Nikkor Prime Lenses

[janet_biersack]

<p>I want to get a few solid Nikkor FX prime lenses. I have a Nikkon 50mm 1.8G. I was thinking of getting a 28mm and an 85mm. </p>

<p>Do you think those are good prime lens choices? Seems like puts me in a good place for portrait, landscape and street photography.</p>

<p>The 35mm is nice, but too pricy for my wallet. And not sure if I need a 35mm tossed in with the above mentioned lenses.</p>

<p>Or do you think there is a better roadmap for me to follow?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Janet, which Nikon cameras do you have?</p>

<p>If you like the 35mm focal length, Sigma has recently sent me their 35mm/f1.4 lens, which is about $900 in the US. It is excellent. I tested Nikon's 28mm/f1.8 AF-S last year and I am very happy with that also: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/28mm-f1.8-g-af-s/review/</p>

<p>Last December, I bought my own 28mm/f1.8 AF-S and recently I compared that against the Sigma 35mm. It turns out that my Nikon 28mm requires -17 AF fine tune on my D800E. With the fine tune, it is excellent also. I weighted the two lenses, and the Sigma (669 grams) is twice as heavy as the Nikon (329 grams). There is clearly a lot more metal inside the Sigma lens.</p>

<p>I like the Sigma so much that I may end up getting one myself. The review sample needs to go back soon.</p>

[janet_biersack]

<p>I have a D600.</p>

<p>I don`t have a thing against zooms, but I want to take my time buying good, quality, fast lenses. But I find I use primes more than anything else. </p>

<p>So I was more curious if it seems a good idea for those 3 ranging the 28mm, 50mm and 85mm. Or if it`s silly of me to get those three.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Janet, the 3 new f/1.8 primes of Nikon would make an excellent set - for a very reasonable price. Whether they make the right choice <em>for you</em> - that's much harder to say. Certainly with primes, a lot comes down to which focal lengths you actually use. If you already have photos, you can check the EXIF data to see which focal lengths work best for you.<br>

For example, many people find a 35mm and 50mm a bit too close to one another and will choose one or the other. While for me, these are the 2 lenses I will basically always carry (and I'm not unique). I find 85 too close to 50, and prefer a 105mm over it. So, there is a large aspect of personal preference here. Some will find 28-50-85 spot on, some (including me) might find it a less desirable compromise.</p>

<p>If you're not afraid of buying second-hand, there are a lot more options opening up. If you can live without autofocus (and with a large viewfinder as the D600, manual focus is really quite doable), a lot more options open up, many for relatively little money. Especially some of the older 'portrait' lenses (Ai/AiS 85 f/2, 105 f/2.5) can be found for little money and can still deliver spectacular results; the wider angles are a bit more tricky though.</p>

[western_isles]

<p>I have the 85mm and can reccomend it as a pair with the 50mm.</p>

[lwg]

<p>You will most likely be happy with those three lenses on the D600, if you like those focal lengths. All are good lenses. I find a 35mm with the 85mm is perfect for my walk around lens set. Usually if I want a wide angle I find I like a 24mm over the 28mm (but that's just my preferences).</p>

<p>I prefer the image quality of the Sigma 35mm over the 28mm Nikon. There's something very crisp about it. But, it does have auto focus issues on my D800E, so I'm not sure I would recommend it. But optically it's excellent, and the center AF point works perfectly for me. I haven't tried it on a D600.</p>

[al_derickson]

<p>The 28 and 85 1.8G's would be a nice setup with your 50. First, if you care about "neck" weight (what the camera/lens feels like around your neck) these are all lightweight lenses. Second, if you use filters, the 28 and the 85 are both 67mm thread and you get a 58 to 67 step-up ring for the 50 and you're all set to use a common filter set. Finally these are all optically good lenses.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I recently became a first time Nikon owner and went through the same sort of questioning that you are doing, having moved from digital rangefinder with only the option of primes I decided to stick with them for my Nikon FX. </p>

<p>My photographic needs are pretty well defined and really quite narrow, my 3 general purpose lenses are 50 & 85 1.8 g and 24 2.8d (I do not need a faster wide, and although I definitely need this coverage it is only needed very occasionally)</p>

<p>I have found that the 85 stays on the camera the most and is very very good. The 50 is OK but doesn't excite me much and as this is the kind of length I need the most (on a tripod) I invested in 2 speciality manual focus lenses. 45 pc-e and Voigtlander 58 1.4, my attraction to this lens was not so much its speed but its way of rendering my subjects - I preferred this lens to the Ziess equivalent, just a personal choice.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I found on full-frame (when I shot film), that i vastly preferred the 28mm focal length to the 35mm...</p>

<p>Nowadays on DX, I use the equivalent of 24mm and wider (to about 18)... or 50mm or longer... pretty much exclusively. I love my 35mm f1.8G (actually about 52mm equivalent) but use it seldom, favoring a zoom at that point.</p>

<p>This leads me to think that if or when <em><strong>I</strong></em> were to go FX, I'd only really <em><strong>need</strong></em> a really wide zoom (18-35 f3.5 - 4.5 would be fine), a 50mm prime, and a tele zoom. That said, I have a kid, and I can't live without a mid-range zoom in addition to that anymore.</p>

[kgavin]

