Why Do I Need A Prime Lens?

[RON_RIP]

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.

Many dx shooters prefer the 35 and I do not disagree with that. I have 35mm Tokina 2.8 Macro. It is just that sooner or later you are going to wish you had 50mm. 1.4 or 1.8' , D or G. . Mark my words.

 

[Flash Pot]

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.

...

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.

Once again thanks for the detailed reply. Soon we will be headed to the Smokey Mountains and I want to capture some great photos. I just want educated on what works well and what doesn't. I know every situation is different and that we each look at things differently - thus why I am trying to glean as much information as I can.

We will be on a motorcycle, so I don't have the luxury of packing a lot of photographic equipment.

Also I want to get vista mountain shots as well as wild flower and portrait shots as well.

 

[wreckdiver1321]

Once again thanks for the detailed reply. Soon we will be headed to the Smokey Mountains and I want to capture some great photos. I just want educated on what works well and what doesn't. I know every situation is different and that we each look at things differently - thus why I am trying to glean as much information as I can.

We will be on a motorcycle, so I don't have the luxury of packing a lot of photographic equipment.

Also I want to get vista mountain shots as well as wild flower and portrait shots as well.

The 35mm would do pretty well with the macro flower shots. The 18-55mm is a pretty good choice for the landscapes.

 

[aroy]

I got the 18-55 VR-II kit lense with my D3300. It is an excellent lense, especially when there is a lot of light. The sheer versatility is rarely matched by a prime. That is why I think of it as a must have travel lense.

Primes are generally faster, lighter, sharper and cheaper than equivalent zooms. With zooms you can stand at one place and keep changing the FOV, while with a prime you have to walk to get the FOV. Some times that is an advantage as you can get a better view by just walking around. Then the low light capability of F1.8 and F1.4 is just not there in a zoom.

In my experience, the zoom works perfectly in 50% of the cases as long as the long end is below 100mm. Beyond that the equivalent IQ zooms tend to be extremely expensive and heavy compared to primes, and then there is the image quality. A long prime like the 300mm F4 can not be matched by any zoom at 300mm unless it is three to four times as expensive. From personal experience the kit zoom at 55mm is quite soft when compared to the 50mm prime lense.

So yes a prime is required if you want good IQ in a light and relatively inexpensive package. A set of zooms - 28mm, 50mm and 105/135mm will normally be as expensive (if not less than) and lighter than a zoom spanning this range having the same IQ. The only down side of primes is that you cannot change the FOV instantly as in a zoom.

 

[aroy]

The 35mm F1.8 DX is an excellent lense. It is selling in India for US$ 125/ with Indian warranty, hence I bought one last month and never regretted it.
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35 mm f/1.8G Lens - Nikon: Flipkart.com

 

[Flash Pot]

I got the 18-55 VR-II kit lense with my D3300. It is an excellent lense, especially when there is a lot of light. The sheer versatility is rarely matched by a prime. That is why I think of it as a must have travel lense.

Primes are generally faster, lighter, sharper and cheaper than equivalent zooms. With zooms you can stand at one place and keep changing the FOV, while with a prime you have to walk to get the FOV. Some times that is an advantage as you can get a better view by just walking around. Then the low light capability of F1.8 and F1.4 is just not there in a zoom.

In my experience, the zoom works perfectly in 50% of the cases as long as the long end is below 100mm. Beyond that the equivalent IQ zooms tend to be extremely expensive and heavy compared to primes, and then there is the image quality. A long prime like the 300mm F4 can not be matched by any zoom at 300mm unless it is three to four times as expensive. From personal experience the kit zoom at 55mm is quite soft when compared to the 50mm prime lense.

So yes a prime is required if you want good IQ in a light and relatively inexpensive package. A set of zooms - 28mm, 50mm and 105/135mm will normally be as expensive (if not less than) and lighter than a zoom spanning this range having the same IQ. The only down side of primes is that you cannot change the FOV instantly as in a zoom.

