Why Do I Need A Prime Lens?

I am new to the DSLR world so I am sorry for what is likely a silly question. But as the title states - Why do I need a prime lens? I have the 18mm - 55mm lens that came with the D3100 an I also bought the 55mm - 200mm lens. I am trying to figure out the need for prime lens.

I have my eye on the 35 F1.8 G DX AF-S

Thank you

Typically, a prime will be faster - 1.8 or 1.4 - than your zoom (usually 3.5-4.5 for kit lenses) so you can shoot in lower light situations and also get better bokeh. Also, better glass. The lens you're looking at cost as much as you zooms and doesn't zoom or have VR. But it probably has better glass and maybe a metal mount vs plastic.

The quality you get from a prime 35mm is MUCH sharper than the 18-55mm set at 35mm and the same aperture....... The 35mm and 50mm's are outstanding value..... Just get one, you won't regret it!

Shooting with one and it becomes obvious really quick. Echo what the other two said.

singlerosa said:

Typically, a prime will be faster - 1.8 or 1.4 - than your zoom (usually 3.5-4.5 for kit lenses) so you can shoot in lower light situations and also get better bokeh. Also, better glass. The lens you're looking at cost as much as you zooms and doesn't zoom or have VR. But it probably has better glass and maybe a metal mount vs plastic.

Click to expand...

SteveH said:

The quality you get from a prime 35mm is MUCH sharper than the 18-55mm set at 35mm and the same aperture....... The 35mm and 50mm's are outstanding value..... Just get one, you won't regret it!

Click to expand...

Thanks.

This weekend was the first time I was able to really explore and use the camera since I bought it. All the pictures were taken inside for my Grandsons Birthday party. Many of the shots came out pretty good, but when I tried to use the "A" setting and mess with the aperture setting, the bokeh left a lot to be desired. I can chalk some up to my inexperience, but I still expected more.

Is not have a VR prime lens a mistake? Do they even make a VR prime? I will admit I do not have a steady hand.

Smaller
Lighter
Faster
Cheaper
Sharper
Smaller filters
Fewer moving parts

I am a zoom fan. I was using Nikon F in the old days when prime lenses were all there was (had 24, 50, 105, and 200 mm chosen to span the needs), and today, I definitely appreciate good zoom lens.

Primes are typically faster, maybe f/1.8, and zooms of course are are not (except for compacts and camcorders). But I frankly doubt many DSLR users shoot at f/1.8 much of the time.

And primes are smaller and lighter (but definitely are limited to one focal length - not versatile).

But better and sharper is quite relative. Primes are sharper than an inexpensive long zooms (kit lens, etc), but the more expensive DSLR f/2.8 zoom lenses will compare extremely well to any of them, arguably sharper than many primes.

Who told you that you "needed" a prime?

Marcel said:

Who told you that you "needed" a prime?

Click to expand...

No one

Flash Pot said:

Is not have a VR prime lens a mistake?

Click to expand...

Not really... No. Lenses are just tools. While it's nice to have a selection of different tools it's not always required. I like them for their simplicity, personally. The fact they're also really sharp and fast is icing on the proverbial cake.

Flash Pot said:

Do they even make a VR prime?

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. The 105mm f/2.8G comes to mind as one example but most of Nikon's VR-enabled primes are big tele's if memory serves.

For me, the main thing is I am able to shoot at very low light using a prime like the 35mm f1.8G. There are other reasons like better bokeh, better image quality overall, lighter and smaller compared to zoom lenses.

I would suggest you definitely get the 35mm f/1.8 to add to your setup. I have the exact same gear as you - D3100, 18-55mm non VR, and the 55-200mm non VR. I also have the 35mm. I can tell you that the 35mm is a much sharper lens than the 18-55. I love mine because it has awesome low light abilities and it is very versatile. When I'm out doing city/street photography, it works amazingly well. I just pop the camera in "A" mode, set the aperture, point, and shoot. It's so light and small you hardly notice it. Thanks to that large aperture, in low light situations, I can hand hold the camera without having to go above 1600 ISO (usually), which makes the images cleaner. The bokeh is fairly good, although not as good as the 50mm f/1.8. The build quality is also leaps and bounds ahead of the kit lenses.

wreckdiver1321 said:

I would suggest you definitely get the 35mm f/1.8 to add to your setup. I have the exact same gear as you - D3100, 18-55mm non VR, and the 55-200mm non VR. I also have the 35mm. I can tell you that the 35mm is a much sharper lens than the 18-55. I love mine because it has awesome low light abilities and it is very versatile. When I'm out doing city/street photography, it works amazingly well. I just pop the camera in "A" mode, set the aperture, point, and shoot. It's so light and small you hardly notice it. Thanks to that large aperture, in low light situations, I can hand hold the camera without having to go above 1600 ISO (usually), which makes the images cleaner. The bokeh is fairly good, although not as good as the 50mm f/1.8. The build quality is also leaps and bounds ahead of the kit lenses.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

So this is a good lens for outside photography as well - in daylight and at night?

Do you find yourself missing the flexibility that the 18-55 zoom gives you?

