Primes vs Zoom purchase.

[brian_dunlea]

<p>Hi all, I've been thinking, that's never a good sign.<br>

I've posted about lenses before but this is a new angle (pardon the pun). <br>

I'm torn between buying 3 primes or a zoom and one prime.<br>

I'm buying a d7000 which I'll be getting in about a week. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and I've narrowed my options down to two choices (but I'm open to suggestions of course).</p>

<p>OPTION 1 (PRIMES) Total Price: €1,079 max, probably 10% cheaper:<br>

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D<br>

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX<br>

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G</p>

<p>OPTION 2 (ZOOM AND PRIME) Total Price €1,185 max:<br>

Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX<br>

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G</p>

<p>I've analysed my shooting and the shots I like.<br>

I love the 50mm (75mm equiv) length and I've been leaving my Fuji x10 at that zoom length to experiment. </p>

<p>Also I've analysed my shots so far and 86% are between 28mm and 75mm. </p>

<p>With option 1 I know I'll be losing 8mm at the wide angle but I don't see it as a major problem.<br>

As I'm a musician I'm attracted by the "faster" primes for low light shooting. I can see the versatility in a zoom lens and the fact that I wouldn't have to change lenses as much. But I don't know if that would be much of an issue. Hard to say.</p>

<p>I also would like to have the option to keep the lenses if I move to fx in a few years, excluding the 35mm DX and 16-85mm of course.</p>

<p>You can see what I've been shooting so far with the Fuji X10 (a camera I love) at http://www.flickr.com/briandunlea</p>

<p>It's a long post I know but I'd prefer to get as much info in as I can to let you know where I'm at. Thanks in advance to any who answer or who have any suggestions.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Brian.</p>

[derekvigil]

<p>Nikkon AF 35-70mm f2.8 D older lens get the one from the 90's cost between $300-500 depending on condition And 50mm 1.4<br>

Thats atleast what i will doing for my kit. When i can find a good shape 35-70 in the lower end of $300. Missed one on Ebay for $205..... I also have the 50m 1.4 D and 12-24mm Tokina for my wide.</p>

<p>And At that if you can get one cheap enough maybe add a wider fixed prime to get lower then 35mm which on DX is about 50mm so standerd.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If I lost the wide end it would drive me crazy.</p>

<p>I'd get the 16-85 in a hearbeat, but for me, I'd rather have the 35mm as the fast prime.</p>

<p>That said, for a while I used a combo of the 18-200 and a 50mm f1.8D and really enjoyed it. I don't use that 50 much anymore but can't bear to part with it.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>You still haven`t received your D7000... which is a very good and updated model. I`d buy the lens/es that suit your DX camera; don`t limit your photography to longer longer focal lenghts just because you plan to have an FX camera in a future. I`d say don`t mess with, it and enjoy your DX camera.<br /> My choice? Option #2, no doubt.<br /> The 16-85 seem to me the perfect first lens choice; another could be the 17-55/2.8, but at a higher price, weight, bulk... only for those who want constant f2.8.<br />And I`d also take a 35/1.8DX prime instead of the 50, but if you`re sure you like it, that`s all. I`d prefer the 35 for the versatility, small size&weight and to have a more compact setup if needed.</p>

[brian_dunlea]

<p>Hey guys thanks so much. <br>

Derek, I'd prefer to get new lenses for now as at least I'll have comeback and it's important to me to buy local. I live in Ireland so I'd like my money to go local.</p>

<p>Jose, the guy I'm dealing with is giving me a excellent price on the body. I've been negotiating in town and he'll be generous with the lenses too (I hope) so it will be worth the wait.</p>

<p>Peter and Jose. 35mm? I'm being ganged up on :)</p>

<p>I can see where you're coming from but for some reason I love the 50mm (75mm) view. It feels kind of intimate and nearly claustrophobic up close, if that makes any sense. And you both like the 16-85 which I've been advised to get in a previous thread. </p>

<p>One of the reasons I'm considering only primes is their size and weight. Plus I like the idea of restricting myself. Sounds kinda dumb, maybe it's the way my brain works. I could buy a zoom in 6 months or so. I'll be visiting Hong Kong at the end of the year, might pick something up there. </p>

<p>I also like the idea of small light lenses. I don't fancy the idea of big nose on my camera. It might be self-consciousness but a light small lens on my body sounds good to me.</p>