The 35mm F1.8 DX is an excellent lense. It is selling in India for US$ 125/ with Indian warranty, hence I bought one last month and never regretted it.
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35 mm f/1.8G Lens - Nikon: Flipkart.com

Thanks for your insight!

Looks like I am moving to India

 

[SteveH]

I know you have had a lot of responses already, and been given a lot to think about, but I will add one more bit of info to consider.....

As was touched on earlier, the 35mm and 50mm primes are VERY popular, then there is also the 85mm.... There isn't much focal length difference between the 3 lenses so it would be worth considering if you will eventually buy all 3, or two or maybe just one.

If you only see yourself buying one prime, then I'd make it the 50mm..... In the middle.

If you would see yourself buying more than one, then I'd consider the 35mm and later the 85mm. The 85 is apparently great for portraits etc.


Personally, I've gone with the 35mm, later to be followed by the 85mm. Others will have a preference for the 50mm over the 35mm, so it would be an idea to look at the pictures you have taken so far, and see how may of your favorites are around the 35mm FL and the 50mm FL, and go from there.

 

[Flash Pot]

My understanding is the 35mm is actually closer to 50mm on the DX cameras and the 50mm is closer to 75mm. Is this correct?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

My understanding is the 35mm is actually closer to 50mm on the DX cameras and the 50mm is closer to 75mm. Is this correct?

In short, yes. The DX format has a crop factor of 1.5 so you multiply focal length by one and one-half.

This means a 35mm lens has a field of view equal to 52.5mm of focal length. 50mm lenses have a field of view equal to 75mm of focal length.

...

 

[aroy]

My understanding is the 35mm is actually closer to 50mm on the DX cameras and the 50mm is closer to 75mm. Is this correct?

In terms of FOV (field of view), yes. The actual values depend on the ratio of the sensor sizes, but for Nikon DX the factor is taken as 1.5, so 35 becomes 52.5 and 50 becomes 75, approximated to 50 and 80 respectively. The DOF of 35mm and 50mm will remain same on FX and DX, as long as the shooting distance is the same.

 

[Marcel]

Lenses are to photographers what brushes are to painters. There is not one perfect lens and unless you want to specialize in something special you will eventually want (notice the "want" instead of "need") many lenses. One should start with what he can afford of course. So the 35mm is a great bargain for the first prime. What it will give you is a faster shutter speed in low light situations, plus less distortion and vignetting than the zoom lenses. If I only could afford one prime lens on a crop sensor, this is the one I'd buy first. Then, as funds become available, like others mentioned, 50 1.8 and then 85 1.8.

 

[WayneF]

My understanding is the 35mm is actually closer to 50mm on the DX cameras and the 50mm is closer to 75mm. Is this correct?

Correct more or less. The View from the lens matches your numbers.

However, the lens is what it is, period. If it says 50mm, it is 50 mm. The lens does not change by simply putting it on a DX or FX camera.

But what does change is the view seen from that lens. Which is caused by the smaller DX sensor cropping that view smaller, or FX not cropping it so much.

On any image seen in your photo editor, if you simply crop it much smaller (retaining only some smaller center part of it), and then enlarge that smaller cropped image to be viewed regular size again, THAT VIEW will appear "closer", as if it were taken with a longer telephoto lens. This is what the smaller DX sensor crop does too. This is what the 1.5x crop factor does (smaller DX sensor crops the lens image).
But the lens itself, or the uncropped image it projects, is not changed.

FX - DX Lens Crop Factor

 

[Flash Pot]

Again, thank every one of you who has responded to this. It has been extremely helpful and the knowledge I've gained has been a blessing.

 

[Englischdude]

i shoot primarily with primes, what I like the most about it is it makes me think about my shot, specifically the composition. If necessary to zoom, I use my feet. the majority of things which I shoot however are subjects that aren’t going to scurry away if I get too close. Weight price speed compact etc etc etc. Why are you looking at the 35mm? I suggest checking the exif data of the pics you have taken already and see what would be the closest prime to the majority of photos already taken. If it turns out that most of the pics taken are at the 50mm end the 35mm will not be the best fit for your needs.

