Beginner Do I need a 35mm f1.8?

Thank you @Cagey75 . So, I'm OK to save myself some money and stick with the 18-55 then? :)
I'd stick with it for the time being if your focus is landscapes. The 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens for portraits and allows a shallower depth of field that the stock zoom lens at a similar focal length. As others have mentioned, selecting the correct aperture and focus point is vital. There's a useful guide here that teaches you about hyper-focal distance. Be careful not to stop your lens down too far, that will increase the depth of field but may result in an overall softening of the image.
 
Ken Rockwell thinks I do!!. I currently have a D5300 and an 18-55mm AF-P kit lens and, unsuccessfully, love taking landscapes, but find my images are soft when enlarged, Would a prime lens help with this?

Thank you
So does Thom Hogan,but he also has this to say about the AFP 18-55

  • Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-P (product number 20059). Surprised to see a kit lens in the list? The very latest of Nikon’s kit lenses is a real bargain. I don’t know that I’d spend the US$250 to get one outside of the kit over other options, but at the implied US$100 price within kits, you can’t really go wrong. This lens is remarkably well-behaved, and about the best crop sensor kit lens I’ve come across, in any mount. It does the 24mp sensors justice, and if you’re shooting JPEG, the in-camera lens corrections take care of the few little problems that remain. Quite a remarkable feat, actually, considering the price and how many of these lenses Nikon produces. The build quality, however, is quite consumer. This isn’t a lens that will endure abuse.
 
Sure prime lenses will generally outperform zooms.
This depends on the zoom tbh. Sure ‘kit’ zooms and ‘all in one’ zooms don’t tend to be as sharp, but some other zooms are super sharp (y)
 
I'd get the 16-80 and be happy. The ultra wides are great lenses for leaving at home. For landscapes the quality of your tripod is also important, and try mirror lock-up / live view focusing.
 
I'd get the 16-80 and be happy. The ultra wides are great lenses for leaving at home. For landscapes the quality of your tripod is also important, and try mirror lock-up / live view focusing.
I love my UWA :p
 
I find most of my landscape photos are shot (on a crop sensor) within the focal range of 12-35mm, but I do shoot enough at 8mm that were I to focus entirely on landscapes I'd definitely want 8mm (12mm on FF). I also shoot the occasional panorama landscape shot, which uses cylindrical perspective to get as wide or even wider a view than an 8mm rectilinear lens, but without the perspective distortion at the edges.

I also surprised myself recently by shooting one of my best landscape shots at 300mm. If I'm wandering into the hills to shoot landscapes I'll either take my 16-300mm for portability and good snapshots, or if I'm being really competitively serious, my 8-16mm, 16-50mm, and 80-200mm, and of course a tripod and a porter :)
 
I didn’t specifically mean sharpness, but as with everything it depends on what you are looking for I guess :)
What ways do primes our perform zooms then? :confused: For the general landscapes were obviously not concerning ourself with bokeh ;)
 
What ways do primes our perform zooms then? :confused: For the general landscapes were obviously not concerning ourself with bokeh ;)

True, but I think we’re saying the same thing,....or at least I’m not disagreeing with you ;) depends on what you want them for. Primes I’ve had have primarily been for DoF and performance in low light due to large aperture. I’ve found the ones I’ve had to be sharper than my zooms, but then perhaps that’s not always true for all lenses when wide open. it’s all relative I guess. I don’t honestly think I’ve had a lens I thought was poor in any way, even some of the plastic lenses that I hear some complaints about the build quality of..:)
 
Back
Top