Prime lenses - Which ones to get and why?

[JohnS.]

I have a 55-200 and 18-55 VR. I enjoy them both but I'm looking to get a prime lens. I've read and heard prime lenses shoot much more crisp pictures over a typical/normal zoom lens.

I have a D40 and I'm considering getting the 50mm 1.8D. I know it doesn't AF on my camera. Does anyone recommend a different one or other ones?

The main reason why I want to get it is general photography to be quite honest. But types of photography that interest me particularly are animals / wildlife and landscape. My friend and I plan on going to parks and such to walk through the woods and take pictures just to practice and learn.

Any input is appreciated!

 

[12sndsgood]

animals and wildlife your proalby going to want a lens that gets closer up then a 50mm. i was going to pick up a 50mm 1.8 for general shooting but ended up choosing the 35mm f1.8 to have a little bit more flexibility for closer range shots to have more chance at getting everythingi into the screen.

 

[JohnS.]

Well the problem I find with animals in the wild is that they're not used to people so they're very skiddish. With that being said, I'm probably better off with my 55-200 for wild animals. Otherwise, I still think the 50mm (or higher) would be better for insects and such. For woods, trails, etc., I don't think it will be a big deal having a 35mm or 50mm. I'm going to edit (crop, levels, etc.) them anyways. So I thought maybe having a 50mm would overall be better.

I really want to pony up the money for the Nikon 105mm micro. Even after looking at the prices, I'm considering the AF-S version for my D40. But knowing that the lens is worth more than my camera body kind of makes me want to upgrade to a D90 too. I don't have money for both though so I'm torn on what I would rather do.

 

[pbelarge]

I have a 55-200 and 18-55 VR. I enjoy them both but I'm looking to get a prime lens. I've read and heard prime lenses shoot much more crisp pictures over a typical/normal zoom lens.

I have a D40 and I'm considering getting the 50mm 1.8D. I know it doesn't AF on my camera. Does anyone recommend a different one or other ones?

The main reason why I want to get it is general photography to be quite honest. But types of photography that interest me particularly are animals / wildlife and landscape. My friend and I plan on going to parks and such to walk through the woods and take pictures just to practice and learn.

Any input is appreciated!

Animals and insects will require different lens for each discipline. I do not see the 50 working for either in the walks through the woods. You will become frustrated very quickly. It can be used for landscape, although for portions of landscape, not all landscape shots.

You may want to take a step backwards and look at the photos you have already taken. Check the focal lengths you have shot at. Are those the lengths you like in the results? If not then you can start to decide what focal length will be your next lens.

 

[JohnS.]

I've only done a couple insects with my 55-200 and I try to be zoomed in as much as I can. I like the bokeh effect with macro and insects. Maybe it was the settings on my camera or lackof camera (D40) that didn't give me picture quality as crisp as I wanted. I've done animals (dogs & cats) as well and most of them were action shots so I had to use my 55-200 again. But when they were just hangin out, I used my 18-55 VR. I plan on getting rid of my 55-200 for a more crisp zoom. Or maybe I don't know much and aren't using my 55-200 right if I'm not getting as crisp shots as I say I am.

I've seen a bunch of 105mm shots and I love the effect it makes on the picture. I've also checked out 85mm, 50mm, and 35mm pictures and like them all. Of course they all create different amounts of effects but I like them all. I think depending on the subject, each has their own use.

Personally, I'd love to have them all. But of course money is an issue. I really like bokeh and while trying to consider money, I think 50mm is what I should settle for for now until I can save up more money for an 85/105.

 

[pbelarge]

Shoot some more with your 55mm, leave the lens set at that length. See if you like it, and how you use it at that focal length. It will help you decide if 50 is the way to go.

 

[txtowman]

I have the same lenses with a d5000, I have trouble getting as close to the wild animals even at 200mm.

 

[David Dvir]

I would really get the 35mm 1.8 DX from nikon, for around $250 I think it's a steal. It won't help you with your wildlife but I don't think you're planning on getting a prime with a focal length longer than 200mm . The 35 will give you great range for a variety of other things that you may not even have thought of just yet.

 

[JohnS.]

Shoot some more with your 55mm, leave the lens set at that length. See if you like it, and how you use it at that focal length. It will help you decide if 50 is the way to go.

Good idea. Which lens should I use at 55?

I have the same lenses with a d5000, I have trouble getting as close to the wild animals even at 200mm.

