lens changes for my own comfort e.g. in landscape and travel photography 2) generally for event photography when there is enough light for a f/2.8 lens (often there is not, e.g. in churches). The main drawback of the 24-70 is that it's such a huge lens - and of course, f/2.8 can be very limiting for available light shooting. </p>

<p>For tele, just about any modern prime Nikkor is better than any of their tele zooms on FX, but on DX it is more complicated as most of the tele primes were designed for full frame and the 70-200/2.8 is optimized for DX, resulting in some situations where the 70-200 is better than some of even the latest primes. E.g. at f/2.8 my 70-200 outperformed the 105 DC in the center of the image, and at f/4-f/5.6 at 180mm the zoom had less CA than the 180/2.8D; but even on DX the edge performance of the 70-200 was poor in comparison with the primes (though in some cases it doesn't matter at all). I found the 70-200, just as the 17-55/2.8 DX to be very prone to flare/ghosting and this was its greatest flaw. If you want to see 15 or more UFO/Saturn (for lack of better expressions) shaped ghosts, just point the 70-200 or 17-55 into a point light source in a high contrast lighting situation. Appalling; even the poorest of Nikon primes (e.g. the 28/2.8D AF) gave much better results than the 17-55 when used to photograph a construction site with unshielded work lights at night. The images from the 17-55 were filled with ghosts. Basically this zoom is unsuitable for night urban shooting, unless you want to spend a lot of hours cleaning the ghosts with photoshop - they are numerous and annoying. Under more normal lighting conditions, good to excellent results are obtained with these two zooms on DX. The 24-70, although it is an FX lens, handles these situations <i>much</i> better, perhaps due to its nano-coating. I think Nikon would do well to update the 17-55 with this new technology as soon as possible.</p>

<p>For superwide the current consensus seems to be that the 14-24 has the best overall performance and the 17-35 is also very highly regarded. I have only briefly used the 14-24 on two occasions and never the 17-35 so I'll just say that the image quality from the 14-24 on FX seemed to be very nice. Low distortion, exceptionally good sharpness across the frame at mid apertures. However, my need to use superwides is very limited and I prefer to have a more compact lens (the 18/3.5 ZF) in my bag, taking less space than the f/2.8 zooms, for those few occasions where I will need to use one. My recommendation is that you avoid Nikon primes in the 14-24 range with the exception of the 24mm PC-E which is a modern design (the 24 PC-E is excellent when stopped down to f/5.6-f/11; wide open on this lens is for composition and focusing only and the image circle starts to get smaller once you go to f/16, not to mention the loss in sharpness due to diffraction). The Zeiss and Voigtländer primes are certainly worthy of consideration for situations where you do not need autofocus. I'm very impressed with the 18/3.5 ZF's even sharpness and contrast across the frame, though it has vignetting wide open so it's not an event lens. The Zeiss is compact compared to the 14-24, and takes filters (at least in principle ... they're 82mm...). The 20mm Voigtländer is tiny and I'd pick one up for DX if I still used that format.</p>

<p>In summary, I'd say that if you have no interest in moving to FX or using FX cameras in the future, then you may actually be better off using zooms for wide angle since there are so few DX primes available whereas there are modern DX zoom options. This might change in the near future; the 35/1.8 DX just came out a few months ago and seemed in my brief testing (I bought it as a gift to a friend but couldn't resist shooting with it a bit) to be especially suited for available light people photography at wide apertures; very pleasing performance at those settings. If you do have an interest in FX cameras now or in the future, then I think there is a lot to be gained by selecting (carefully!) a set of primes at focal lengths of interest to you, or even a reasonably complete set. This is especially true at normal and telephoto focal lengths. For wide angle, particularly superwide, the main motivation to use a prime in the current situation would be the size and unobtrusiveness as it would be difficult to justify short primes against the top zooms based on purely optical reasons. I sold all my telephoto zooms since I just felt they didn't deliver on FX in a way that justified their existence in my lens collection. This is subjective of course - many find that frequent lens changes are too much of a hassle and prefer to use zooms even for tele. I use wide apertures a lot for telephoto shooting and find that the primes simply deliver better images. Of course there is often the missed shot since the focal length on the camera was wrong. But I only care about the quality of the best shots that I do get and for that reason I will continue to use tele primes for the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>Anyway, just one photographer's point of view. ;-)</p>

[bmm]

<p>Ilkka - thankyou for this interesting, detailed, considered contribution.</p>

<p>Two other observations, just based on my thoughts and experiences.</p>

<p>First, on this issue of 'missed shots'. We all miss 99.99% of shots because we cannot be all places at all times. I am far more likely to miss something cool because I turn one way rather than the other when in some foreign alleyway than because of the glass I have on my camera. So I've stopped worrying about this at all - especially as I am not a professional photojournalist that has some 'duty to document'. My view is that I have a chosen tool in my hand, a particular situation in front of me, and out of the combination I make whatever humble attempts at creating something decently artistic that I can.</p>

<p>Second, more practically, in my own early experience one of the most valuable accessories to prime lenses is a humble note-pad and pen. Why? Because I am quite happy shooting a composition which is not the entire frame and getting an effective zoom (admittedly at the cost of a few pixels), jotting down what my creative intention was, and then cropping to my original idea in post. I know some people are paranoid about retaining the full MP resolution in every shot and will therefore only ever contemplate the 'crop via glass' solution of zooms, but not being so strict on this immediately releases the perceived shackles of prime shooting... and in my own experience 2 or 3 primes and a camera in a small bag, and an accompanying willingness to crop, are the makings of a really good photographic experience. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I like the 20mm f/2.8 AF and the 24mm f/2 manual focus primes. I've owned some other manual primes but the quality was inferior.</p>

<p>Advantages of primes:<br>

- Depth of field scale (why can't this be automated on G lenses?)<br>

- Very little distortion<br>

- Clarity of purpose (it is what it is)<br>

- Forces you to compose by moving around, often with better results than turning a ring.<br>

- Compact size.<br>

- Ruggedness (especially manual focus lenses). I've never handled a zoom lens that compares favorably to the build quality of a good manual focus prime.<br>

- Better focusing rings (manual focus lenses). Designed for your hand, not some flimsy little motor.</p>

<p>Disadvantages<br>

- Switching lenses (only a problem on dust-sensitive digital cameras).</p>

<p>P.S. I also use medium and large format cameras where it's all prime all the time.</p>

 

[scottferris]

<p>I found a Vivtar 28mm (I think it's f/2) that I will be picking up locally for $30 tomorrow. I'm excited to start playing. Anyone used this lens? It looks like this one:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.fotoshopgent.be/dyn/item-80-vivitar28mm.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></p>

<p>I hate to say it, but I pretty much saw it and went "oooh, pretty..." and decided on it before I've gotten to test it. Aesthetically it's a neat looking lens.</p>