Going back to a prime...

Amp34

Amp34

Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
So after 5 months of using a 17-55 on my D7000 I'm contemplating going back to a similar setup to the one I had with my Canon kit...

I like the 17-55, it is very versatile, however it's never quite long enough and looking at the wide end it has a lot of distortion. The AF isn't super quick in a lot of situations and it's also super heavy... Am I silly to be thinking of going back to a 35mm ish prime and a wide angle lens?

I'm looking at the 35 f/1.8 as I used to have a 35/2 on the Canon and loved it. Pair that with a Tokina 11-16 and I'm thinking at the shorter end I may have a nice setup. Longer end wise is more difficult. I may end up with a hole from 35-120mm at some point which would need filling. I also miss the idea of VR, while it's not essential the option to have VR on a normal walkaround lens (as well as actual zoom options) would be nice, unfortunately Nikon don't do any primes with VR. I'd also lose weather sealing of the 17-55. Any other options I should be considering, for use both with photo and a bit of video, mostly landscape/around cities and wildlife...?
 
Nobody got any suggestions on the best Nikon primes to use to cover me?
 
The 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens.


I dropped my kits lens and got a sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 HSM OS. It is soo much better than the kit lens.

You could look at the 24-70mm f/2.8.

Edit: I also have a Sigma 10-20mm which I love.
 
Last edited:
I can't help on the Nikon lens side of things - from reading your post it sounds like you just want a prime, prefer using a prime.

I assume the 17-55 is fine distortion wise at 35mm, so replacing it with a 35mm prime gives you the extra stops and weight advantage, maybe not so much weight wise if you also carry a wide angle as well.

But if you don't really shoot above 35mm and are unhappy with the performance below that level, what you say makes sense (if you can't sort out the distortion in PP, or don't want to).

Canon wise, we have a 17-55mm on a 40d, and an 85mm that can go on the 40 or on a 5d. I personally prefer using the 85mm on either, which makes no logical sense in many ways. Practically however we do use the 17-55 more for indoor family shots etc.

This is probably the most unhelpful response you'll get, sorry!
 
I think you've got some relatively affordable options with Nikon primes above the 35mm f1.8, both the 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 are reputably first class, with a wide angle zoom at the lower end as well you'd be well covered with those 3 primes. Personally speaking I wish Nikon would pull their finger out and do something like a 16mm prime that I can stick in my pocket, the wide angle zooms are quite heavy lenses.
 
Tape the zoom ring on the kit lens so it's stuck at 35mm and see how you get on. Obviously you won't get the speed of the f/1.8 lens but you will get a feel for using a prime. Not checked on prices but at a guess, the 35mm f/1.8 won't break the bank and if bought 2nd hand should be resellable if you don't like it. The extra speed of the f/1.8 over a zoom should help compensate for the lack of VR and 35mm should be hand holdable down to about 1/60th, if not slower (and the D7000 handles high ISOs quite well, I understand).

Personally, I've gone the zoom route, with Sigma covering me from 12-70mm and Nikkor from 70 to 300. There are 3 primes in the bag as well, for more specialist use (8mm, 50mm and 105mm). I did the primes only thing back in the '70s and '80s (MF, ME, M EVERYTHING!) so am happy to let Nikon's excellent systems take a lot of control these days.
 
I can't gets on with primes. I just find them too restrictive.

I love the IQ from my 50mm f1.8 but I'm at the point of selling it now because I just don't use it...

Every time it's on the camera I always feel "man I really should have taken my zoom!".

Oh well. It provides a low light option...
 
Phil Young said:
Oh well. It provides a low light option...
Click to expand...

That is all my 35mm ends up being. Low light. My Sigma 17-70mm covers 17-70 and is fast at 17mm (f/2.8).
 
Phil Young said:
I wouldn't doubt that and I knew this comment would come up.

I just miss too many shots when using primes from either circumstance or not being bothered to move too far.
Click to expand...

I think that is the thing with primes, in my experience, you either have to accept you would not get all the shots you would with a zoom - if you spend your whole time thinking if I had my zoom I would have got that shot, then the prime is not for you, unless the extra stops would help you get the shot of course! :)
 
akr said:
I think that is the thing with primes, in my experience, you either have to accept you would not get all the shots you would with a zoom - if you spend your whole time thinking if I had my zoom I would have got that shot, then the prime is not for you, unless the extra stops would help you get the shot of course! :)
Click to expand...