Well your best lens is the one you have with you when a photo opportunity arises if you only have one lens, then master that lens. If you find yourself tending toward shooting in low light conditions or if you have to many busy backgrounds that need to be defocused, then by all means, get yourself a prime. I tell everyone to get a nifty 50, because you are eventually going to need or want one and it is the most inexpensive introduction to the world of primes.

RON said:

Well your best lens is the one you have with you when a photo opportunity arises if you only have one lens, then master that lens. If you find yourself tending toward shooting in low light conditions or if you have to many busy backgrounds that need to be defocused, then by all means, get yourself a prime. I tell everyone to get a nifty 50, because you are eventually going to need or want one and it is the most inexpensive introduction to the world of primes.

Click to expand...

Seems the debate between a 35 and 50 is pretty evenly split. I am leaning to the 35 but not fully sold on that either.

Flash Pot said:

So this is a good lens for outside photography as well - in daylight and at night?

Do you find yourself missing the flexibility that the 18-55 zoom gives you?

Click to expand...

I'm going to jump in and amplify everything wreckdiver said in that post and then I'm going to say, if there's one prime lens you do actually "need" that lens is the 35mm f/1.8G. Is it good indoors and out? Is it good at night and in full sun? Well, does a bear s--t in the woods and wipe his a-- with a rabbit? Yes... Yes he does.

Am I saying the 35mm f/1.8G that good? Yes. Yes I am.

Do I ever miss being able to zoom when using a prime lens? Well, that's one of the many reasons I have feet, for zooming and going wide angle; there are others. And no matter what lens I have on at any given moment there are going to be shots I miss because I didn't have the "right" lens on at the time. You forget about those and you focus on the shots you do get. As I'm fond of saying, at some point you have stop asking yourself, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking yourself, "How do I get the shot I want, with the lens I have?" One path leads to an accumulation of equipment, the other path leads to better photography.

I'd like to point out that shooting with a prime almost forces you into becoming a better photographer by taking away the "crutch" of being able to zoom in and out. Primes have a way of making you more aware of your composition and by making you MOVE; and moving changes our perspective. Once we find a new perspective we can aim for a new composition.

And in closing I'd like to say all of the above applies equally to the 50mm f/1.G that many will tout as being better than the 35mm f/1.8G; I see the 35 vs 50 debate much like a the Ford vs. Chevy debate: There is no single correct answer and never will be... Unless you count owning both the 35mm AND the 50mm. Which I do. As well as the 85mm f1/.8G so there's that.

...

Flash Pot said:

Thank you!

So this is a good lens for outside photography as well - in daylight and at night?

Do you find yourself missing the flexibility that the 18-55 zoom gives you?

Click to expand...

It's awesome outside. Works absolutely fantastic in most situations.

When I have the 35mm on the camera, I tend to think about shots a bit differently than I do when I've got the 18-55mm. The 18-55mm is great for wide shots, and that's what I use it for most of the time. Most of the time in a city situation, I'll use the 35mm. I find it is the perfect focal length. It's just wide enough to capture a good shot of a building if you frame it just right, and long enough to do really effective street photography that keeps you right in the action. The thing I like about it for shots of buildings and architecture is that it really forces you to think about composition and framing. In a tight city environment, you're never going to get all of that building in the frame, so you need to focus on interesting parts and details of it. I think this makes for a cooler shot, and the fact that it makes you think about it will make you a better photographer.

Yes, the 18-55mm is more flexible, but the 35mm frees you up to concentrate on capturing the moment. I love that about this lens.

There is some argument about 35mm vs 50mm, but I think I prefer the 35mm on a DX camera. The DX format is a 1.5x crop sensor, so with a 35mm you're getting a lens that is roughly a 52.5mm. That is a fantastic focal length. I use the crap out of my 50mm lens on my old Vivitar film SLR. The 50mm gives you about a 75mm focal length which, while still useful, is a bit long in my opinion. I just went through my EXIF data when trying to decide on which, found I used the 30-40mm focal length a lot, and settled on the 35mm.

You definitely do not need a prime, but sometimes it does help having one/two/etc.. Usually you can figure that prime lenses are more specialty (in a sense of the word) as they do not offer flexibility of zoom. Everything that everyone states here is right on the money in terms of what a prime offers vs a zoom lens. Sure wide aperture zoom lenses often bridge the gap between the best offerings of a prime and zoom lenses have to offer, however that comes at a hefty price for some. If you can justify spending +/-$1500 and up... then by all means go for a zoom with a wide aperture. However if you are not out there making money off photography, I do not know many people that can justify getting a stock load of lenses like that... (You can rent if you wanted to try first though)

Go to your local store, try a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. See how hey are, play with the lens. Open the aperture take pictures. That's why camera stores exist so that you can demo a lens, and if you like it enough purchase your favorite. Between all of that ask questions.

[h=2]Why Do I Need A Prime Lens?[/h]

Click to expand...

If you have to ask, you probably don't need one. I didn't need one, but I bought one anyway.
I don't regret buying it, but I can produce pretty much the same shots with my kit lense .
I'm not going to pixel peep every photo I take, nor search the internet for IQ charts and such.

I don't have that kind of time, nor the need to compare every picture I take with my 50mm prime to my 18-55mm zoom. I'm not doing this for a living.