<p>Is it a crazy idea to get all primes is what I'm basically trying to find out. And will it increase my image quality by much? I know it won't make better pictures that's for sure. That's up to me :)</p>

[derekvigil]

<p>The only reason i suggested the 35-70mm. Is because you stated your a musician and the 35-70mm would give you great versitiliy for event shooting and fast 2.8 speed at low cost. I also have the D7000, and am getting the 35-70mm for event type shooting and as a walk around lens. Speed and IQ seem great from the reviews ives read. Spent a lot of time researching for this purchase.<br>

Just my thoughts. Its also an FX lens....</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"attracted by the "faster" primes for low light shooting"</em></p>

<p>What percentage of your shots are in low light? If it is a high percentage, stick with the primes.</p>

 

[brian_dunlea]

<p>Hey guys thanks so much. <br>

Derek, I'd prefer to get new lenses for now as at least I'll have comeback and it's important to me to buy local. I live in Ireland so I'd like my money to go local.</p>

<p>Jose, the guy I'm dealing with is giving me a excellent price on the body. I've been negotiating in town and he'll be generous with the lenses too (I hope) so it will be worth the wait.</p>

<p>Peter and Jose. 35mm? I'm being ganged up on :)</p>

<p>I can see where you're coming from but for some reason I love the 50mm (75mm) view. It feels kind of intimate and nearly claustrophobic up close, if that makes any sense. And you both like the 16-85 which I've been advised to get in a previous thread. </p>

<p>One of the reasons I'm considering only primes is their size and weight. Plus I like the idea of restricting myself. Sounds kinda dumb, maybe it's the way my brain works. I could buy a zoom in 6 months or so. I'll be visiting Hong Kong at the end of the year, might pick something up there. </p>

<p>I also like the idea of small light lenses. I don't fancy the idea of big nose on my camera. It might be self-consciousness but a light small lens on my body sounds good to me.</p>

<p>Is it a crazy idea to get all primes is what I'm basically trying to find out. And will it increase my image quality by much? I know it won't make better pictures that's for sure. That's up to me :)</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I think the 35-70 f/2.8 is a great lens but not on a DX body unless you have a special use for it.<br>

I bought mine to use it on a D80 when my first born was playing basketball. Wide aperture and a decent reach when I was close to the action with a 50-105 angle of view on DX but besides BB games I never used for anything else until I bought an FX body. Now it is the only zoom I use when I wanna use a zoom. Still, it is just a 2x zoom and most of the time I find it useless, I feel the 35mm zoom I can do it with my feet.</p>

<p>To the OP, I don't think you can go wrong with either choice, you might have to flip a coin on this one. No matter what we have to say here you will have to decide yourself according to your own likes and dislikes between zooms and primes. If you go all primes, you should also consider the Sigma 30 DX.<br>

I also agree with Jose, if you are just getting a DX camera now, get the lenses you need for this camera and think about FX glass when the time comes.<br>

Good luck in such a tough decision!!! Cheers! </p>

[back alley]

<p>i much prefer primes for the same reasons that you state. i like smaller and lighter and if they happen to be a bit sharper...well, that's good too.<br>

i bought a used d90 recently with a 28-105 walkaround zoom...and immediately traded the zoom for a near new 50/1.8 af-d lens...much happier now.<br>

i also bought a new 40/2.8 micro and what a great lens it is...and now, i'm waiting on a used nikkor 28/2.8 and a tokina 17/3.5...after that i hope to get a new 85/1.8 g lens and i should be done!<br>

primes force me to think more and move more, always better (for me) as i seem to get the image i want more of the time.<br>

i kid that i'm too much of a slow thinker to use zooms well.</p>

[back alley]

<p>i much prefer primes for the same reasons that you state. i like smaller and lighter and if they happen to be a bit sharper...well, that's good too.<br>

i bought a used d90 recently with a 28-105 walkaround zoom...and immediately traded the zoom for a near new 50/1.8 af-d lens...much happier now.<br>

i also bought a new 40/2.8 micro and what a great lens it is...and now, i'm waiting on a used nikkor 28/2.8 and a tokina 17/3.5...after that i hope to get a new 85/1.8 g lens and i should be done!<br>

primes force me to think more and move more, always better (for me) as i seem to get the image i want more of the time.<br>

i kid that i'm too much of a slow thinker to use zooms well.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Brian,<br>