And for that reason... primes are not for me :)

You can get such amazing zooms these days...I always struggle to see the benefits that a prime would outweight a zoom.

I understand there are many prime fanatics that shoot with them exclusively...it's just not for everyone I guess.
 
Phil Young said:
And for that reason... primes are not for me :)

You can get such amazing zooms these days...I always struggle to see the benefits that a prime would outweight a zoom.
Click to expand...

Very true with zooms, other than the extra stops, it can often be a weight thing (so prime probably rarely outweighs a zoom - sorry :p) as well, but I think as you say, some people just prefer them. :)
 
but 1 zoom or 3 primes, surely 3 is heavier :p

Everyone is different :)
 
Thanks for the replies guys (even the one that didn't appear to read the OP ;))

Phil Young said:
And for that reason... primes are not for me :)

You can get such amazing zooms these days...I always struggle to see the benefits that a prime would outweight a zoom.

I understand there are many prime fanatics that shoot with them exclusively...it's just not for everyone I guess.
Click to expand...

The 17-55 is supposed to be an extraordinary lens, however while it is good I still think I'd prefer a sharp 35mm prime over it. I think I'll grab a used 35mm f/1.8 and see how much I like it again, it's pretty cheap as mentioned, then have a look at some other primes if I use that more often. What prime would be the suggestion for around 85mm mark? I'm thinking of getting a macro lens so I can kill two birds so to speak...

I hadn't thought about the 24-70, I had one a while ago (sigma) for the canon and it was ok, but rather large, however i don't think it's much bigger than the one I have now so... Just a shame I can't really see anything with VR/IS at this range, it would be a big benefit for video I think. There is the Tamron 17-55 but I had one for two weeks before before it broke (plastic fantastic...) and the only other option is the sigma version. None are weather sealed however which is a bit of a negative and one of the reasons I bought the 17-55 in the first place.

Dale_d3100 not sure about that, the 17-55 weighs 3/4 of a kg... That's a lot of prime if you're not looking for f/1.4 or faster glass! :p
 
At that end of the scale I use a Nikon 35mm F1.8 and a Nikon 50mm f1.8. The 35mm is rarely off my camera, very impressed with it. I don't miss VR when I'm using it, it's fast, short and light, camera shake isn't much of a problem.
 
Dale_d3100 said:
but 1 zoom or 3 primes, surely 3 is heavier :p

Everyone is different :)
Click to expand...

You might be surprised. I replaced a 24-70 with a 28, 50 and 85mm 1.8g primes. All three added together weigh 100g less than the 24-70 but of course the bigger advantage comes when you have the camera dangling around your neck with said lens attached, especially for long periods.
 
Tokina is brill....

35mm f1.8g is great for the price... (but in my case I can never seem to get the focus even at f4... might be me)
50mm f1.4d aint that expensive
105mm micro portrait/macro lens...



Dunno after that. I was looking at the 180mm sigma (macro plus fairly long).
I went for a 300mm f4.5 tair on an m42 mount. Pretty darn good, just need a decent adapter.

Possibly look at a 50-500 sigma? or borrow one?
 
I too love my 35mm f1.8, I only got it the other day but its definitely worth buying it new and getting the cashback on it; youll be lucky to find it much cheaper then that anyway.
I also really like the Canon 50mm f1.8 but decided to get the 35mm for the Nikon just because its that bit wider.
 
I just don't get all this prime vs zoom malarky. I've got 4 primes and 4 zooms and use the right lens for the job in hand. I've got a crop and a full frame body and can cover from 24mm right through to 500mm in zooms and from 35mm to 100 mm in primes. I use the zooms more than most of the primes but the 100 is a f2.8L macro so that gets a lot of use. I just can't see the sense in resricting what you can take and then wishing you had something else to get the shot.

OP, you say you have a 17-55 and it's never quite long enough and then say you want to change it for a 35. How's the 35 going to get you any shots if you're too short at 55.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top