40mm or 85mm macro AND 35mm F/1.8 or 50mm F/1.8 prime

I had a Nikon D5100 and I like to have a macro and a prime lens for close-up and portrait. plz suggest me which two should i buy for each category.

BR
MSI

my opinion is, 85 mm macro so you can get a bit more reach, and 50mm for portraits, though the 35 isn't too shabby either. You can't go wrong with either choice.

Just 1 question though. You have a 35 1.8 in your signature?

JoeLewisPhoto said:

my opinion is, 85 mm macro so you can get a bit more reach, and 50mm for portraits, though the 35 isn't too shabby either. You can't go wrong with either choice.

Just 1 question though. You have a 35 1.8 in your signature?

Click to expand...

yep i have a 35mm f/1.8 and i loved that very much. bt many of my friends tell me that 50mm f/1.8 works better thats why me asking and if so then i will try to sold of the 35mm and will get a 50mm

My question to you is: have you used your kit lens for either of these applications? For macro, it is a very sharp lens and will do the job well; though, you may need more focal length if your subject may move if you get closer. For portrait, you have to ask if you are going to take head/shoulder shoots or full body? From there, you can decide how far back you will have to stand - you don't want to be up in somebody's face with your camera - kit lens will do just fine for that. I only suggest the kit lens because if you were to buy the other lenses, you are only duplicating your focal reach: 50 mm prime < you have 50mm in your kit lens. I don't think you should get caught up with to many lenses. The best of photogs only ever use 2-3.

Sorry D5100Shooter but that is terrible advice.

First of all, a kit lens, for macro will NEVER be close to the same thing as a dedicated macro lens. You will never be able achieve the same results. You cannot get 1:1 life size with a kit lens, and getting close ups and cropping, is a terrible idea. The kit lens isn't BAD, but its nothing to praise either.

A 50mm 1.8 prime is NOTHING like 50mm in a kit lens. The only thing that is the same is the focal length. being able to stop to 1.8 is a HUGE difference between the 2 as apposed to 3.5 or whatever it is (been years since i have seen one). Subject to background separation, bokeh, clarity etc, ALL DIFFERENT.

Aparently you have never used a good, tack sharp lens, to know the differences (i recommend you do). If they were as good as you say they are, everyone would have one. It is a KIT lens for a reason...its a cheap, mediocre walk around lens, and nothing more. It was built this way, so it can be replaced by better glass in the future. It's nikons crazy way of hooking people on photography and getting them to buy bigger and better stuff. lol.

Also, to say that the best of photographers only use 2-3 lenses is a joke. You use what you need for the job/task at hand...some use a few, some use 10 different lenses. You are also not mentioning that the "2-3" lenses that they mostly use is about $6000 worth of glass. BIG difference.

I don't shoot macro but if I did I think I would probably go more towards the 105mm but it does cost a lot more than the 85mm although as already pointed out, the kit lens can do a pretty decent job also.

As for a portrait lens, personally I would stick with the 35mm over the 50mm. The 50mm is a better length for portraits but I think the difference in length from 35mm to 50mm is so small that the 35mm for me would win because I think it's one of the best lenses there is on a DX body, good for street photography and takes pretty good portraits also providing it is not just a head shot.

I was asking myself the same question a while back and decided to keep the 35mm as it is also good for group shots depending on space and I added the 85mm 1.8 also to my collection for portraits.

JoeLewisPhoto said:

Sorry D5100Shooter but that is terrible advice.

First of all, a kit lens, for macro will NEVER be close to the same thing as a dedicated macro lens. You will never be able achieve the same results. You cannot get 1:1 life size with a kit lens, and getting close ups and cropping, is a terrible idea. The kit lens isn't BAD, but its nothing to praise either.

A 50mm 1.8 prime is NOTHING like 50mm in a kit lens. The only thing that is the same is the focal length. being able to stop to 1.8 is a HUGE difference between the 2 as apposed to 3.5 or whatever it is (been years since i have seen one). Subject to background separation, bokeh, clarity etc, ALL DIFFERENT.

