Prime worth it ?

jessyd · Apr 16, 2012

Hey guys i'm totally new in photography

I already buy d7000 with 18-200m

I was wandering if a prime would be a most ? because i already covert the focal range with my 18-200?

I yes witch prime 35m or 50m ?

Would prime be better for video then 18-200?

Thanks for your help!!

If yes should

LowezAkar · Apr 16, 2012

jessyd said:
Hey guys i'm totally new in photography

I already buy d7000 with 18-200m

I was wandering if a prime would be a most ? because i already covert the focal range with my 18-200?

I yes witch prime 35m or 50m ?

Would prime be better for video then 18-200?

Thanks for your help!!

If yes should

I have the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D and it is excellent for portraits, I have not used it for anything else as yet but for $100, you can not go wrong. I am using it on a Nikon D90 so you can definitely use it on your D7000.

analog.universe · Apr 16, 2012

The 18-200 is good because it covers a wide range, but it's not really all that great for any other reason.

Primes (and there are dozens, not just 35 and 50), only have to perform at one focal length, so they can be better optimized. Generally they'll be sharper, exhibit less distortion (i.e. render straight lines straighter), and have dramatically better low light performance.

As far as whether to buy one.... Until you're running into limitations with your lens, and until you know what about that lens is limiting you, it's hard to choose a lens that doesn't experience those limitations. The 50 1.8 mentioned is the classic "starter prime" because of its price, and it will be sharper than your 18-200, as well as 4-6 times better in low light.

The VR on your 18-200 will be nice for video, currently Nikon's shorter primes are not available with VR.

sovietdoc · Apr 16, 2012

yup, 50mm f/1.8 is the best option for you

djacobox372 · Apr 16, 2012

Prime = 2 seat convertible sports car with a powerful engine and a manual gearbox
18-200mm = suv with awd, automatic, navigation, roof-rack, and a tiny 4 cylinder engine

vipgraphx · Apr 17, 2012

I would go with the 35mm on that body. It works like a 52.5mm because the crop factor. IF you I had the D7000 with both the 35mm 1.8G and the 50mm 1.8G and honestly the 35 1.8G was more usefull. The 50mm will put you to close. So if you are in indoors its hard to use for more than close ups unless you have the room to move back. a 50mm will be more like a 75mm...

Go for the 35mm 1.8G its like $200 new and used you can find on ebay for $150-$175 sometimes.

Oh and yeah these primes will put that 18-200 to shame at the same focal range. It will be way sharper, lower light capability and way better bokeh...

Village Idiot · Apr 17, 2012

sovietdoc said:
yup, 50mm f/1.8 is the best option for you

50 f/1.8 on a crop body is boring.

greybeard · Apr 17, 2012

I dont think you should buy anything until YOU know exactly what you want and or need. I personally would like a 35mm 1.8 prime.

jessyd · Apr 17, 2012

I just buy 35mm 1.8 i love it!! The sharpeness and the bokeh is amazing!!!

Thank you everyones!!!

Derrel · Apr 17, 2012

50mm on a crop body is a short telephoto, with a wide aperture that admits a lot of light. Calling a 50mm lens on a crop body "boring" is like saying, "Steak is boring"--simply a blanket statement, with no factual basis; in a manner of speaking, calling a 50 on APS-C "boring" is simply an opinion based on lack of imagination, I suppose you could say. A lens of any particular focal length is not "boring"...but a boring shooter can make boring photos using any focal length. Where a 50mm lens on APS-C shines is when one needs a short telephoto angle of view in a lightweight and unobtrusive lens, with high sharpness, high contrast, and fast focusing. Great for things like indoor basketball or court sports, shooting in poor lighting conditions, half-body portraiture, still life shots, scenic photography, and close-ups. are all of those things boring? The 35mm G is a low-cost lens,designed for DX bodies. The 50mm Nikkors are all FX-capable, and the 1.8D costs less than the 35.

GnipGnop · Apr 17, 2012

50mm on a APS-C boring? Not to me!

Migraine forming by Gn!pGnop, on Flickr

simple by Gn!pGnop, on Flickr

Lost my train of thought by Gn!pGnop, on Flickr

DiskoJoe · Apr 17, 2012

Buy both.

hukim0531 · Apr 17, 2012

vipgraphx said:
I would go with the 35mm on that body. It works like a 52.5mm because the crop factor. IF you I had the D7000 with both the 35mm 1.8G and the 50mm 1.8G and honestly the 35 1.8G was more usefull. The 50mm will put you to close. So if you are in indoors its hard to use for more than close ups unless you have the room to move back. a 50mm will be more like a 75mm...

Go for the 35mm 1.8G its like $200 new and used you can find on ebay for $150-$175 sometimes.

Oh and yeah these primes will put that 18-200 to shame at the same focal range. It will be way sharper, lower light capability and way better bokeh...

+1

Village Idiot · Apr 17, 2012

Derrel said:
50mm on a crop body is a short telephoto, with a wide aperture that admits a lot of light. Calling a 50mm lens on a crop body "boring" is like saying, "Steak is boring"--simply a blanket statement, with no factual basis; in a manner of speaking, calling a 50 on APS-C "boring" is simply an opinion based on lack of imagination, I suppose you could say. A lens of any particular focal length is not "boring"...but a boring shooter can make boring photos using any focal length. Where a 50mm lens on APS-C shines is when one needs a short telephoto angle of view in a lightweight and unobtrusive lens, with high sharpness, high contrast, and fast focusing. Great for things like indoor basketball or court sports, shooting in poor lighting conditions, half-body portraiture, still life shots, scenic photography, and close-ups. are all of those things boring? The 35mm G is a low-cost lens,designed for DX bodies. The 50mm Nikkors are all FX-capable, and the 1.8D costs less than the 35.

It's not a blanket statement, it's an opinion. Just like, "yup, 50mm f/1.8 is the best option for you".