Absolutely. 35mm has the same thing.
Infinity Focusing...
- Thread starter Tom Grove
- Start date
Absolutely. 35mm has the same thing.
Generally speaking the more specific a purpose a lens has, the better image it will produce as compared to a lens that covers a range of uses.
Generally speaking a prime (fixed focal length) lens will perform better at the same focal length set on a zoom lens.
Primes usually are faster, having a larger maximum aperture.
Then depending on which 35mm, there may be other advantages.
If looking at Nikon lenses, you can use the comparison tool on the Nikon website and study the differences lens to lens as far as bells and whistles.
We are venturing into vagueness now.
But the 35mm f/1.8 is $200, and the 18-55mm zoom is $100. That is one clue. The zoom is only f/3.5 to f/5.6. The fixed lens only does 35mm, but we can assume this one does a better sharper job than this zoom. Both have the same field of view if zoom is at 35mm, but the zoom is more versatile, 18-55mm. The fixed lens will not do 18 or 55 mm.If you want sharper, there are several better zooms, like say 24-70mm for $1900. It will give the little fixed lens a very good run on sharpness, and no doubt beats any $200 lens. It is f/2.8, which is between f/1.8 and f/3.5. And of course there are lesser price zooms, like 16-85mm, which are still incredibly awesome lenses.
So, there are features - wide aperture, and sharpness, and of course price and versatility considerations.
Never only one answer. We do tend to like the versatility of zooms, but good ones cost more money.
Last edited:
"Better" is relative to what your needs are. It's a fixed focal length, but has a max aperture of 1.8, so a lot better in low light situations, and the manual focus controls are phenomenal! I'm a fan of the 50mm 1.8G myself, but that 18-55mm, with it's ability to still lock in the focus at just under 12" away from my subject, still sees regular use since I won't be buying a macro lens anytime soon. That and the 18mm end of things when I really need the wider viewpoint.
Other than that, the 35mm will often produce a bit sharper image... but that's why ya pay more for it. If ya want REAL improvement... never mind, WayneF already covered it.
Last edited:
Thanks guys! Great knowledge and you more than answered my questions... Now I need to decide what new lens I want to save up for... I sure enjoy sports (football, surfing, skateboarding) and outdoors/ nature (sunsets, lakes, oceans, any moving water) shooting... Any advice on good lenses for that stuff?
I suppose I was trying to point out that price is a pretty nice feature. The $100 zoom works, but does not promise a lot.
I always considered the 16-85mm lens for $630 to be a very excellent DX choice for sharpness and wide range versatility. It would be better if it were f/2.8. Not to shoot at f/2.8 (which has only limited interest), but it would be better (sharper) for bounce flash used at f/4 than a f/3.5-5.6 lens.
The $100 zoom works, but does not promise a lot.I always considered the 16-85mm lens for $630 to be a very excellent DX choice for sharpness and wide range versatility. It would be better if it were f/2.8. Not to shoot at f/2.8 (which has only limited interest), but it would be better (sharper) for bounce flash used at f/4 than a f/3.5-5.6 lens.
35mm was my first low light/night lens and I think for many others on here as well. It's cheap, light weight and takes nice sharp photos. You will also learn to use your feet to zoom and it gets you to be more creative with your shots. The f1.8 means it collects more light so you'll be able to do faster shutters on your star photos and keep stars sharper. You really can't go wrong at the price point and its a handy lens to have. The G still doesn't have the infinity markings but it is easier to manually focus.