First prime lens?

I'm interested in getting a prime lens but I'm really not sure which is the best option.

I will be mostly shooting wildlife photography and have a 55-200mm to help me get a little closer but I want a good everyday lens which will give me sharper images and potentially allow me to take close up shots of butterflies etc. maybe even macro.

So far I've looked at these:
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G (or just the AF version).
Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G

I'm really interested to hear what peoples thoughts are on these lenses, their pros and cons verses one another and which is best for what I'll be using it for. Also I'd be interested to hear of other lenses out there which might be a better first prime. I'm not made of money so lower end price range (under £200) is mostly what I'm looking out but I do have patience and saving ability, if waiting and paying a bit more is worth it.

One final related question regarding macro. How would say the 50mm with extension tubes, or reversed compare for macro with the 40mm micro lens?

Thanks
Elliot

Can never go wrong with the Thrifty Fifty. The price is right, and it's been a solid choice for a prime lens for many years.

I'm not a macro guy, so I can't comment on its use for that purpose.

Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G

THe 35 or 50 you have listed are solid buys.

My general thoughts are a lens designed for the shot is going to perform better than one modified, i.e. extension tubes. However, many an excellent photo has been made with less than ideal.

The direction I was interested in moving from the D3200 Kit lenses was macro and I opted for the Micro DX 40mm. If butterflies are your passion the the Micro DX 85mm would probably be better, but check this out:

The Micro DX 40mm


The Micro DX 40mm cropped and the focal point is not even in this image.


The focus points

Hi,

I have the 35G 50D and 40G.

I recommend the 40D, is great as a general walk around lens, is quite fast meaning it is good for low light situations and you can do macro. It really is a veritable egg-laying wool-growing milk-producing pig in the lens world . I dont use mine as much as I maybe ought to as I like more portraiture photography, for which I have more suitable lenses.

I have to say however that all three you have mentioned are outstanding lenses. The 35mm will focus surprisingly close, is a little wider if that is important and a little faster.

Wow, thats a tricky one. If you have the kit 18-55 by any chance, or have the option to borrow one for a week, you could then check the exif data to see at which focal length you generally shoot at. This could give you an idea as to which of the listed primes you should buy. Avoid any prime lenses with suffix D, as they will not autofocus on your camera.

Let us know what you decide

A reversed lens or the use of an extension tube will no longer focus to infinity. It might not focus very far at all beyond macro range. It will give you decent macro results, but it it somewhat of a nuisance because you need to plan ahead for it. I prefer a real macro lens, which you can walk around with and go for a spontaneous macro shot that may come up. I have the Tamron 60mm macro.

I mostly do macro and I have the 40 generally coupled with a 12 or 20 mm extension ring. I just couldn't live without it now.

Thanks all, didn't expect to get so many responses so quickly!

Glad to know I can't really go wrong with any of those 3 lenses. From what's been said I'm leaning towards the 40mm, if I manage to get any decent macro shots of butterflies etc. it'll be a bonus. The fact it is capable of taking such shots edges it for me over the 35 or 50.

WeeHector, what impact does coupling the 40 with an extension ring have on its macro capabilities?

Elliot87 said:

..I'm leaning towards the 40mm...... .....The fact it is capable of taking such shots edges it for me over the 35 or 50.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the 35 and 50 would do the same thing with the little lizard shots and technically provide a crisper focus (albeit a focus not necessarily detectable by the average eye).

A telephoto Micro will just get the butter fly closer to you without you getting closer to the butterfly.

Compare the reproduction ratios and close focus ranges for the options and the right lens may raise it's little hand.

If you have a good camera shop nearby, take the camera body and go sample a few lenses. That's what they are there for.

Enjoy the hunt; for the lens and the butterfly.

Eyelight said:

If you have a good camera shop nearby, take the camera body and go sample a few lenses. That's what they are there for.

Enjoy the hunt; for the lens and the butterfly.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, I might just take a trip to my local camera shop this weekend. I have no idea if its a good one but I guess I'll find out.

Elliot87 said:

I'm interested in getting a prime lens but I'm really not sure which is the best option.

I will be mostly shooting wildlife photography and have a 55-200mm to help me get a little closer but I want a good everyday lens which will give me sharper images and potentially allow me to take close up shots of butterflies etc. maybe even macro.

So far I've looked at these:
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G (or just the AF version).
Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G

Thanks
Elliot

Click to expand...

This thread might help out with your selection Elliot.

http://nikonites.com/prime/21560-af-s-nikkor-35mm-1-8g-dx.html#axzz31vMHrfWX

For around $200 USD and much lower if you buy one in the "used" market. They are a bargain lens IMO.

gqtuazon said:

This thread might help out with your selection Elliot.

http://nikonites.com/prime/21560-af-s-nikkor-35mm-1-8g-dx.html#axzz31vMHrfWX

Click to expand...

Definitely given me some food for thought. Think I'll use my kit lens and take several images at different focal lengths and see what feels best. What I have learnt is that I won't be disappointed whichever of those three I choose. If I was going to buy one today I'd go for the 40mm but first I've got some saving to do. I'd like to get a Tamron 90mm for macro but I think that will have to wait.

35mm is a great lens for a DX body. I would also recommend the 40mm. But really you should try both and see what works for your style.
The 40mm is a great macro lens giving the FOV of a 60mm lens and flat images with good DOF, decent in low light with a fairly wide aperture. Good for a walk around, but I would say is a little slow to focus and external focusing (Don't know if that would be considered a deal breaker). This is where the 35mm shines. Light and generally quick to focus. Very shallow DOF, both do what they are intended for, so pick one or get both.

If you need a macro lense then 40mm is better. If you need a low light lense then it is 35mm.