Which prime to start with?

[Graham]

Now I have go over the shock of my totally unexpected Nikon D3300 Christmas present and marvelled at the 11 point focusing instead of 3 AND the fact I can shoot above 400 ISO my mind is coming up with what I can do with this thing.

I have wanted a prime for some time but never bothered getting one for the D40 so I am now looking again. But finances say that I can only get one in the near future with the possibility of another, or two, later.

Question is, what do I go for first to get me into non zoom thinking? I am thinking a 35mm (56mm equivalent) a 50mm (70mm equivalent) and an 80mm (128mm) equivalent) based on 1.6 crop factor.

I know it really depends on what I intend to shoot but I am thinking more along the around town and landscape will be my most common subject rather than portrait which I do want to do but not that often.

I am thinking that this makes the 35mm the most obvious choice backed up with the new 18-55 kit zoom, which appears to be even better than the one on the D40, as my initial wide angle option. However, I am always happy to listen to wisdom from above :-)

[Caz]

If i  had the 18-55 id go with the 50 or the 80 for the extra focal range.

[Graham]

Forgot to mention that I do have the 55-200 zoom as well from my D40. I was looking at the prime more as a faster, better quality lens and as a tool to use my brain and feet to compose rather than a twist grip..... If you know what I mean.

The more I think about it, the less appeal the 80mm has at the moment as I see that as a more head and shoulders portrait orientated lens. The 50mm seems to fit into the equivalent focal length as the old 35mm film camera days of a 90-100mm for portraits but the 35mm would give me, as near as possible, the old so called 'standard' lens. However, I was never a huge fan of the old 50mm standard but that was pre zoom days, my thinking might be different now.

I suppose at some point I will have to go out with the camera and tape it shut at 35mm on the zom and see how it feels lol.

[Black Pearl]

Look back over your last few hundred shots and check the focal length used on your favourite ones to see if that narrows it down.

I have both the 35mm (52.5 on a DX body) and 50mm (75 on a DX body) and while I like them both I'd say the 35 was more useful as a day to day shooter. If you want it for portraits then the 50 will win - but only just.

[MarkNI]

Graham,

I have to agree with black pearl. I've just recently managed to acquire both the 35 & 50mm 1.8's. Both are fantastic but the 35 has been more useful than the 50 probably because I can't talk anyone into letting me take their portrait over and over till I eventually get one that's usable!!!

Mark

[JHFoto]

Nifty 50 is what I went for when I first started with DSLR cameras.....

[Denis]

I really like my 35mm f1.8 DX, preferring it over the kit lens anyday. And as BP has said, it works out at 52mm on a cropped sensor.

 

One new on ebay for £119 at the moment..

Edited January 6, 2015 by Denis

[JHFoto]

I recently sold a cracker, Nikon Nikkor Micro 40mm, Excellent for close ups and Landscapes..

[Guest]

Graham I have three prime f/1.8 lenses and they were brought for two main reasons low light work and throwing backgrounds out of focus and in most cases are nearly always shot wide open or near it.

 

If you are going to be shooting mainly landscapes and general town images you are most likely going to be shooting around the f/8 mark for the needed dof, so unless the kit lens is a real dog the question is do you need a prime with a focal length that is covered by your standard zoom.

 

Not trying to put you off (I love primes) but just a thought.

[ChrisLumix]

What a ridiculous discussion. Why? Because some people are talking of 50mm as used on a full frame (i.e. = the old film 50mm), while others seem to be speaking of 50mm as a portrait lens (i.e. they're using APS-C or m4/3). Yes, I can work it all out if I spend the time and energy, but why should I have to? If everyone got into the habit of always referring to their lenses in 35mm equivalent terms, we would all know what each other is talking about. [/rant]

[JHFoto]

Chris lots of DSLR photography beginners have hours of fun and get some great results with the nifty 50, I do not mean to be pedantic but it needed saying....

[Martyn]

Now I have go over the shock of my totally unexpected Nikon D3300 Christmas present and marvelled at the 11 point focusing instead of 3 AND the fact I can shoot above 400 ISO my mind is coming up with what I can do with this thing.

I have wanted a prime for some time but never bothered getting one for the D40 so I am now looking again. But finances say that I can only get one in the near future with the possibility of another, or two, later.

Question is, what do I go for first to get me into non zoom thinking? I am thinking a 35mm (56mm equivalent) a 50mm (70mm equivalent) and an 80mm (128mm) equivalent) based on 1.6 crop factor.

I know it really depends on what I intend to shoot but I am thinking more along the around town and landscape will be my most common subject rather than portrait which I do want to do but not that often.

I am thinking that this makes the 35mm the most obvious choice backed up with the new 18-55 kit zoom, which appears to be even better than the one on the D40, as my initial wide angle option. However, I am always happy to listen to wisdom from above :-)

 

I have a Nikon D5100 and not too long ago I bought the 35mm f1.8; I love it. Nikon DX crop factor is 1.5 which gives this lens the 35mm equivalent of 52.5mm. It is small, light, pin sharp and relatively inexpensive. I plan on buying the 50mm f1.8 this year primarily because it is so cheap (it costs about the same as a tank of fuel for the van). Whichever one you choose you will not be disappointed.