 

[JohnMacPherson]

Just adding my two cents in as a relative newcomer....

Recently bought the 35mm f/1.8 lens and using it outside I immediately noticed that my images were sharper, brighter and with much better contrast than the 18-55 lens. I also noticed that the photos picked up finer details than before too.

Also used it for the first time as walk about lens over the weekend and as others have said before there are some disadvantages versus a zoom lens. There were times where I wished I had the 18-55 instead purely out of convenience but I still got some great shots and I found myself thinking more about where to stand, angles etc. instead of just zooming in or out.

In my opinion 35mm lens was the best purchase I've made so far regarding lenses and pretty much stays on my d3300 full time now.

 

[Flash Pot]

i shoot primarily with primes, what I like the most about it is it makes me think about my shot, specifically the composition. If necessary to zoom, I use my feet. the majority of things which I shoot however are subjects that aren’t going to scurry away if I get too close. Weight price speed compact etc etc etc. Why are you looking at the 35mm? I suggest checking the exif data of the pics you have taken already and see what would be the closest prime to the majority of photos already taken. If it turns out that most of the pics taken are at the 50mm end the 35mm will not be the best fit for your needs.

Thank you!

Just adding my two cents in as a relative newcomer....

Recently bought the 35mm f/1.8 lens and using it outside I immediately noticed that my images were sharper, brighter and with much better contrast than the 18-55 lens. I also noticed that the photos picked up finer details than before too.

Also used it for the first time as walk about lens over the weekend and as others have said before there are some disadvantages versus a zoom lens. There were times where I wished I had the 18-55 instead purely out of convenience but I still got some great shots and I found myself thinking more about where to stand, angles etc. instead of just zooming in or out.

In my opinion 35mm lens was the best purchase I've made so far regarding lenses and pretty much stays on my d3300 full time now.

That is my greatest fear. I know I can pack both lenses and even the 55mm-200mm on the bike, but ever inch counts when you are packed for a 750 mile trip.

I think I am just going to pull the trigger and get the 35mm and hope for the best!

 

[donaldjledet]

My two cents is get the 35 and 85 like some others have said.myself I have both and use them about the same.
I couldn't be with out either one. I.Q is and bokeh are very good.

 

[wreckdiver1321]

Go for it. You won't regret it, it's a great lens. Out of my 3 lenses, I think I use the 35mm probably 58% of the time, the 18-55mm 40%, and the 55-200mm 2%. The times I throw the 18-55mm on are when I know I'm doing landscapes or starry night shots. The 35mm gets used for "general" shooting because of the quality and versatility.

 

[Flash Pot]

Go for it. You won't regret it, it's a great lens. Out of my 3 lenses, I think I use the 35mm probably 58% of the time, the 18-55mm 40%, and the 55-200mm 2%. The times I throw the 18-55mm on are when I know I'm doing landscapes or starry night shots. The 35mm gets used for "general" shooting because of the quality and versatility.

I am new at this, so I need to think outside of the box a bit and really think about the percentage example like you listed. Right now I am focusing (pun intended) on just this motorcycle trip and the mountains and not looking at the overall use of any lof my lesnses.

The fact is I dipped my toes into the DSLR world from point and shoot to do exactly what I am worrying about - Changing lenses!

Thanks again for your assistance and all here who has helped me with this voyage!

 

[wreckdiver1321]

I am new at this, so I need to think outside of the box a bit and really think about the percentage example like you listed. Right now I am focusing (pun intended) on just this motorcycle trip and the mountains and not looking at the overall use of any lof my lesnses.

The fact is I dipped my toes into the DSLR world from point and shoot to do exactly what I am worrying about - Changing lenses!

Thanks again for your assistance and all here who has helped me with this voyage!

EXACTLY!

Remember, this is a lens that is going to be used for a long time and for many different purposes. It's a very versatile piece of glass.