Let me throw another possibility: one zoom and two primes.<br>

Tamron 28-75/2.8 - this is a great lens for a very inexpensive cost - I used it with great pleasure on D300, D700 and D7000. Small, lightweight, versatile and very good optics... Not very fast AF but very reliable, at least in my copy.<br>

Nikkor 35/1.8 DX<br>

Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-S or 50/1.4 AF-S if fits in the budget. For me the 50/1.8 AF-S works better than 50/1.4 AF-S... but you can't go wrong with either...</p>

[brian_dunlea]

<p>Hey guys thanks so much. <br>

Derek, I'd prefer to get new lenses for now as at least I'll have comeback and it's important to me to buy local. I live in Ireland so I'd like my money to go local.</p>

<p>Jose, the guy I'm dealing with is giving me a excellent price on the body. I've been negotiating in town and he'll be generous with the lenses too (I hope) so it will be worth the wait.</p>

<p>Peter and Jose. 35mm? I'm being ganged up on :)</p>

<p>I can see where you're coming from but for some reason I love the 50mm (75mm) view. It feels kind of intimate and nearly claustrophobic up close, if that makes any sense. And you both like the 16-85 which I've been advised to get in a previous thread. </p>

<p>One of the reasons I'm considering only primes is their size and weight. Plus I like the idea of restricting myself. Sounds kinda dumb, maybe it's the way my brain works. I could buy a zoom in 6 months or so. I'll be visiting Hong Kong at the end of the year, might pick something up there. </p>

<p>I also like the idea of small light lenses. I don't fancy the idea of big nose on my camera. It might be self-consciousness but a light small lens on my body sounds good to me.</p>

<p>Is it a crazy idea to get all primes is what I'm basically trying to find out. And will it increase my image quality by much? I know it won't make better pictures that's for sure. That's up to me :)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I also use a Tamron 28-75/2.8 - older version without motor - on my D7000 and aside from not going wide I'd take it over a kit lens like the 16-85. And the 35/1.8, which does very well in lower light. But... since the primes you're looking at max out at 50mm, why not start with something like a 3rd party 17-50mm f/2.8 lens? The Sigma one with OS and HSM (Sigma talk for VR and AFS) is popular these days. It's less expensive than the Nikon 16-85 and it's a better lens if you don't need something that goes to 85mm. Then if you also want the 50mm prime you can add that.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>I next to never take the 16-85mm off, great focal length and very good image quality.</p>

 

[danny_wilson]

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>I am a little worried that you are saying you like the 50mm equivalent on your X10 and that 80%+ of your shots are in the standards range with 29mm at the low end. Have you thought about how the crop on your d7000 will mean that your 28mm lens on your d7000 will NOT be the same angle of view as setting your x10 to 28mm?</p>

[brian_dunlea]

<p>Thanks all for the suggestions. I'm just going to have to go one way or the other. My head says 16-85 and 50mm, my heart says all prime. But I guess I can get the zoom and prime and over time incorporate the primes. </p>

<p>Danny, don't worry. I should have said the 75mm equiv, focal length. The x10 has a crop factor of 4x. So the shots are actually at 18-19mm roughly. And as far as I know the D7k has a crop factor of 1.5x. So a 50 will work out about 75mm. At least that's my understanding. </p>

<p>Thanks you all for the suggestions. Bullet biting time methinks. I'll get back to you guys as it's 1:35am here. Work tomorrow. </p>

<p>Cya.</p>

[Two23]

<p>D7000 does very well in low light. If it were me, I'd suggest Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4, and eventually a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8.<br>

Odds are you will quickly get frustrated by "restricting yourself" with only single focal lenses as you begin missing important shots.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>86% are between 28mm and 75mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a pretty strong argument for the tamron 28-75/2.8. the 16-85 is not a fast lens and not particularly suited for low-light/indoor environments. BTW, i shot concert photography for 2 years on the tammy. i wouldnt even attempt that with a 16-85.</p>

