Beginner Prime lenses

S

Silvio Quaranta

Messages
5
Name
Silvio
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, sorry pretty new to the photography world and just bought a Nikon d5300 with the basic 18-55 lens kit. Will be looking at doing lot of reading and practicing in the next few weeks however wanted to ask:

What are exactly prime lenses and what are they best for? Also which is the best value one out there?
What limitations have the 18-55 lens (mind this is amatorial use nothing professional)
Which aspect of photography suffer the most using the basic 18-55


thanks in advance
 
Prime lenses have a fixed focal length. They usually have a wider (faster) aperture than equivalent zoom lenses and because they are designed for a particular focal length, they have fewer optical compromises. They tend to give very good subject isolation when used wide open, produces a nice soft background. The downside of prime lenses is that they only offer the photographer one field of view.

The 18-55mm zoom provided as a kit on most entry level (crop sensor) SLRs gives a usefully wide view at 18mm (equivalent to about 28mm on 35mm film camera) perhaps for landscapes, while the 55mm end is nudging towards a useful field of view for portraits. The range in between can be suitable for say street/candid photography. Because they typically have modest apertures, the kit zooms tend to be at their best in good light and also give less pleasing out of focus backgrounds.

Take lots of photos with your 18-55mm and you will start to understand the limitations of the shots you are getting compared to what you're looking for. That will help to direct you towards other lenses.
 
Pretty much what Glenn has said, but just to add, you can always move your feet if you want to zoom in or out ;)
 
Just to translate some of the above (depending how new you are...)

"Prime lenses have a fixed focal length" = They don't zoom. So you get a 50mm lens or a 400mm lens, whereas a non-prime will have 18-55mm, 70-300mm.

"They usually have a wider (faster) aperture" = The f-number you see on the lens will be smaller (e.g f/1.8 as opposed to f/5.6) which means it lets more light in, so you can use faster shutter speeds in lower light levels if you need to. This also means, when it is used at a lower number (f/1.8 as opposed to f/11) less of the photo will be in focus, and the bits not in focus will be even more blurry :)


1) What are they best for?
They can be more specialist (e.g. a macro lens), or they can just be better quality than a zoom lens for a certain focal length. So usually a zoom lens at 300mm won't be as sharp as a 300mm prime.
Certain focal lengths lend themselves towards somethings more than others (400mm good for wildlife, 50mm or 85mm are common portrait lenses) but this isn't a fixed rule. You can take landscapes with a 400mm lens, or bird photos with a fish-eye :)

2)Also which is the best value one out there?
Depends what you want to do with it!
The Canon 50mm f/1.8 MK2 is usually offered as a good, cheap, fast lens for portraits, and I believe there's a Nikon equivalent.

I wouldn't rush out to buy one though until you've exhausted your kit lens and feel like you need something different.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Pretty much what Glenn has said, but just to add, you can always move your feet if you want to zoom in or out ;)
Click to expand...

Off a cliff? Into the sea? 100 ft into the air? Or even just an inch closer to something big and fierce with teeth? (The Mrs?)

Sorry to be pedantic but this argument just always strikes me as false, of course you can't always foot zoom :D
 
thanks all for quick response, very informative.
Won't be in a hurry to buy a new lens but is nice to start building some basic knowledge
 
woof woof said:
Off a cliff? Into the sea? 100 ft into the air? Or even just an inch closer to something big and fierce with teeth? (The Mrs?)

Sorry to be pedantic but this argument just always strikes me as false, of course you can't always foot zoom :D
Click to expand...

Well of course if you take my words absolutely literally, then perhaps you would deserve to fall off of a cliff :D

Let me rephrase.

...ahem...


...Actually, I cant be arsed :D
 
woof woof said:
Off a cliff? Into the sea? 100 ft into the air? Or even just an inch closer to something big and fierce with teeth? (The Mrs?)

Sorry to be pedantic but this argument just always strikes me as false, of course you can't always foot zoom :D
Click to expand...
I'll add to this, because focal length isn't just about changing the distance to your subject, because when you change your distance, you change the apparent perspective. Your subjects relationship with it's surroundings is a massive part of the decisions you make when creating a picture. So arbitrarily selecting a fixed focal length lens and 'zooming with your feet' is limiting your artistic outcomes.

This is why I don't follow the 'nifty fifty' crowd for crop cameras, because IMO it's a rubbish focal length on a crop, too short for a decent portrait lens, too long for general photography. Fortunately for the OP he shoots Nikon and has the cheap 35mm option.