<p>I think the 28/50/85 f/1.8 trio would work well. I have the 35/50/85 trio, and I really only feel the need to have the 35 and the 85 in most situations. I keep the 50 around because it's the smallest of the bunch in case I only want to carry something with a very small profile. If I didn't already have the 35 (which I really like), I would have gone with the 28. I had the 24 but found it was just too wide on FX.</p>

[shiang_wang1]

<p>I shoot mostly primes too. My go bag contains 28, 58, 105. I have heard about choosing primes lenses that double the focal length is the best. So either 85, or 105, it is all coming down to personal choice.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>All thru the years this was a big debate especially within the Leica community.<br>

Its really much about your personal taste. I thought I saw perspective distortion seen with<br>

the 28mm in portraits starting to change how people look starting at that focal length.<br>

Also, for landscapes if I had my choice I would rather have a 24mm lens instead a 28mm<br>

didn't seem that much wider than a 35mm. I wound up with 24; 35 and 85, I never found<br>

that I walked around with my 50, I just shuffled closer in with the 35mm. <br>

Now with DX the 28 is a 42 and the 35 is a 50. So now the 24 is a 35. The 85 is 135.<br>

So all my choices have changed. Shiang, I got a 58 also, great 85 on DX.<br>

On FX I like the 24 - 35 - 85 each lens has a distinct purpose, 35 is wide enough for<br>

lots of group shots, 85 portraits plus background, and 24 is a useful wide angle.<br>

These 3 lengths won't have you guessing whether to change lenses or not, they are distinct.</p>

[tony_demonte]

<p>any time someone I talk to who wants to get into photography with a dslr, I always suggest a prime lens to start with. the 35mm is the one I usually suggest. I started out the same when my friend suggested it and I learned everything from DOF to composition. I personally like the 35mm cause it is pleasing to my eyes. I also have the 50mm for its portraiture capabilities. If I got to go back in time, I would of gone with the 35mm and 85mm 1.8g. that is, if I could only have 2 lenses. If I could go with 3, probably the 28, 50, 85.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Janet, <br>

I also love primes and i figure there are multiple ways to arrive at exactly what lenses you need. One way is to start with the focal lengths you need, so yes, 28/50/85 cover everything. I approached it in a slightly different manner. Suppose you know about a terrific lens, of a focal length which is useful to you, then buy that lens and take it forward from there. So lets say you love Sigma 35/1.4, focal length wise, and obviously, from whatever reports that are available on that lens...and you bought it...then you can think about what else will complement it. <br>

If i were a Canon shooter, i would go and buy a 135L first, then think further. But i'm a Nikon shooter and basis my past experience with 135L, i first bought a 180/2.8. I had a hard time deciding about it (because unlike 135 which everyone thinks to be a great lens, 180 has a mixed reputation)...but i bought it anyways. Couple of days back i also bought a Sigma 35/1.4. There's Sigma 85/1.4 which i also can't not have but will wait when they soon update their existing and already terrific lens. <br>

The difference is that this approach lets you buy the best, but the downside is that overall, you will end up seeing gaps in the focal length...which otherwise you won't have. <br>

So i end up with 35/85/180...3 lenses, or let me say 2 lenses which i can not not have. I will take it forward from here and see what gaps i have to fill, but that i will do after shooting with these for some time. <br>

All the best,</p>

[janet_biersack]

I went today and picked up the lenses I was considering. So I'm happy with the primes I have:

 

28 1.8G / 50 1.8G / 85 1.8G

 

The reviews on these 3 were all solid to stellar. I enjoy the focal lengths, and for the quality/price, I don't feel I'm missing

out on the 1.4 versions.

 

If I feel lost without the 35 1.8G, it's about $235 near my house. But think I'm set on primes. I could go to a 105mm, but

not life or death now. I'd prob get a ultra wide zoom next.

 

Thanks everyone.

[pge]

<p>I am not sure if someone has mentioned this already but that 35 f1.8g is not an FX lens, so skip that one. Yes the 105mm is the next logical choice. I have these 4 and they make a great set.</p>

<p>However, buying too many lenses at or near the same time diminishes the new aquisition to some degree. I suggest really getting to know a new lens before buying another. When I first bought my 28mm f1.8g it didn't leave my camera for a month.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>The strangest things I found when dealing with the same question, was that the 1.8s regularly got higher praise than the 1.4s and when I looked at pics on the net I tended to agree. When my 1.8 lenses arrived the look and feel of them was pretty disappointing, funny lightweight bits of plastic - but of course all that has to be ignored because they really do take remarkable pictures.</p>

<p> </p>

[tony_demonte]

<p>Nice point, Clive. the 1.8's seem to get better results than the 1.4's. and the 1.4's are triple the price. the extra bokeh does show though at 1.4. but, to the normal persons eye, you can't tell.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I went today and picked up the lenses I was considering. So I'm happy with the primes I have:<br>

28 1.8G / 50 1.8G / 85 1.8G</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a solid set of lenses. I have all three myself, plus some f1.4 versions.</p>

<p>I would suggest checking them out carefully and do AF fine tune, if necessary. Somehow the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S test sample I got from Nikon required like -8 AF fine tune on my D7000, but it was fine on the D800. Later on I bought my own and mine requires no fine tune.</p>

<p>However, the 28mm/f1.8 test sample required no fine tune on my D800E, but my own 28mm/f1.8 requires -17 fine tune on that same D800E. With the fine tune, it is excellent.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>I would really like it if Nikon would release a version of the 35/1.8g in FX form. </p>