<p>feel free to ignore my advice, but pair the 28-75 with a prime and you're good to go. also you might want to be practical and realistic about shooting with just three primes. it can be done, but you need the right primes. if anything, you'd want some separation between focal length, i.e. 24/50/85. however, not sure i would consider the 24/2.8 as it's NOT sharper than some modern zooms @2.8. i would probably use a 35 more than a 50 on DX, but YMMV.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If it were me, I'd suggest Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4, and eventually a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sigma 17-50/2.8 OS is as good optically as the tamron 17-50 but faster to focus. also, 50-150/2.8 isnt available new anymore, but the 85/1.4 HSM is.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Eric makes a good point about the Sigma's AF speed over the Tamron. However, I find that the 'look' of the Tamron lenses more closely matches the Nikons. As a rule (gross generalization here - your milage will very likely vary) Nikon and Tamron seem much more concerned with having their lenses match than other brands. By that I mean that the 50 f/1.4G renders the image better, but it a very similar manner to the 24-70 f/2.8. Sigma and other companies may make the occassional lens that is faster or sharper, but it seems to be more obvious which lens took which photo.</p>

<p>I prefer Nikon/Tamron lenses for that reason. They sometimes test worse than Sigma versions, but the consistency means I know what to expect, photo to photo.</p>

<p>I would recommend the Tamron 28-75. I love mine on my D7000. The new 24-70 VC looks promising too, but I think that the huge size won't be worth the added VC feature unless you're shooting video.</p>

<p>Also, have you thought about special ordering a 50mm f/1.2 AiS? Nikon still makes them, although wait time is something like 2-3 months. It's a much worse choice for concerts in just about every possible way, but for slower, 'walking around' type shooting, I think the way that it renders tonal range is much nicer. The D7000's viewfinder is good enough that you shouldn't have trouble manually focusing at f/2.8 or so, but wider than that you may need to use Live View.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>My (mostly) prime kit used with a D90: Tokina 12-24/4, Sigma 30/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 180/2.8. </p>

<p>If I were buying it now, I'd substitute the Nikon 35/1.8 for the Sigma 30/1.4 (the 35/1.8 didn't exist when I bought the Sigma).</p>

<p>You could simplify this to the three lengths I use the most: 12-24/4, 35/1.8, 85/1.8.</p>

[sean_parsons]

<p>Hi Brian,<br>

Primes all the way man! You'll notice your photography mature if you shoot with primes and stick to one lens for quite some time. You'll really get too know the lens intimately and how it will behave under certain conditions. You'll also notice a uniform consistency to you're pictures which looks way more professional than shooting every shot with a different focal lengths.<br>

The quality from a cheap 50mm f1.8 is simply shocking comported to most budget or mid priced zooms.<br>

I shoot 90% with a 35mm on full frame. Perhaps you should get the 35mm f2(50mm equivalent) it's a great lens. Then just forget about equipment for a while and just keep shooting with that lens. You'll soon see what I mean.</p>

<p>Have fun</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Primes are smaller and lighter, this is true... only if you carry with just one lens.<br /> If you need a wide angle lens, and/or 35 and a 50/60/85... things are completely different, lens switching aside.<br /> I bet this is why some prefer a 16-85 for all round use, and then a "standard" (or other) focal lenght prime when there is no need of versatility (and for other advantages as well).</p>

[brian_dunlea]

I was in the camera store today and

the guy said he'd get me the 16-85 but

for what it is it's way overpriced. He

recommended the sigma 17-70mm. He

has one coming in used and can do it

at around €200-250.

 

Any opinions on the sigma 17-70mm?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm mostly a prime shooter, but the one zoom that I always have with me is the 16-85VR... It's got a relatively steep price, it's slow aperture, it's nothing extraordinary....but it's very versatile and what it does, it just does really well. <em>Over</em>priced? Maybe, but if I see how much use mine gets and how often it turns out to the right tool, I'm fine with the price I paid (and since then, in Europe, prices dropped ~€80).<br>

However, for around €/$200, I'd consider getting the 18-105VR as kitlens with your D7000. It's a very useful, good lens and as a kit it's really cheap. You cannot really go wrong with that one. The other option, better for low light, are the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 lenses; very worth considering, but they will cost more obviously.</p>

<p>And I'd consider the AF-S 50 f/1.8G instead of the f/1.4. Those 2/3rds of a stop save quite a bit of money. For the money, the 35 f/1.8G is a near must-have. The AF-D 24 f/2.8 is not a great lens; it's good but nothing special (at least, not to me). It's main advantages are size and weight.<br>

To me, mixing fast primes with a slowish versatile zoom works out really well, but as always it depends on your style of shooting. Maybe get just that 18-105VR, get started with it and then see which gaps your future lenses need to fill.</p>