Or to cut the pedantry, get the 35mm it'll be useful.
 
Dont forget to think about the wide option 10mm in your case ..you often find you cannot get far enough away to get in all you want so a 10-20 sigma might be worth looking at . In my opinion if you are looking at 18-xxx zooms then going over 150mm pushes them a bit and the quality drops off .Certainly I am not a fan of a bag of lenses of any type and if you have the 18-55 then you have a 35mm so why buy another to lug about?
 
There are several reasons for having a prime handy:
a) simple compact walkabout set up. For example if you were a Canon user, the 40mm pancake.
b) shooting head and shoulders portraits, 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 would give nice perspective, nice soft background if shot wide open or a stop down and not too scary for the sitter to look at.
c) shooting high quality landscapes, 15mm or 20mm prime would likely produce sharper images with less distortion than a typical wide angle zoom
d) shooting birds or wildlife, where often more than 300mm is needed to reach the subject and where it may well be in low light too. So a 400mm f/2.8 or 500/600mm f/4 might be called for.

There are a multitude of examples that could be given where having an appropriate prime lens is beneficial over the equivalent zoom lens. Equally there are a lot of occasions where having a zoom lens is very handy too. Travel being a good example. On my trip to Australia this year I only took zoom lenses (10-20mm, 15-85mm and 70-200mm). There were situations where I would have liked to have my 100mm macro or 300mm f/2.8 to hand, but I just wasn't prepared to deal with or pay for the extra weight.

IMHO only experience will direct the OP towards lenses that meet his needs, whether they be primes or zooms.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest getting yourself either the 35mm 1.8G or the 50mm 1.8G and finding out what they can do for you. Both are really good prime lenses and relatively cheap.
 
Alot of people recommend the 35 DX or 50 f/1.8 primes for Nikon because they are cheap and offer good quality - nothing wrong with this.

However, that doesn't mean the focal length of either of these two is the right one for you, or that you'd use it much. Better to spend a few months using your existing 18-55 then work out what focal length you shoot at most. If it turns out to be 35mm, get a 35mm prime. 50mm, a 50mm prime. You might find you only like shooting at longer focal lengths, so maybe then a 85.

Don't just buy one because they are cheap, buy what is right for you.
 
I can see no situaton where a fixed prime will win out over a zoom ..set it to fixed length if you must ..
 
Pistnbroke said:
I can see no situaton where a fixed prime will win out over a zoom ..set it to fixed length if you must ..
Click to expand...

Not many zooms out there faster than f/2.8 so if you need/want shallow DOF or shoot in low light, a zoom won't get you there.
 
Pistnbroke said:
I can see no situaton where a fixed prime will win out over a zoom ..set it to fixed length if you must ..
Click to expand...
So you either didn't see my response or you disagree.

I can understand someone shooting 'snaps' not understanding the benefits of more control or better IQ, but I'd expect a photographer to appreciate those qualities :thinking:.

In fact the more of your posts I read the more I believe you have no idea about the qualities a photographer would aspire to. Its not the attitude I'd expect from one of the UKs leading wedding photographers.
 
Last edited:
A warning has been given for the content of this post
Well I study the DXO/ Lenscore and lens reports and I dont see any advantage unless you are using say a 200mm f2.8 or greater focal length ..your problem is you think every one else is wrong and you are right ..test your lenses dont guess that this is betterthan that ..if I am happy with what I do and you are happy with what you do why do you always want to argue and insult ?? stay cool keep the bank manager happy ..spend less time on here and more on prompting your business///

**Mod edited**
 
Last edited:
Depends what you are interested in shooting

but a good lens is worth far more than a body and a lot of beginners tend to feel that they should spend more on the body than the lens, they feel that the body has more to it, therefore must be a bigger influence

Most Nikons now have good sensors so can take better glass

a used 70 200 f2.8 VR is a really good lens if you can put up with the size, it produces some great images and at f2.8 you will like what you get.
Even on a DX sensor it will be good.

If you feel that you will continue your hobby, buy good glass, used if you cannot afford new

The 70 300mm VR f4.5/f5.6 is also very good value for money and again if you do not mind the physical size you will enjoy using it

The difference really dose come from the glass
 
Last edited:
I tend to use my prime lens far more than my zooms, but I mainly shoot Birds and Dragonflies ..... 300mm f4, 300mm f2.8 and 600mm f4

If I go to a wedding I take the 70 200mm f2.8

General walking around people the shots I use the 105mm f2.8 VR more and more

the 50mm f1.8 and 55mm f1.2 MF get used now and again

I have just sold my 10 24mm .......... was going to replace it with a 12 24mm, but reckon I'll get the 16 35mm f4 VR ....... but the 24mm 70mm f2.8 is very tempting as I don't go wide much ..............