Aparently you have never used a good, tack sharp lens, to know the differences (i recommend you do). If they were as good as you say they are, everyone would have one. It is a KIT lens for a reason...its a cheap, mediocre walk around lens, and nothing more. It was built this way, so it can be replaced by better glass in the future. It's nikons crazy way of hooking people on photography and getting them to buy bigger and better stuff. lol.

Also, to say that the best of photographers only use 2-3 lenses is a joke. You use what you need for the job/task at hand...some use a few, some use 10 different lenses. You are also not mentioning that the "2-3" lenses that they mostly use is about $6000 worth of glass. BIG difference.

Click to expand...

Thanks Joe, that is good input. However, what i said was only some friendly advice. Instead of him going out and spending a bunch of money on some new glass, i was only asking if he tried/attempted to do either application with his kit lens to see the results. Further, i think him getting caught up in trying to decide on a whole bunch of other lenses and how to use them, will distract him from getting the basics down with what he already has. I am certainly not saying that the kit lens is the all, end all and i can not stop him from going out and buying other glass. Please look at Kirten Gallon. She makes her living as a pro photog with 2 of Nikon's cheapest lenses: Kirsten Gallon's Photos | SmugMug. You still think its a joke? There are many other examples. I did not mean to make a generalization, but it is true to some extent. The camera/lens does not always matter. Thanks again for your input

AHHH CRAP....all of us pro photographers went out and invested thousands of dollars for nothing!

I did look at Kirstens site, and she does have some "decent" shots but if you read closely, her most recent work was with a D300s and a 70-200 2.8.

No, the quipment isn't everything, I never said it was.

It is true that the camera/lens doesnt always matter when it comes to artistic vision and creativity. it DOES however matter when it comes to quality. If you could get pro quality from consumer grade equipment, we would all be out of business. Just like any pro who uses a tool of any kind....are you going to walk into a top classic car builder, open his tool box and find harbor freight tools? I doubt it.

Ahh this explains A LOT. taken from someones comments on her site, and continuyed to find more...can anyone guess? She shoots jpg, and believes in getting right in camera with little to no editing...lol.

"Realy enjoying your gallery, got here through the rockwell site as well."

JoeLewisPhoto said:

AHHH CRAP....all of us pro photographers went out and invested thousands of dollars for nothing!

I did look at Kirstens site, and she does have some "decent" shots but if you read closely, her most recent work was with a D300s and a 70-200 2.8.

No, the quipment isn't everything, I never said it was.

It is true that the camera/lens doesnt always matter when it comes to artistic vision and creativity. it DOES however matter when it comes to quality. If you could get pro quality from consumer grade equipment, we would all be out of business. Just like any pro who uses a tool of any kind....are you going to walk into a top classic car builder, open his tool box and find harbor freight tools? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

lol, well, maybe you did spend thousands of dollars for nothing, i think it may depend on how you look at photography You would be very surprised on what some people can do with cheap cameras or even an iPhone! You can check out Ansel Adams... he is another example of someone who took stellar photographs with limited equipment. As he says, what matters in photography is what is behind the camera. I am not really one to take things personally, but i would think Kirsten would take it personally with you saying she has "decent" shots. Anyhow, i am sure that this debate can go on forever. Happy shooting

Kirsten is a Ken Rockwell humper. I didnt knock her work, just said there were some decent shots. enough said about that.

Oh and as for Ansel Adams, it was known that he was a TERRIBLE photographer. he didn't know his head from his butt when it came to his gear...but he was a master in the darkroom. I never said you couldnt get great shots from cheaper equipment. But show me an iphone photo that you think is great, printed out large, say 20x30 against the same shot taken with a pro body and lens, and then tell me which one is superior. I look at photography just like every other level headed photographer. You dont take things personal, well i think its a pretty apparent jab to pro photographers when you sit here and say they wasted their money and would be better off with a kit lens. Just because a kit lense works for you, doesnt mean its right for everyone.

The 40mm "micro" is a great little lens for casual macro, I prefer this to the 35 1.8 (ya, I know its not a macro) as it is more versatile and is sharper in my opinion. I'm not into bug shots, so no worries getting extremely close, If you are, most recommend the 105. Of those choices I would actually go with the 40 and 85, although that does not appear to be an option for you?