Really? Hmmm uh-oh lol. I'm hoping that won't be a problem for me too then!

I would really get the 35mm 1.8 DX from nikon, for around $250 I think it's a steal. It won't help you with your wildlife but I don't think you're planning on getting a prime with a focal length longer than 200mm . The 35 will give you great range for a variety of other things that you may not even have thought of just yet.

The 105mm is ridiculously expensive for me as is. I definitely won't be getting anything higher than the 105 for a long time .

Any reason you recommend the 35mm? And as a macro or general or both?

 

[Vinny]

Landscapes may need a wide angle, anything less than 50 mm is considered wide. The reason for this is to capture as much of the landscape as possible. But sometimes you don't want it too wide as you start to get distortion the wider you go. Wide angle lenses are not good for portraits due to the distortion although I guess Photoshop and other software can take that out these days.

Wildlife needs long lenses 200+ mm due to animals being skittish. You may be able to get a teleconverter and increase the focal length but you will lose equivalent in f stops (ie 1 1/2 stops of light for a 1.4x converter).

Macro is a whole different lens as they are made to be close to the subject.

Zooms are the most cost efficient ways for a photographer to get as many lenses as possible but if you want to be a portrait photographer then buying a specific lens just for that is the way to go IMO.

 

[Overread20]

Wildlife photography starts at 300mm
Bird photography starts at 400mm

With wildlife each time you get a longer lens the rule is that the animals will move that much further away from you (ie you'll always want more).

Those are very generalist comments, but they hold the grain of truth that with wildlife most times you'll need a longer lens and this is especially true if you are trying to do regular walks and take wildlife snaps - since doing thus you're not in control over the situation nor are you insuring that your position is optimum for getting the shot - ie you're at the mercy of the animal totally so you're most times going to need long reach. Heck even with hides and fieldcraft the longer lenses are the ones the "pros" choose.


Of course there are lenses for all budgets from cheaper 70-300mm zooms right up to the stunning 300mm 2.8 and longer highly expensive glass. So there is scope to tailor things to your budget constraints. Furthermore never ever worry about having lenses that are more expensive than your camera body - pro series lenses are worth their cost and will stick with you for ages (glass at the pro series end tends to upgrade far slower than camera bodies). Furthermore good glass gets you far more image quality improvement and opens up new areas of shooting more so than just upgrading your camera body to the next level.

Now on the macro front the 105mm Nikon macro (sorry I use macro not micro, but as far as nikon lens names goes its the same meaning) is a great macro lens. You mention the AFS version (I'm not 100% clued up on the nikon front) is that an older version that won't auto focus on your current camera body and does it have the VR or not?

 

[JohnS.]

Landscapes may need a wide angle, anything less than 50 mm is considered wide. The reason for this is to capture as much of the landscape as possible. But sometimes you don't want it too wide as you start to get distortion the wider you go. Wide angle lenses are not good for portraits due to the distortion although I guess Photoshop and other software can take that out these days.

Wildlife needs long lenses 200+ mm due to animals being skittish. You may be able to get a teleconverter and increase the focal length but you will lose equivalent in f stops (ie 1 1/2 stops of light for a 1.4x converter).

Macro is a whole different lens as they are made to be close to the subject.

Zooms are the most cost efficient ways for a photographer to get as many lenses as possible but if you want to be a portrait photographer then buying a specific lens just for that is the way to go IMO.

Thanks for making all of that more clear! I really want to get involved with every aspect of photography but it looks like I don't have the funds to buy lenses for each kind .

Wildlife photography starts at 300mm
Bird photography starts at 400mm

With wildlife each time you get a longer lens the rule is that the animals will move that much further away from you (ie you'll always want more).

Those are very generalist comments, but they hold the grain of truth that with wildlife most times you'll need a longer lens and this is especially true if you are trying to do regular walks and take wildlife snaps - since doing thus you're not in control over the situation nor are you insuring that your position is optimum for getting the shot - ie you're at the mercy of the animal totally so you're most times going to need long reach. Heck even with hides and fieldcraft the longer lenses are the ones the "pros" choose.


