Beginner Is a prime lens better than the kit lens?

J

jack whieldon

Messages
80
Name
Jack
Edit My Images
Yes
i have the nikon 5300 kit lens 18-55mm is it just as good as a 35mm or 50mm prime lens? my misses asked what i want for christmas and i was thinking of going for a prime lens for when my tamron 70-300 wont do.

is it worth upgrading from the kit lens to a 35mm or 50mm? or just stick to kit lens ?
 
Is the kit lens as good as a prime? It depends how you define "good". Primes have better optics and faster maximum apertures. The kit lens is more flexible (it's a zoom!) and cheaper. For most people, a prime would probably be "better", but your priorities might not be the same as mine.

Is it worth upgrading? Nobody can answer that for you. Only you can decide how you are prepared to trade image quality vs convenience vs price.
 
First lens I got after the kit 18-105 was a 50mm prime, absolutely love it. Really sharp, shallow enough DOF to make you think about what you're doing (it's easy to mess up when you want say, two people in focus). Lovely portrait length on a crop too. I'd say go for it!
 
That completely depends on what you are using it for. Primes are optically superior but that is of little matter if you can't get into position fast enough to get the shot with it. In a case like that it may be worth sacrificing a little sharpness and using a zoom to make sure you can quickly get a shot off in certain situations. If you strictly shoot portraits a prime may work perfectly for you.
 
jack whieldon said:
i have the nikon 5300 kit lens 18-55mm is it just as good as a 35mm or 50mm prime lens?
Click to expand...
Better for what?

.. heavier and wider lenses generally make better paperweights ..
 
personally if you want to upgrade the kit lens i'd say look at a better quality short zoom like a 17-50 f2.8
 
And, perversely, the 18-70mm kit lens sold with the D70 about a decade ago, out-performed the contemporary 50mm prime (and that was no duffer). In fact, it is still regarded as the best DX kit lens Nikon ever produced.
 
As above, depends on your needs. I tried to use my 18-135mm kit lens indoors and found if I zoomed into 50mm, the aperture stopped down too much. I didn't want too slow a shutter speed or too high an ISO. So I stuck on a 50mm f/1.8. i was able to keep the aperture at 2.8, allowing more light and hence shorter shutter speed/lower ISO.
 
But to answer your question, yes generally. If you bought say a Nikon f1.8 50mm used for around £60 I think you'd be quite surprised at the difference.
 
StewartR said:
Primes have better optics
Click to expand...


shaylou said:
Primes are optically superior
Click to expand...
Is it a fact that primes are optically superior to zooms or is it just a long held myth passed on by the elder togs? The reason I ask is that I been to the websites of the big 3 camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon & Sony) and none of them say that their prime lenses are better than their zoom lens.
Are we photographers over claiming the qualities of these prime lenses, does this lead to camera manufacturer selling more of these primes as a consequence of reading forum threads like this than if photographers read the manufacturers' marketing material ?
 
Last edited:
redsnappa said:
Is it a fact that primes are optically superior to zooms or is it just a long held myth passed on by the elder togs? The reason I ask is that I been to the websites of the big 3 camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon & Sony) and none of them say that their prime lenses are better than their zoom lens.
Are we photographers over claiming the qualities of these prime lenses, does this lead to camera manufacturer selling more of these primes as a consequence of reading forum threads like this than if they read the manufacturers' marketing material ?
Click to expand...
The manufacturers probably won't claim superior optics for one lens over another (they want to sell both), but in general Primes deliver better image quality because they require less physical glass between the image and the sensor. There may be some exceptions (I'm sure there are some pretty poor quality primes out there) and the gap is getting smaller as technology improves zoom lenses, but it's still worth having some decent primes in your kit. Even a cheap plastic nifty fifty will deliver excellent results, and enable you to have really wide apertures. Depends what you shoot of course, but i prefer to use a prime whenever possible.
 
redsnappa said:
Is it a fact that primes are optically superior to zooms or is it just a long held myth passed on by the elder togs? The reason I ask is that I been to the websites of the big 3 camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon & Sony) and none of them say that their prime lenses are better than their zoom lens.
Are we photographers over claiming the qualities of these prime lenses, does this lead to camera manufacturer selling more of these primes as a consequence of reading forum threads like this than if photographers read the manufacturers' marketing material ?
Click to expand...
There are fewer inherent compromises in the design of a prime lens compared to a zoom. And the compromises increase the greater the zoom range and the faster the aperture (and constant aperture introduces even more compromises). Overcoming these compromises introduces complexity and expense, with diminishing returns as you chase parity with a prime at all focal lengths within the zoom range.
 
Zoom kit lenses are variable in quality and also start with a pretty poor maximum aperture at the short end of the zoom, and an even worse one at the long end.
Expensive zoom lenses tend to have a much wider aperture that's constant throughout the zoom range, and the optical quality of the better zoom lenses tends to be very similar to that of prime lenses.

So, for high quality at a reasonable price but without the benefis of zoom, go for a prime lens
If budget allows, go for a pro quality zoom, but they are neither cheap nor lightweight
 
Both have pros and cons.

Prime pros
1. Usually faster (wider aperture) so you can achieve more subject isolation, and also let more light in so better in low light situations
2. Lighter (generally)
3. Smaller (generally)
4. Often optically better but the gap has been bridged a great deal (talking more about good quality zooms rather than your cheap kit lenses)

Zooms Pros
1. Well it's a zoom so has more flexibility
 
I prefer to work at a bit longer focal lengths for portrait but 50mm on a crop body would certainly work
 
Prime lenses are definitely better than kit zoom lenses but some fixed aperture zoom lenses are of excellent quality.
 
Nikon Df - kit lens 50mm prime.
Fuji X_Pro1 - kit lens 18mm prime.

Usually though, as pointed out above, a reasonably priced prime (which may well be descended optically from older MF designs) will probably outperform the normal budget zoom. The zooms built down to a price while the primes are more often built up to a quality. Zooms are also produced in higher volumes than primes - economies of scale.
 
snerkler said:
Both have pros and cons.

Prime pros
1. Usually faster (wider aperture) so you can achieve more subject isolation, and also let more light in so better in low light situations
2. Lighter (generally)
3. Smaller (generally)
4. Often optically better but the gap has been bridged a great deal (talking more about good quality zooms rather than your cheap kit lenses)

Zooms Pros
1. Well it's a zoom so has more flexibility
Click to expand...

Great summary - as others have said, getting a 50mm for £60 is a no brainer.

I use zooms mainly for either paid work, or because I know that i will need the flexibility (or speed) and may not get the chance to take the shot again. Primes are my favourite, I find that my shots are better composed plus they are sharper and just nicer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top