55-200mm or prime 50mm

Sohrab

Sohrab

Senior Member
Hi Guys

Ive recently got into photography and purchased my first nikon 3200

I love taking portrait type pics of friends and family. Mainly indoors but sometimes out.

Would it better for me to go for a 50mm prime or the 55-200mm ? I currently have a 18-55mm lens and it still produces fantastic images at the 50-55mm zoom setting. Do I really need a prime ? Adjusting on lightroom and photoshop seems to get rid of any minor complaints I have with the quality of the pics I take.

thanks
 
S

SteveH

Senior Member
If you like taking portraits, then I would steer away from the 55-200mm... Its not a bad lens, its just not ideal for your preferred type of shot.

I'd personally look at the 85mm prime?


ETA - You could take a look in the portrait section of the forum, and see what lenses in your budget range people use.
 
Last edited:
A

aroy

Senior Member
I find the 50mm F1.8 slightly better than the 50-55mm end of the 18-55 lense. It is faster and marginally sharper. In case you like the framing at 50mm, definitely go for the prime. If you think that you would like tighter shots, or some distance from the subjects while taking portraits, then you should try the 85mm or 105mm primes. The 105 is a macro, but does an excellent job of portraits.

I would stay away from the long zooms as not only are they slow their IQ is not that good. Further more, at the long end most of the lower cost zooms are pretty soft.
 
E

eidian

Senior Member
I have the 35mm/1.8 DX lens and it rocks! My D3200 came with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses which are both great but they aren’t the fastest lenses around. The 35 is right in the middle range of the 18-55 so there wasn’t much adjustment in terms of how far away I was standing from the subject. I would judge the same distance than take move forward or back accordingly. If you like doing indoor portraits and don’t need a lens that specializes in anything (like the 85 that is a great a macro lens), then this definitely the lens to get. It’s fast, it’s inexpensive and it’s very versatile. One thing that I noticed about the 55-200 is that you need to be outdoors in good light in order to take good pictures—it’s not quite fast enough in even a well-lighted gym. Last year when my 6 y/o daughter was taking a basketball class, I couldn’t get the pictures that I really wanted (and I wasn’t going to take pictures with my SB-800 through the whole class). So I wouldn’t go with the 55-200 for what you’re looking for because it’s a slower lens and it’s a too powerful for indoor portraits.
 
Top