Prime Lenses
This past weekend I attended a photography learning session and I was able to use some new lenses. I started off the weekend with using my 55-250mm Lens and was getting some pretty good shots. I was able to manipulate the subject and the lighting the way I wanted to and was getting good quality images. (i.e. I had the creative and knowledge base in my pictures). However, when I was handed a 50mm prime lens with 1.4, I saw a huge spike in quality. Meaning I was able to isolate the subject and really focus on the movement.
I was always told lenses are a huge factor, but always dismissed it because I never had the money to upgrade. Now that I have had a taste of prime lenses, I'm thinking of trying to safe up for a new lens.
Point of this discussion, sometimes a good photographer also needs decent equipment, but not exclusive to expensive high tech equipment.
I've seen many videos on Youtube with famous photographers getting "good pictures" with a barbie camera, but they also get good pictures with their usual equipment.
Joost van Halm I totally agree with Roger. I also come from analog film. 50mm was my only lens and when I finally managed to get a zoom lens I got sloppy. I have a Fuji X100 which has a fixed prime (35mm equiv.). If you use it often you will start to notice that you can put it to your eye and you only have to take a step back or forward to make a great picture. You get used to it.
On the point of prices: you can get a very decent 50mm for very little money. Buy it you wouldn't regret it!
Satoshi T
If you have one certainly wide-range zoom lens, it will be free for the focal length.
But, you can get bokeh - one of the essential impressive photographic elements - only with small F value.
In general, a lens with of small F value is expensive, heavy and large.
But there are exception.
It's Just 50mmF1.4 or 50mmF1.8.
These are inexpensive and lightweight :)
Joost van Halm
Satoshi is right, if your camera supports a Nikon D lens (camera has to have an AF motor, which is mostly there on the more professional models), get it it is of very good optical quality, no distortion whatsoever.
Only downside is that it makes more noise when focussing and the focussing ring is turning when you use AF. It is very cheap, even new. On APS-C is makes a nice portrait lens.
I now own a newer f/1.4 'G' version of the lens. It does everything quiet and has an even more wider aperture. Downside: Expensive. Slower to focus due to the speed of the build-in AF motor. More distortion. So newer in not always better!
Eugene Alexeev I highly recommend the new Sigma series of lenses. The 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 are excellent and come in many mounts. I've not had great luck with older Nikon glass. It is not the glass, but if the lens is 100% manual focus, then you may struggle since the DX and even some FX view finders are tiny. The focusing screens are also geared toward auto-focus users and pure manual focus can be quite challenging. Using live view is very helpful, but not all subjects are cooperative.
Robert de Bock
I've owned both the Nikon 50mm AF-S 1.4 and 50mm AF-S 1.8. The 1.8 is -much- better in my opinion, because:
- It's faster to focus.
- It's cheaper.
- It's lighter.
- It's smaller. (Just a little bit.)
That said, my favourite lens length is (equal to full-frame) 35mm. I'm using a crop camera, so that's around 23mm.
Gogi Golzman
if you have a crop camera then your 35mm lens equals 56mm
=]
Joost van Halm Robert said is correctly, lens length, he was referring to using the 23mm lens to get to 35mm equivalent
Gogi Golzman oooo ok =] than yes
Joost van Halm Check!
Michael McKee 52.5
Joost van Halm 52.5mm is what you would get when you put a 35mm lens on a APS-C camera
Gogi Golzman
well look its really up to you
if your photography is a hobby then save some money for one good prime lens
my advice is to go for the sigma art lenses .. they are absolutly icredible!
i have the 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4
and they are amazing
but again my photography its for a work too.
its not matter if you using a crop camera or a full frame camera
you will see the big difference in the quality of the image.
its really worth the savings!
good luck! =]
Aaron Langley I sold the 18-55mm that came with my Canon and bought the 50mm 1.8 and the 28mm 1.8. I think they are much more versatile, and in those ranges the perspective difference walking vs zooming isn't really noticeable to me. Personally I love being able to shoot in the dark without a tripod too.
Michael McKee
Prime lenses can give you sharper results and a shallower depth of field, though good zooms come so close that most of us can't tell the difference. Bokeh is only one aspect of photography and one that can be overdone. All shots don't need it, actually most shots don't need it. Shallow depth of field makes it harder to capture good focus. You'll get a smaller percentage of in-focus shots shooting at f/1.8 than at f/8.
Shooting one focal length at a time, for a time teaches you how to see with that focal length. I shot about 60% of my shots for a year at 40mm equivalent and really like it for street photography.
Aaron I'd love a prime lens, but with my camera (D3200) I can't imagine manual focus would be practical. Basically torn between 35mm or 50mm 1.8Gs, at least for when I manage to get the spare cash. Not sure of any other options.
Kevin Drum The Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is one of my favorite lenses--sharp, fast, and nice bokeh. I recently bought a Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, which was nice because it was my first autofocus lens on my full-frame Sony A7ii. However, after reading online that a lot of people were using the Nikkor 35/1.8 on full-frame with just a little cropping, I decided to give it a try with a manual adapter. I resold the Sony lens with zero regrets.
Kevin Drum
Some shots I've taken with the 35mm f/1.8G:
"The Orange Airport That Delivers Blue to the World"
"Photo #360"
"Photo #363"
Aaron Really envious - It's so crisp! Didn't realise you also have a D3200, too. Maybe I'll be able to afford it some day. :)
Top Contributors
People who started the most discussions on Talks.
-
138 -
25
-
25
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
Unanswered Talks
Discussions with no comments. Be first to post a comment.
-
Grace posted
-
Basia posted
-
Paulina M posted
-
Paweł Kadysz posted
-
Paweł Kadysz posted
Roger I started photography with a 35mm film camera with just two prime lenses (50mm and 105mm) and before I pressed the shutter I asked myself two questions, do I really want a photo of this and if so, is the composition perfect (scan your eyes over every part of the frame, if not perfect then move until it's perfect). Two other things were get the focus pin sharp, and get the exposure correct. I never cropped a photo. The good photographers you mention get a good photo because they point the camera at something interesting and compose it well.
I don't need a zoom, all my pictures happen around me where I can move, and not in the far distance. Right now I have recently decided to use one lens (full frame equivalent 28mm) which might be too extreme a change for someone used to a zoom, so I'd say try a 35mm or 50mm and don't take it off your camera.