Prime Lens for D100

[bryan_terce]

I am looking for a prime lens for my D100. I am considering between

the 28 f/2.8D AF, 35 f/2.0D AF or 50mm f/1.8D. Anybody has personal

experiences with any of these lenses on a D100? Thanks.

[johnmarkpainter]

I have the 28 and 50...Love em....

 

The 35 is closer to a 50 (after the Crop Factor) and it is faster but I found a good deal on a

28 so I got that instead.

 

jmp

[nick_w.]

They're all fine lenses. Do you already have other lenses for the D100? If so, buy one

of the three that complements the others you own. It also depends on how wide you

want to go. A 35mm lens is cropped into a 52mm lens on the D100. Many people will

argue that the 50mm "standard" field of view is the best to start off with. The 35mm

lens is also the best compromise between the three that you're considering. Or, just

pick the cheapest of the three and go out shooting. It's more fun doing that than

worrying about gear anyways.

[elliot]

Ok. To answer your question, you need to let us know what focal lengths do you use on your zoom lens or film camera most often. Also, what kind of stuff do you take pictures of most of the time?<P>All of that aside, me, I would probably pick the 35 if i could only have one of those. f2.8 is too slow, and the 50mm might be a little too long for the stuff I shoot. However, you could shoot sports or something like that mostly, and then the 50 would probably be okay or not long enough (depends on what sports).

[johnmarkpainter]

The 50 1.8 becomes an excellent fast portrait Lens if that is your thing. That was the first

lens I bought for my D100.

 

The 2nd was a 28mm, the Third an 85 (better Portrait Lens), the 4th a 17mm. When I get

an 80-200 2.8 I will be finished.

 

jmp

[bryan_terce]

Thanks for the responses. I have a Nikon 24-85G lens on my D100 and haven't used a prime lens. I love taking portraits. The question is how good is the picture I'll get from say 50mm f/1.8 D prime lens compared the same focal length on my 24-85G?

[ShunCheung]

Bryan, the quality of your images will primarily be dependent on your photographic skills, not that much on the lenses you use. The 24-85 is a good consumer-grade lens. Have you used it to shoot portraits? If so, which focal length do you use in that zoom range for your portraits? If you use it at 85, then an 85mm/f1.8 AF-D may be a good candidate. The 50mm is a bit short for portraits on a DSLR. To make a long story short, at this time, for Nikon DSRLs, there is no Nikkor prime that is the equivalent of the traditional portrait focal lengths such as 85mm and 105mm. On the DSLR, an 85mm prime is on the long end of traditional portrait lenses; it might work for you.

[spencer_hahn]

"When I get an 80-200 2.8 I will be finished."

 

Haha sure, sure...

[ShunCheung]

Good point, Spencer. Back in 1987 I bought an FE2 and thought that camera had everything I would ever need. Two years later, it is the N8008, and then F4 ....

[Jim_Tardio]

The next logical step in the Nikon "DX" line should be something along the lines of a 50-135/4 AF-S DX G lens (75-200 approx. 35mm eq.).

<p>

That would make a fine portrait lens and give the DX line a medium telephoto zoom. For now, though, you might consider the 60/2.8 micro for portraits.

[steve_chan5]

We had one of the consumer grade zooms on the D100, and then picked up some of the primes. For technical aspects, the 50/1.8 and 35/2 primes are clearly better: color, contrast, detail, all are much better - especially at wider apertures. Maybe at f8 they can be comparable, but f8 isn't a particularly handy portrait aperture.

 

But as others have pointed out, they can't transform your photographs if the lighting and composition aren't good.

 

If you don't mind the size and weight, the 35-70/2.8 covers an excellent range of normal to portrait focal lengths, and the constant f2.8 aperture and good wide open performance lets you work with selective focus more than your current lens (imo). It isn't a prime, but the performance is pretty close.

[buddhadev mukherjee]

Shun Cheung writes:

 

To make a long story short, at this time, for Nikon DSRLs, there is no Nikkor prime that is the equivalent of the traditional portrait focal lengths such as 85mm and 105mm. On the DSLR, an 85mm prime is on the long end of traditional portrait lenses; it might work for you.

 

-------------

 

Shun - did you forget the fantastic Micro Nikkor AF 60/2.8? It gets to about a 90mm focal length -- which is close enough to 85 (for me, at least). True, you lose two stops in speed...

 

Thanks and kind regards.

 

-- dev.

[steve_chan5]

Cosina sells a 58mm/1.4 manual lens that seems to hit the portrait focal length perfectly for DSLR's. But it doesn't meter with the non-pro bodies. The owners seem to be happy with its performance and bokeh.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"Back in 1987 I bought an FE2 and thought that camera

had everything I would ever need. Two years later, it is the N8008,

and then F4 ...." --Shun Cheung<br>

</em><br>

Back in 1983 when I bought my first FE2 I knew it didnt

have everything I would ever need but at least it was one piece

in the puzzle.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.<br>

<br>

NAS is not evil, NAS is good! (sm)

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't see how it matters, 75 mm EFL (using the 50 mm lens) or 85 mm. It's a minor change in the appearance of the portrait IMHO. Nikon (and their customers)don't seem it matters either as they don't have specific portrait lenses for DX cameras.

[ShunCheung]

Buddhadev Mukherjee, I wouldn't use a macro lens, which is optimized for very close focusing, to shoot portrait. Bokeh is one issue, and I also want a fast lens like a f1.4 or at least f1.8 to minimize the depth of field when I want to do so. Focal length is not the only factor.