I was up in the air between the 105 and 85mm for macro so i went with the Tamron 90mm for 445$,Had great reviews all around and is 1:1. As to the 35 vs 50mm primes, i dont know if im recalling correctly but is the 50 closer to 75mm perpective on a DX body and the 35mm closer to 50mm?

JoeLewisPhoto said:

Kirsten is a Ken Rockwell humper. I didnt knock her work, just said there were some decent shots. enough said about that.

Oh and as for Ansel Adams, it was known that he was a TERRIBLE photographer. he didn't know his head from his butt when it came to his gear...but he was a master in the darkroom. I never said you couldnt get great shots from cheaper equipment. But show me an iphone photo that you think is great, printed out large, say 20x30 against the same shot taken with a pro body and lens, and then tell me which one is superior. I look at photography just like every other level headed photographer. You dont take things personal, well i think its a pretty apparent jab to pro photographers when you sit here and say they wasted their money and would be better off with a kit lens. Just because a kit lense works for you, doesnt mean its right for everyone.

Click to expand...

I never took a jab at anyone. I was only responding to your sarcasm. My personal opinion is that you can look at photography as pure art; therefore, you will use anything to get that picture, even pin hole cameras. On the other hand, you can look at it as a business, a hobby, etc. in which case, having the top gear is important to you for one reason or another. I think you, being someone who owns a photography business, got off on the wrong foot in regards to my first comment. Yes, i am only an amateur and most likely don't know as much as you when it comes to the finer points of photography. Therefore, instead of telling me that my honest, humble, friendly advice to a fellow member here was TERRIBLE and thumping your chest "i am the pro", perhaps you could have come off a bit more professional. No where in my original comment did i say or elude to the fact that a kit lens was better than a dedicated lens such as a prime or macro. As stated before, i was merely making a suggestion. The original poster actually liked what i said; therefore, i would assume that he took it for what it was, advice. Advice is something you can take or leave. As a "professional" photog yourself, my advice to you is to be more of a mentor to folks like me here on this site and not thump your chest. "Humper"?? Really? Not very mature or professional. I wish you all the best with your business and keep taking good photos

I am not a pro. I shoot the d3100. I had the kit and a 55-200 to boot. I wanted macro but did not want to spend a ton of money so I got the 40 macro Nikon The sharpness is a noticeable step up from either of my other lens to the point that I use it most of the time now. Kit lenses are good little lenses but they can never touch a prime

lol because i am a professional does not mean i need to act in a professional manner 24/7. Nor do i think I am even acting unprofessional. I dont thump my chest, i have no reason to. I know what i am about. Much like yourself, i was stating my opinions and advice. My opinion was that the advice you gave was terrible. and I will stand by that. If he wanted to know if he could use his kit lens, then he would have asked. He was concerned with getting the correct lense for what he wanted to do because he obviously wants to take marco and portraits more seriously. I'm sorry, but a kit lens just cant handle those 2 tasks as well as the lenses he mentioned he was looking into, and you advised him that they basically would. That is poor advice. And yes, he is a Rockwell Humper. Its a figure of speech. Rockwell is the biggest damn fake/hack on the planet. Oh, and as for being a mentor, that is exactly what i do here. I help people by being honest and keeping them grounded with real information, along with my strong opinions. If you you are an amatuer, with no real world experience with the gear the original poster speaks of, how can you even offer "advice"? Im not going to take advice from a boat salesman, on what car to buy.

As a cheaper alternative, you could get some extension tubes for your 35mm

Introduction to Macro Photography

after all of the review i feel the 85mm macro is a better option as it has VR in it. and 35mm and 50mm is hit and miss fair

A lot of time and effort been put into posting here that doesn't actually help the chap who asked the original question? Come on guys stop the fighting please!


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ansel Adams knew more than just the dark room, Check out Ansel Adams -> the Camera, Photography book 1. I have a copy, and let me tell you, Ansel Adams knew the craft frontwards and backwards including the camera. Actually, he is a really clear and detailed writer and you can actually hear his voice come thru the textbook. I recommend any photographer to pick up a copy. Yes, the material is geared for film, but in reality, 95% of the craft translated over to the digital film age along with the digital darkroom.

As far as macros, love the 60mm macro, and the 105 macro.