I thought I was all set with my lenses.

S

SteveL54

Senior Member
So I picked up my D5100 just 1 year ago. Love it. This camera does everything that I want, without too many complications. It came with the kit lens, 18 - 55. So then I needed a flash. Yongnuo 565EX fit the bill nicely, and at a great price. Next came the need for more zoom, so I went with the Nikkor 55 - 200. Nice little zoom at a decent price. In between all this was a tripod, remote trigger, and of course, a new camera bag - Lowepro, of course. Yep, I'm all set. Or so I thought.
Now, I've been reading a lot about prime lenses. After reading about lenses here, NAS has grabbed hold of me once again. Looks like I'm going to have to buy a Nikkor 35mm 1.8G. I don't like to photograph people. My main interest is landscape, street scenes, and abstract. This should satisfy my need for more equipment for a brief time. Maybe.
Hopefully, this lens is the right choice. For now anyways.
Thought? Opinions?
 
S

SteveH

Senior Member
I bought a 35mm 1.8G a few weeks ago, and it hasn't been off the camera - I love it! It does seem to get more chromatic aberration, but that is easily fixed if you shoot RAW. Apart from that, it is very sharp and the 1.8 max aperture is great for low light.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
The 35mm f/1.8G is, in my opinion, one of the "Essential Lenses". Since it's Essential, you'll need to buy one sooner or later. Might as well be sooner, get it over with. Then you'll be needing the 85mm f/1.8G because it's Essential too.

Just don't let yourself get sucked into one of those Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM lenses... Ho' BOY are they ever The Sweeeeeetness!

.....
 
Last edited:
A

aroy

Senior Member
In my opinion you are wasting money with the F1.8 prime. These are mainly portrait lenses used for that creamy bokeh wide open. Landscapes are generally shot at f4 or more, so a F2.8 lense is a better option as
. It is less expensive
. If will have better distortion, CA and vignetting correction
. It is smaller

Secondly try out 28mm and 24mm. These give a wider view especially on a DX sensor. Apart from that, these lenses are normally FX lenses, so you will be shooting at their sweet spot. Lastly 35mm on a DX sensor give the perspective of a 50mm on a FX sensor and is considered a normal lense and not wide.
 
S

SteveL54

Senior Member
aroy said:
In my opinion you are wasting money with the F1.8 prime. These are mainly portrait lenses used for that creamy bokeh wide open. Landscapes are generally shot at f4 or more, so a F2.8 lense is a better option as
. It is less expensive
. If will have better distortion, CA and vignetting correction
. It is smaller

Secondly try out 28mm and 24mm. These give a wider view especially on a DX sensor. Apart from that, these lenses are normally FX lenses, so you will be shooting at their sweet spot. Lastly 35mm on a DX sensor give the perspective of a 50mm on a FX sensor and is considered a normal lense and not wide.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the info.
Lots to think about here.
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
Sadly, you don't have much wide angle options in the DX field, when it comes to cheap primes - if you think you just NEED a AF. What I mean is, if the AF is a must, and you will use a D5100, then the lens has to be equipped with the "internal motor", thus eliminating a variety of VERY good lenses belonging to the "older systems" such as the AF-D series (lenses that require a camera body with built-in motor drive, if AF is a must).

Now, if you are ready to use manual focusing (and I encourage you to do so), then the scope of options gets much, much wider, and I would suggest you to avoid this 35mm f1.8G DX and to get yourself a AF 24mm f2.8D which can be purchased as used but in a mint condition, for about 250$ Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D
or AF 28mm f2.8D. That would be a really good lens for landscapes, and some time later, when/if you decide to switch for a full frame (or to add such camera to your gear) you're gonna have a lens that makes a perfect companion to that camera...
 
Last edited:
nikonpup

nikonpup

Senior Member
looks like you are doing well with the lens you have. 1 st lens i got for my d5100 was sigma 10-20mm 2 nd was a nikon 18-105mm. I do have a 35mm just do not use it very often, i like my zooms for what i do. 10-20 will set you back about $450 a used or refurnished 18-105 is around $200+. I think you would get the best bang for your buck by getting a 18-105mm.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
The 35mm f/1.8G is, in my opinion, one of the "Essential Lenses". Since it's Essential, you'll need to buy one sooner or later. Might as well be sooner, get it over with. Then you'll be needing the 85mm f/1.8G because it's Essential too.

Just don't let yourself get sucked into one of those Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM lenses... Ho' BOY are they ever The Sweeeeeetness!

.....
Click to expand...
Could you guys please make up your minds.
I just bought a 50mm prime because according to some that IS the essential lens to have.
Now I gotta go and by the ESSENTIAL 35mm...I hope you guys are not gonna tell me that the AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is the essential telephoto lens, because my wife is seriously going to kill me.:smile-new:
 
Last edited:
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Come on man, I just need one more lens.... Just one more. I need that better body now. come on just one. I really need it. Dave's wife let him get one and Roy bought it last week I really need it...


This is how it starts. NAS has no cure.
 
S

stmv

Senior Member
I try to avoid thinking lens, but eventually over time,, you fill your kits out with the right combos.. think 1-3 lens a year,, over a 20 year period and well soon you have all the combos needed. The good thing is that lens last and last, and hold their value. Consider buying used, 70% or more of my lens were purchased used and all were great quality. I have never gotten a bad used lens, all were clean functional and decent bargains. Some were unbelievable bargains.

I vouch for the 10-20,,

I still use the 18x200 for my D7000. so flexible, one lens does well solution. I used to walk around with the sigma 10-20 and 18x200 and
have a complete setup, (except macro of course).

could almost argue that for lots of photographers

40 mm Macro
sigma 10-20 (or other vendor)
18x200

and DX SLR,, and you got a great kit.

and regarding sharpness,, technique will get you 95% of the required sharpness, lens will not solve sharpness issues if you don't
first reach the 95% state with solid mechanics of shooting/shutter speeds.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I'd really aim for some kind of old 24-28 prime, then 35 1.8G for AF, and whatever you need to do in the tele end, be in x-300 something or maybe the 105 Micro to dabble into macro here and there and then portraiture.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
I find the 35mm focal length boring on Dx. The 40mm 2.8 micro is only $79 more, not as wide, but more versatile in my opinion. Personally, I'd get something wider first if you are into landscape. Another vote for the sigma 10-20.
 
Top