[ChrisLumix]

Chris lots of DSLR photography beginners have hours of fun and get some great results with the nifty 50, I do not mean to be pedantic but it needed saying....

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with a 50mm lens! whether you call it a 'nifty 50' or whatever you like. But... if it's full frame it IS 50mm. If it's APS-C then it's more like 75mm, if it's m4/3 then it's nearer to 100mm. That's what I mean about defining our terms. If  we don't, then we're either talking at cross purposes or baffling beginners.

[Black Pearl]

Oooo I love when this conversation reemerges - regardless of the body it's still a 50mm :-)

[JHFoto]

Oooo I love when this conversation reemerges - regardless of the body it's still a 50mm :-)

It is a much talked about topic, I agree its still a 50mm and you can get great pictures with them......

[Guest]

Oooo I love when this conversation reemerges - regardless of the body it's still a 50mm :-)

Yep it's just the angle of view that changes with the sensor size the focal length remains the same.

Edited January 7, 2015 by OlyPaul

[ChrisLumix]

Yep it's just the angle of view that changes with the sensor size the focal length remains the same.

 

Yes, but the focal length is a meaningless figure - it varies with the sensor size, is all. What makes a particular lens a particular lens is the angle of view.

 

I'll give you one example. On my FZ38, the true focal length at full wideangle is just under 5mm. Do you think if I said I shot at 5mm it would mean anything to you? You would look at the shot and say "No way!" And I would agree with you. The FL equivalent is actually 27mm. You would then nod and say "Oh, that makes sense." 

 

Focal length without equivalence means nothing. Even if technically that's what it is.

 

"How big's your dog?"

"One foot tall"

"Wow. That's ... tall. Er no ... small. Er ... what breed is it?"

"Border terrier"

"Ah. Now I've got the picture"

[JHFoto]

I think we should put this one to bed now, eh.....

[Black Pearl]

But the focal length doesn't change with format.

What you're quoting is an equivalent to one particular format albeit a popular one I'll grant.

[ChrisLumix]

But the focal length doesn't change with format.

What you're quoting is an equivalent to one particular format albeit a popular one I'll grant.

 

Well, not only popular, but a de facto standard, since 35mm film was invented! Which is why all the major manufacturers quote their lenses in 35mm equivalent terms, even when the "actual" FL appears on the front of the lens itself.

[Black Pearl]

It took quite a while to become the standard and was actually derided as being a miniature system by most for many years. AP was full of rath and bile from readers who hated it and didn't even want it featured - bit like the transition to digital a few years ago.

By the way compact camera brands usually describe their lenses in equivalent terms but interchangeable systems tend not to.

[ChrisLumix]

It took quite a while to become the standard and was actually derided as being a miniature system by most for many years. AP was full of rath and bile from readers who hated it and didn't even want it featured - bit like the transition to digital a few years ago.

By the way compact camera brands usually describe their lenses in equivalent terms but interchangeable systems tend not to.

 

Well, historically you're quite right! But I grew up (photographically) in the 70s and 80s, and 35mm by then was the domain of most amateur photographers, even professionals like David Bailey and journalists. Instamatics and other 'cheapo' cameras usually had fixed focus lenses and maybe a choice of two apertures or shutter speeds (sunny and cloudy!!) so FL was of no interest, and larger formats were the preserve of the minority who used them for either professional or specialist reasons.

 

Are you telling me that APS-C and M4/3 users aren't interested in the angle of view of their lenses, or is it that you're saying that each group of users knows what its own lenses translate to in terms of fisheye, ordinary wideangle, "50mm", portrait, medium and long telephoto, and don't therefore need to know what the 35mm equivalent is? And further, that those who own both full format and M4/3 cameras, do a mental translation of 'focal length versus angle of view' each time they switch from one to the other?

[Black Pearl]

For starters I'm playing devils advocate and winding you up - because we've had this argument before and it still makes me smile.

Frankly I don't care - I know what my 50mm lens does on an APSC body and I know what it does on a 35mm (format) body and I know what it does on a medium format body. To me that's all that matters - knowing what I will get when I use a lens on particular camera. Yes that relies on me understanding the 'equivalent' focal length but it doesn't limit my understanding to just a reference to one format.

[ChrisLumix]

For starters I'm playing devils advocate and minding you up - because we've had this argument before and it still makes me smile.

Frankly I don't care - I know what my 50mm lens does on an APSC body and I know what it does on a 35mm (format) body and I know what it does on a medium format body. To me that's all that matters - knowing what I will get when I use a lens on particular camera. Yes that relies on me understanding the 'equivalent' focal length but it doesn't limit my understanding to just a reference to one format.

 

I understand that perfectly. YOUR use of YOUR equipment is what matters, and focal length is absolutely irrelevant compared to what you actually see in your viewfinder.

 

It's just that when people come onto a forum and start saying things like "My 50mm doesn't get used often enough because I don't shoot portraits" that I do a double take, and then realise that PROBABLY what they're talking about is that a 50mm lens on THEIR camera has the field of view of a 75 or 100mm equivalent. That's the point where I get frustrated that people don't specify what format they're talking about and leave it to us to guess (educatedly!) what they're on about.

[JHFoto]

I think we must agree to differ on this one.....?