Prime lenses - Which ones to get and why?

[Overread20]

With 3rd party it all depends on the lens itself - some are pro quality and others are not. Tamron, Tokina and Sigma all make 3rd party lenses and most are good quality optically and build quality wise. However a lot of people buy cheap 3rd party lenses and then upgrade to a pro series own brand and thus always talk about "cheap poor quality 3rd party" without actually testing the more pro quality 3rd party glass. Pro series can have better build and AF, but its also likely to cost more.
Myself I have 2 sigma prime macro lenses and both perform very well - I even went for the 150mm over the canon 100mm because of the extra 50mm of reach.
About the only risk is that older 3rd party gear can need rechipping to work with newer camera bodies - with current 3rd party lenses rechipping is normally not a problem, but with older series ones they eventually fall so far behind that the company will no longer support them.

And you are correct (I forgot to mention it ) a longer focal length lens, macro or otherwise, will render a more blurred background. It's one reason I know a few shoot with a good prime (like the 150mm macro I mentioned) and add a 2*teleconverter not for the reach but for even more blur that a 300mm lens gives.

On budget have you considered the sigma 70mm and nikon 60mm macro lenses?

Is AF-S the same as USM? Ie a built in motor and all the time manual focusing?

 

[Vinny]

Unfortunately most of us are in the same boat! I would look at zooms as an alternative to primes until you have the money and/or really know what you want to shoot. But even there quality zooms will cost a lot of money - the Nikon 70 - 300 can cost $120 or $450 for the better model and the 70 - 200 f2.8 costs $2100. It is 100mm less and costs $1600 more because of it's quality. We won't go into the $5000 lenses yet, not that I ever even held one!

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:.

 

[JohnS.]

With 3rd party it all depends on the lens itself - some are pro quality and others are not. Tamron, Tokina and Sigma all make 3rd party lenses and most are good quality optically and build quality wise. However a lot of people buy cheap 3rd party lenses and then upgrade to a pro series own brand and thus always talk about "cheap poor quality 3rd party" without actually testing the more pro quality 3rd party glass. Pro series can have better build and AF, but its also likely to cost more.
Myself I have 2 sigma prime macro lenses and both perform very well - I even went for the 150mm over the canon 100mm because of the extra 50mm of reach.
About the only risk is that older 3rd party gear can need rechipping to work with newer camera bodies - with current 3rd party lenses rechipping is normally not a problem, but with older series ones they eventually fall so far behind that the company will no longer support them.

And you are correct (I forgot to mention it ) a longer focal length lens, macro or otherwise, will render a more blurred background. It's one reason I know a few shoot with a good prime (like the 150mm macro I mentioned) and add a 2*teleconverter not for the reach but for even more blur that a 300mm lens gives.

On budget have you considered the sigma 70mm and nikon 60mm macro lenses?

Is AF-S the same as USM? Ie a built in motor and all the time manual focusing?

See that's another thing.. I don't want to buy a cheap 3rd party lens only to sell it and spend more money for Nikon lenses later anyways. I would rather save longer and buy Nikon products.

I've been busy all day and haven't had a chance to look at Sigma lenses. When I get a chance, I will! I picked up an AF 50mm 1.8 tonight and I've been playing with it for hours. Manual focus is HARD to learn! (D40 doesn't have the motor to autofocus with AF lenses)

And I have no idea about AF-S vs. USM. I barely understand AF and AF-S myself. I just know Nikon D40's can't autofocus with AF lenses lol.

Thanks again!

Unfortunately most of us are in the same boat! I would look at zooms as an alternative to primes until you have the money and/or really know what you want to shoot. But even there quality zooms will cost a lot of money - the Nikon 70 - 300 can cost $120 or $450 for the better model and the 70 - 200 f2.8 costs $2100. It is 100mm less and costs $1600 more because of it's quality. We won't go into the $5000 lenses yet, not that I ever even held one!

Yeah I'm not looking to get into those serious zoom lenses. I really wanted the new 70-200 f2.8 until I saw the price lol. The pictures look absolutely BEAUTIFUL though.

Like I said above, I just acquired an AF 50mm f1.8 which I've been practicing for a couple hours now. I also have a 35mm AF-S 1.8D on the way. I finally made some decisions and made purchases. I decided that longer focal length prime lenses were way out of my budget and that I would rather have 2 shorter focal length prime lenses than 1 longer focal length prime lens. I'll just stick to my 55-200 zoom for anything over 50mm.