New Lens Advice

[Dao]

In general, the prime lenses are optically better (some high end zoom lenses are very good as well). What I means was have you try out the focal length and see if it is something you like.

The key is photography is quite personal. What I want may not be what you want. Since most of the people do not have ton of money to burn, so I usually recommend people to try the focal length first and see if they like it.

There is a possibility that you may not like the way it looks when shoot with 35mm. The key about lens is the focal length. Once you determine you are all set on a particular f0cal length or range, then look for a lens in that area. It could be prime or zoom, it all base on the features, build, optical quality and cost.

 

[HeldInTheMoment]

Again, thank you for the continued support and assistance. The more I can learn, the more I can share later on with others who are learning.

Just when I think understand things, something else comes into play or another opinion. I enjoy hearing all aspects and opinions on various topics, so thank you all!

 

[JoeW28]

A prime lens will almost always be sharper and a quicker focus than a kit zoom. The 35mm f1.8 autofocuses very quickly and precisely and it's very sharp.

One other advantage that I'm not sure I explained clearly in my earlier post is this: you may be thinking of just buying one lens,putting that on your camera and going with that, not carrying around a bag of lens and gear. But the 35mm f1.8 is small and light enough that you could put a kit lens (with a longer focal lengthen your camera) and slip the 35mm in some cargo pants pockets or a jacket pocket or a purse and then swap lens when you're inside and need fast glass.

 

[dcbear78]

Sigma make a pretty impressive 18-35mm f1.8 lens you could look at if you wanted a little extra versatility.

 

[Solarflare]

Thanks Dao, but aside from the aperture...isn't the prime lens higher quality, or am I really just getting a wider aperture?

Well there is no general rule such as "primes are always better". Though the best of the best lenses are indeed always prime lenses. They are typically also no longer cheap and recently some are amazingly large, too. Still zooms can be very good.


Making a zoom instead of a prime implies a certain extra cost in the complexity of lens design. I.e. a zoom tends to have more lens elements and more lens errors.

This extra cost depends upon the exact focal length range. A normal zoom that has to offer both wide and long focal lengths is costier to make than a pure wide angle or a pure long angle zoom, at least on a system with a long flange distance, like a SLR, since the zoom has to be retrofocus in the wide angles and then again not in the long angles. A wide angle zoom is costier than a telephoto zoom because the angles of views are so much steeper. A 5x or 4x zoom is more complex than a zoom thats 3x or even 2x and below. A zoom thats f2.8 is more costy than a zoom thats f4. Etc.

The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom for example was known for a long time as being as good as the primes for the system. Thats because it was less than 2x and a pure wide angle zoom. The new Canon 11-24mm f4 is also said to be of very high quality. Or the new Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC(*). All these zooms are close to 2x.

The Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR(*) is also very good. Its 5x, but its a pure telephoto zoom, which makes construction cost a lot less. Still its not as good as say the AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR(*) which is only about 3x.

This only gives a general hint. The Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f4 VR(*) for example has a pretty bad name for its image quality. The predecessor of the current AF-S version, the AF 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR(*), also was pretty awful.


(*) This lens has image stabilization. For some reason every single company uses a different shortcut for that (Canon: IS, Nikon: VR, Tamron: VC, Sigma: OS, Sony: OSS, Fuji: OIS).

 

[otherprof89 31]

Thanks Dao, but aside from the aperture...isn't the prime lens higher quality, or am I really just getting a wider aperture?

I own both. I think the 18-55 is very good, but the 35 is sharper. You are gaining more than aperture.

 

[floatingby]

I'm gonna go against the grain here and recommend the Nikkor 85mm f 1.8G instead of that 35mm. Why? the lens you have already cover the 35mm focal length, so getting a prime in that focal length is more of a sideway move than anything; also, I find the bokeh on that particular 35 properly despicable in most situations, I would never buy it for that reason alone.
The 85 on the other hand is something you don't have now, 85 mm is an extremely flattering focal length for portrait, the bokeh is creamy and dreamy, you get more reach than what you have, and it will follow if you ever get into full frame. 85 mm, in either 1.4 or 1.8 iteration, is a staple in the Nikon lineup, and there are many reasons for it.

 

[beagle100]

Thanks Dao, but aside from the aperture...isn't the prime lens higher quality, or am I really just getting a wider aperture?

Well there is no general rule such as "primes are always better". ).

no, there is not a rule that primes are "better" but if you look at lens review sites like photozone.de it would be easy to see that primes are "sharper" at equivalent focal length

 

[Solarflare]

no, there is not a rule that primes are "better" but if you look at lens review sites like photozone.de it would be easy to see that primes are "sharper" at equivalent focal length

Uh-hu.

There are extremely bad prime lenses around.

For example:

Nikkor AF 24mm f 2.8 D FX - Review Test Report - Analysis

vs

Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f 2.8G ED FX - Review Test Report - Analysis