I get more pleasure for over 100mm than under ....... so to offer any advice to the OP I would say it depends what his interest are ... then decide what focal length, zoom or prime he needs

I would always buy Nikon, but that's me, and I general buy used if I can.

It is difficult to get enthusiastic about the 18 55mm kit lens ...... I have one, never use it, but I believe it is good
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
Well of course if you take my words absolutely literally, then perhaps you would deserve to fall off of a cliff :D

Let me rephrase.

...ahem...


...Actually, I cant be arsed :D
Click to expand...

eh?

What you said was...

Nikon_Nick said:
Pretty much what Glenn has said, but just to add, you can always move your feet if you want to zoom in or out ;)
Click to expand...

And no, you obviously can't always foot zoom.

If you're gonna say silly things...
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
This is why I don't follow the 'nifty fifty' crowd for crop cameras, because IMO it's a rubbish focal length on a crop, too short for a decent portrait lens, too long for general photography. Fortunately for the OP he shoots Nikon and has the cheap 35mm option.

Or to cut the pedantry, get the 35mm it'll be useful.
Click to expand...

I too used to be a bit mystified by the love of 50mm on APS-C, I preferred my Sigma 30mm on my APS-C 20D but something in the 80mm-ish range comes in handy and I do actually like using a 50mm on my MFT cameras which for anyone not familiar with x2 "crop" MFT equates to a 100mm FoV on them.
 
I have no zooms. I have a 28mm f2.8 a 50mm f1.4 for low light and a 180mm f2.8. The only thing I could do with is a 400mm F2.8 but at £10,000-ish that isn't going to happen any time soon...or late even. I have never used zooms as I don't see the point -- less sharpness, smaller max aperture, dodgy build (feels like it).

If I go out with only one lens then it's the 28mm f2.8 as I can almost always get closer but I can't always get far enough away.

However, as others have said, don't rush out for primes until you know why you want them.
 
Last edited:
Pistnbroke said:
I can see no situaton where a fixed prime will win out over a zoom ..set it to fixed length if you must ..
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends how you produce and view images.

I don't think there's much denying that the very best primes are a bit better than the very best zooms but in reality you may not see the difference in a real world print or image unless you look very closely. If we do ignore ultimate image quality we are still left with..

As already mentioned... bokeh, but it's subjective and you may actually prefer the look a particular zoom gives.

What isn't in doubt is that primes give you a wider aperture and some do macro.

Personally I think that once you're looking at smaller aperture primes that can be matched aperture wise by zooms the primes are harder to justify unless they bring something else to the table... like macro, compact size or cheapness :D
 
woof woof said:
eh?

What you said was...



And no, you obviously can't always foot zoom.

If you're gonna say silly things...
Click to expand...

No, of course you cant ALWAYS zoom with your feet.

Apologies, I stupidly forgot that the TP Pedantic Department would jump on the post. Sorry to the OP that the thread had gone the way of many others on here, but hope that there was at least SOME useful info.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nikon_Nick said:
No, of course you cant ALWAYS zoom with your feet.

Apologies, I stupidly forgot that the TP Pedantic Department would jump on the post. Sorry to the OP that the thread had gone the way of many others on here, but hope that there was at least SOME useful info.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you've been reading.

I thought we (most of us) were adding clarity.

Zooming with your feet is a ridiculous concept (despite the number of times it's suggested). Try it, you can't create the same image with an 18mm that you can create with a 200mm, no matter how much walking you do. That's easy to visualise, but it helps to see the concept at work.

But that doesn't mean that using primes is a waste, because by the same token, you can't recreate a 35mm 1.8 image using a slow18-55 zoom (which would be around f4 at 35mm).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pistnbroke said:
Well I study the DXO/ Lenscore and lens reports and I dont see any advantage unless you are using say a 200mm f2.8 or greater focal length ..your problem is you think every one else is wrong and you are right ..test your lenses dont guess that this is betterthan that ..if I am happy with what I do and you are happy with what you do why do you always want to argue and insult ?? stay cool keep the bank manager happy ..spend less time on here and more on prompting your business///
Click to expand...
Then stop reading useless websites and start making photographs. Lens charts don't help. Study some great photography.

