Nikon's AF-S Primes... worth the money?

[PatrickCheung]

The idea that prime lenses are sharper than zoom lenses is no longer a universal truth, like it was 20 years ago when prime lenses were almost always optically better than zoom lenses. Today's modern zoom lenses may be better than prime lens designs that are either significantly older, significantly smaller and lighter, or significantly less expensive.

A good case in point is Nikon's new 14-24 AF-S Nikkor zoom: this lens is a better optical performer than ALMOST ALL prime lenses within its focal length range. Yes, better than Canon primes, better than Nikon primes, better than Zeiss primes, better than Canon zooms, better than Zeiss zooms---it is now possible to build zoom lenses like the 14-24 Nikkor that are SIGNIFICANTLY better performers in multiple areas, than earlier prime lenses and better than earlier zoom lens designs.
The Nikon 14-24 on a Canon 1DsIII - A landscapers report. and to se how it stacks up against multiple top-rated optics see Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

This is not just a Nikon thing either: Tamron's modest 28-75 f/2.8 zoom lens for example is SUCH an amazing optical design that it has been sought out and re-badged by both Minolta and Pentax, who were both desirous of the lens to the point that they wanted to have their own corporate identity associated with it. Sony continued the licensing arrangement with Tamron.

Many prime lens designs are getting older now, not having been re-designed for quite some time,since there is lower demand for primes than zooms.
I have a lot of prime lenses, and appreciate what they can do, but the newer,better zoom lenses are pretty amazing things!

guess that answers most of my questions! glad to own the tamron 28-75 now :]

knowing all this, does anyone have any good, sharp, zooms that produces good bokeh (i look for that first when it comes to a portrait lens) that would make nice portrait lenses?

i guess i'll state this the third time, but i currently own the tamron 28-75mm... and the nikon 18-55 kit.

and a new question just popped up in my head... how useful are wide angle zooms when it comes to portraiture?

 

[Derrel]

The Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR, the first generation lens, produces excellent bokeh; it is one of the finest zooms for bokeh. It's not cheap, but it outclasses many,many older Nikon primes in the bokeh catgory. Unfortunately, bokeh of the highest quality tends to come with a pretty high price tag. I think your best bet for good bokeh cheap is the discontinued 100-300 f/5.6 AiS zoom, made back in the 1980's.

I do not thing the wide zooms are that useful for portraiture. Sure, they are useful for putting a person inside of a frame that shows a physical location, which is "environmental portraiture", but for what is traditionally called portraiture, the issue with the wide zooms is that one is shooting from very close distances, which can lead to exaggerated perspective and odd foreshortening of limbs that are close to the camera; last week there was a stairwell "jeans" photo, in which the woman's pants legs looked HUGE and her head was tiny by comparison....a good example of shooting at 18mm and of foreshortening caused by short lens length AND close camera-to-subject distance; that creative effect was startling, and it can be useful, but not always.

 

[shadowlands]

I honestly returned both a Nikon 50mm F1.8 and Nikon 35mm F1.8. They both sharp at specific f-stops, but not for me. I can get just as sharp (believe it or not) with my workhorse. And I don't like how tiny both lenses are. And like someone else mentioned earlier, I need to zoom.

 

[kundalini]

Not everyone goes out and buys everything with an L on it

We have the Gold Ring. Much more class than a red L and a white casing. Welcome to the Dark Side.


Geezsh, I forgot the OP's question now......... 'ang on..........





Oh right, if you're gonna stick with the D60, might as well go AF-S. But think about further down the road. You can use pretty much any lens Nikon has made, probably before you were born, on your D60.... with some restrictions (AF, metering), but if you stick with the hobby and in time want to test the waters with a higher end body, then these same lenses will still work. That's why it good to go ahead and get the mindset to spend $2 on a lens for every $1 you spend on a camera body. Did you want a cheap hobby? :mrgreen:

 

[kundalini]

.... And I don't like how tiny both lenses are. ...

That is precisely one of the reasons I like primes.

 

[PatrickCheung]

Not everyone goes out and buys everything with an L on it

We have the Gold Ring. Much more class than a red L and a white casing. Welcome to the Dark Side.


Geezsh, I forgot the OP's question now......... 'ang on..........





Oh right, if you're gonna stick with the D60, might as well go AF-S. But think about further down the road. You can use pretty much any lens Nikon has made, probably before you were born, on your D60.... with some restrictions (AF, metering), but if you stick with the hobby and in time want to test the waters with a higher end body, then these same lenses will still work. That's why it good to go ahead and get the mindset to spend $2 on a lens for every $1 you spend on a camera body. Did you want a cheap hobby? :mrgreen:

haha true say buddy, true say. but i guess my biggest problem isn't having the lens, it's not having the body to use it to its full potential. i'm just a 16 year old kid and i guess i have my financial limitations... that said, it's gonna be a while till i get a body with a focus drive (D90?) to AF those AF lenses on! i guess my biggest fear is missing shots, or making my model wait too long to get the shot

The Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR, the first generation lens, produces excellent bokeh; it is one of the finest zooms for bokeh. It's not cheap, but it outclasses many,many older Nikon primes in the bokeh catgory. Unfortunately, bokeh of the highest quality tends to come with a pretty high price tag. I think your best bet for good bokeh cheap is the discontinued 100-300 f/5.6 AiS zoom, made back in the 1980's.

I do not thing the wide zooms are that useful for portraiture. Sure, they are useful for putting a person inside of a frame that shows a physical location, which is "environmental portraiture", but for what is traditionally called portraiture, the issue with the wide zooms is that one is shooting from very close distances, which can lead to exaggerated perspective and odd foreshortening of limbs that are close to the camera; last week there was a stairwell "jeans" photo, in which the woman's pants legs looked HUGE and her head was tiny by comparison....a good example of shooting at 18mm and of foreshortening caused by short lens length AND close camera-to-subject distance; that creative effect was startling, and it can be useful, but not always.

good point derrel! thanks humm iunno i really like doing my portraiture outside though. mostly because i don't really have a studio to work in... D:

i guess as of now i still have the 85mm f1.8 in mind as a portrait lens... but can anyone tell me anything about the AF-S micro 85mm f3.5? not exactly a fast lens... and is about $60 more than the 85mm f1.8... i heard micro lenses were sharp though?

and of course... any clue when the AF-S 85mm f1.4 is gonna drop? guessing it'll be pricey...

edit: and i forgot to add... ive had this lens in mind for a while... the Tamron 90mm 2.8... i guess 2.8 might be a little slow for a portrait lens, but its a good $500 and i THINK it can autofocus on my d60. plus its got the macro fuction, and can focus way closer to a subject than the 85mm... something that i like when im not shooting portraits of course haha. anyone have any opinions on this lens?

so... tamron 90mm 2.8 vs nikkor AF 85mm 1.8?

 

[wescobts]

I'm mostly a prime shooter, love the feel, less weight and balance I get with them. Also I was finding myself getting "lazy" with zooms, finding a comfort zone and staying there waiting for my shot to come to me. Primes make you get in the action, use your feet and your brain. Constantly thinking distance, composition, and how close I can get, choosing the correct lens to fit the seen. I could not agree more with Darrell about the new zooms, but I don't have the money for them presently, so I make do. Get your glass and then move up in a camera, something that will support AF or AF-S lens'. I currently carry a 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, and a 60mm macro, and am have a blast with them all.

 

[shadowlands]

I'm so dumb.
Earlier I stated that I returned my 35mm and 50mm for they're tiny and I'm not really a prime fan.
We'll saw the 50mm F1.8 today for $124.00 total (shipped) new and bought it again. I'm back!