Of course there are lenses for all budgets from cheaper 70-300mm zooms right up to the stunning 300mm 2.8 and longer highly expensive glass. So there is scope to tailor things to your budget constraints. Furthermore never ever worry about having lenses that are more expensive than your camera body - pro series lenses are worth their cost and will stick with you for ages (glass at the pro series end tends to upgrade far slower than camera bodies). Furthermore good glass gets you far more image quality improvement and opens up new areas of shooting more so than just upgrading your camera body to the next level.

Now on the macro front the 105mm Nikon macro (sorry I use macro not micro, but as far as nikon lens names goes its the same meaning) is a great macro lens. You mention the AFS version (I'm not 100% clued up on the nikon front) is that an older version that won't auto focus on your current camera body and does it have the VR or not?

Yikes 300 and 400mm?!?! Ouch!

I'm going to be quite honest... Even $200 is a TON of money for me to spend on a lens. I'm 23, I don't have a college degree and didn't graduate, I make $20,000 a year with over $30,000 in school loans and credit card debt... I don't have much to work with. But photography is something I absolutely love doing when I'm doing it so I want to pursue it with at least some force!

There is a Nikon 105mm AF and Nikon 105mm AF-S. AF lenses don't autofocus on D40 while the AF-S ones do. The AF-S version is only offered with VR so from my understanding, that makes it more expensive, coupled with AF-S which makes it even more expensive yet again (I think). I believe the AF is the older model and the AF-S is the newer one. And don't worry about the macro/micro, I realize Nikon calls them micro but I call them macro too :mrgreen:.

 

[Overread20]

Don't worry I well know how expensive photography is!
Just means you'll have to open a new little savers bank account somewhere to ferret away some money toward the more expensive purchases whilst upgrading your setup as you go. Nothing wrong in that and its the approach many make for such expensive purchases.

On the macro front the lens you are looking at is very good - the VR is something you'll only get from that lens (for nikon) and whilst it has reduced effecitivness for macro work its still a good boon to have for regular shooting as well.
However macro prime (single focal length )lenses are almost all very good optical performers and because of the nature of what "true macro" is they each, at their minimum focusing distance, give the exact same framing of the subject- the difference being that a longer focal length macro will achieve this from further away than a shoter focal length macro lens.

This means that you can consider some 3rd party macro lenses for your setup. The tamron 90mm macro is often a popular choice and there is also the sigma 105mm macro. However I don't think either comes with AF for your camera body. This isn't a limitation so far as macro is concerned where manual focusing is by far and away the most effective approach, but can be a limit for regular shooting (macro lenses whilst offering very accurate and precise manual focusing for macro distances tend to have a less precise manual focusing range on longer distances - they don't missfocus, but the focus wheel turns very little for a big shift in the focus - which makes doing it manually very tricky).
I think the only 3rd party options for you would be the Sigma 150mm and (discontinued ) sigma 180mm; however I don't know how they price up against the nikon 105mm macro.

 

[JohnS.]

While we're on the topic of 3rd party lenses, how reliable are they? I have never considered buying anything non-Nikon. It's just a general rule I have with eveything I own. I don't buy my clothes anywhere but from my favorite store, yes, even underwear. I try not to buy the more vital replacement parts from anywhere but Honda (which is what I drive). I don't buy groceries from anywhere except this one grocery store, even though I know it's cheaper elsewhere. So quite naturally, I applied the same principal to photography without even thinking about it. It's not that I don't want to be cheap and buy an off-brand product, I just prefer to spend extra money on brand name stuff that I know works well and won't have to worry about as much.

With that being said, I don't see myself buying the 105mm VR after all. I've done the thought processing for days now and it is just way too expensive for me, even on a credit card. And I know this might sound like a noobish comment, but I thought longer focal length prime lenses create a more blurred/bokeh effect around the subject than shorter focal length prime lenses. I love bokeh. It doesn't have to be intense but I just love it in general.

Manual vs. auto focusing is another reason why I prefer to stick with auto focusing lenses in general. Just like you said, manual focusing tends to get harder from greater distances. I know the only way to truly learn photography is by doing it, but from a financial standpoint, I don't see myself being able to afford a longer focal length prime lens to do such work.

Thanks for all of your input!

 

[djacobox372]

If you're going to spend $$ on primes, I'd recommend upgrading your body to something that takes AF lenses--a used d80 only sells for around $90 more then a used d40. The price difference between a single AF-S and AF prime lens is greater then the cost of the upgrade.

AF-S isn't really of much benefit at the lower focal lengths--it's only really warranted on the heavy telephotos and zooms.