how do i visually test for sharpness ?

[Yardbent]

bought a Nikon D40 + 18-55 AF-S GII kit lens in November - just started digital

everyone here was banging on about the 35mm f1.8 prime so got one too
ha.....haven't used it so far...:thumbsdown:

if i set the kit lens at 35mm and compare with shots with the 35mm prime - what should I be looking for ? presume I use same aperture for comparison ?

and whats the best shots to take ?
landscapes
symmetrical buildings
rows of pencils, balls etc
receding structures like bridges, paths, fences..............or?

my eyesight aint what it used to be - age creeping up! .... so if no discernible difference to me - sell ?

interests seems to be focusing (groan) now on landscapes and wildlife
nae wains or weddings...:lol:

thanks for advice as always.

[daugirdas]

????

The prime is primarily intended for low light shots without flash. In other words, it is for shots of people indoors, etc. 18-55 would never get it, ever.

For wildlife you need more like 350 mm, no 35mm.

Don't get too obsessed with sharpness testing, as long as results are sharp - sharpness will depend on number of factors (aperture, subject, lens, camera, tripod, technique: focusing, execution, light).

[seventythree]

????



- sharpness will depend on number of factors (aperture, subject, lens, camera, tripod, technique: focusing, execution, light).

99% percent of that that boils down to the person behind the camera, and the only way i have found to improve such things is to take photo's, and lots of them.

my recycle bin will vouch for that.

[Yardbent]

1...The prime is primarily intended for low light shots without flash. In other words, it is for shots of people indoors, etc.

2...18-55 would never get it, ever.

3...For wildlife you need more like 350 mm, no 35mm...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry - perhaps wasn't clear enough in my requirements.....

1...yes now realize this - but I dont take these type of people shots
2.. realize this is an "outdoor sunny day walk-about"
.........sorry if that's simplistic but explains my thoughts
3.. yes - am looking at a 70-300 VR sometime in the future

so i surmise the 35mm prime doesn't fulfill any of my needs ?

[Yardbent]

99% percent of that that boils down to the person behind the camera, and the only way i have found to improve such things is to take photo's, and lots of them.
my recycle bin will vouch for that.

:lol: thanks - I have started to use my tripod (as above) - took 77 sunset shots on Thursday - kept 3 !
But in view of the above, i think my 35mm prime is maybe surplus to requirements

unless it has some use in low-light landscape situations ?......:thinking:

[seventythree]

:lol: thanks - I have started to use my tripod (as above) - took 77 sunset shots on Thursday - kept 3 !
But in view of the above, i think my 35mm prime is maybe surplus to requirements

unless it has some use in low-light landscape situations ?......:thinking:

more suited to(read essential for) low light and indoors and moving subjects.

low light landscape, if nothing is moving (unless you intentionally want blur on certain things) doesnt require a low aperture as far as i'm aware. you'll need a large DOF for the landscapes, so your aperture will be in a range covered by pretty much any lens. You just need to lower the shutter speed and steady the camera. Tripod is essential and it also helps to lock the mirror up if you have that function. A remote release will also pay dividends.

i've found it essential to have an exif viewer like opanda. this means you can quickly look at other photo's for tips on typical apertures, shutter speeds, focal lenghts etc etc.

My mate, MR Mike had a d40 with a kit lens and he has some pretty impressive landscapes from it.

Al

[Yardbent]

more suited to(read essential for) low light and indoors and moving subjects.
Al

thanks again -- if i find no use for the 35 prime I think it will become the start of the 300mm "fund"

thanks both for the advice..............:thumbs:

[HoppyUK]

These days, the main advantage of prime lenses is that they have very low f/numbers - f/1.8 is two or three stops lower than any zoom, which is a huge amount.

The advantage in low light is obvious, and so is the big reduction in depth of field you get for those blurry out of focus backgrounds (bokeh) that look wonderful with the right subject.

Personally, primes are not for me. If the light gets a bit low, I increase the ISO, or use a tripod, or more often I use flash. As for depth of field I tend to want more rather than less, but I would like a nice low f/number prime for portraits.

So if you're maybe like me, that 35mm f/1.8 won't do anything for you. I sold all my primes last year. Put the funds towards something else.

However, many folks think differently and you will sell that lens in five minutes with an ad in the For Sale forum below :)

[Yardbent]

......

So if you're maybe like me, that 35mm f/1.8 won't do anything for you. I sold all my primes last year. Put the funds towards something else....

thanks ... I'll sit on it till i visit the family kids in France - then decided