IQ is a tiny part of my answer, can you honestly nor see any situation where a photographer might want to use a shallow depth of field?

It's not me who has the issue, your writing style presents very marginal opinions as if they're fact, that will get you into arguments. My opinion is an opinion just same as yours, but unlike yours I understand that others have different priorities and I take them into account.

Of course your way works just fine for you, but it's not 'the way' as you so often present it.

And thanks for your concern, business is fine thanks, it's the perfect size to manage alongside a full time job that pays the bills.
 
Phil V said:
I don't know what you've been reading.

I thought we (most of us) were adding clarity.

Zooming with your feet is a ridiculous concept (despite the number of times it's suggested). Try it, you can't create the same image with an 18mm that you can create with a 200mm, no matter how much walking you do. That's easy to visualise, but it helps to see the concept at work.

But that doesn't mean that using primes is a waste, because by the same token, you can't recreate a 35mm 1.8 image using a slow18-55 zoom (which would be around f4 at 35mm).
Click to expand...

Why so ridiculous? Its just a phrase. Noone tries to suggest that by doing it, you are replicating an actual zoom lens. If you use a 50mm for example and look through the viewfinder you will see one field of view. If you then walk forwards/backwards 20 feet, you will see a different field of view in relation to your subject. Thats all im saying.
 
Last edited:
Stuart M said:
I'd suggest getting yourself either the 35mm 1.8G or the 50mm 1.8G and finding out what they can do for you. Both are really good prime lenses and relatively cheap.
Click to expand...
The 35mm I find is the one I use the most, street photography.
 
'Zooming with your feet' is almost as silly as "nifty fifty" and "cool beans" which is now making a daily appearance !

When composing a picture I will visualise what the image I want to photograph will look like from the perspective of a particular focal length and then use that accordingly. With the image I want in my head, changing my lens is the last part of the process.
 
Pistnbroke said:
I can see no situaton where a fixed prime will win out over a zoom ..set it to fixed length if you must ..
Click to expand...

How do you propose I set my 24-70mm F2.8 zoom to shoot at 50mm F2?
 
Last edited:
stumeech said:
Alot of people recommend the 35 DX or 50 f/1.8 primes for Nikon because they are cheap and offer good quality - nothing wrong with this.

However, that doesn't mean the focal length of either of these two is the right one for you, or that you'd use it much. Better to spend a few months using your existing 18-55 then work out what focal length you shoot at most. If it turns out to be 35mm, get a 35mm prime. 50mm, a 50mm prime. You might find you only like shooting at longer focal lengths, so maybe then a 85.

Don't just buy one because they are cheap, buy what is right for you.
Click to expand...

Stu is bang on the money. I bought the 50mm 1.8 Nikon prime a couple years back and have used it about twice. I bought it because it was cheap and no other reason. Bad move on my part.

Annoyingly I really could have done with a 20mm or 24mm prime last weekend as my f4 zoom wasn't giving me enough light.
 
There was a time when the extreme difficulty of computing and constructing a Zoom lens was beyond any manufacturers ability. to make one that was actually sharp at any setting was even more difficult. Many years of effort had gone into making single focal length lenses that were sharp and did not suffer from any serious image problems or distortions by the 50's the best were for all intents near perfect.
In comparison those first Zooms were hardly more than gimmicks and certainly far from usable for serious work.

A the start of the Digital age surprisingly few improvements had been made to Prime lenses for many years, as they were about as good as any one could use.(there were of course exceptions to prove the rule)
Most of the effort was being put into Zoom lenses. to bring them up to a usable quality.
Today we still have Primes, most of which have been recomputed for the digital world, and still show the way for ultimate qualities, and special uses.

Zooms have split into two main groups.
Those that have limited range but can compete surprisingly well with primes in all but the most challenging and specialist work. These are the new work horses of the professional and serious amateur. The best Zooms are astonishingly and seriously good.

The Other Group is aimed at amateurs and are often called super zooms as they have a massive focal range... they use this range as a selling point, even though they can rarely offer anything like adequate image quality over more than a small portion of their range.
They are to be found fixed to many popular cameras such as Bridge cameras and pocket cameras. They are also available as lower price offerings for use on basic DSLR's. At the magnifications and at the quality levels demanded by many non photographers, they make ideal family and holiday lenses.
On a computer screen or a 6x4 pint they achieve all that is required.
 
you basically get what you pay for in both areas

lens following the law of diminishing returns £ wise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top