Recommend me a prime (for Nikon) please.

Messages
2,411
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
Body: D90

At the moment I have a Sigma 10-20 (f4-5.6), Nikkor 35 f.18, Tamron 90mm 2.8 and a Sigma 18-50 EX DC (which I plan to sell).

The two primes are excellent - sharp & light - and the 10-20 is great as and when required.

As I want to sell the 18-50, I will be without anything between 35 and 90 mm which will likely be a problem.

Can anyone suggest what prime lens to go for? I will be in SE Asia from Jan-March so will use it for general travel shooting. My instinct is a nifty fifty f1.8 or f1.4 - any thoughts?

Many thanks.

(PS newly registered here after years of lurking from "down under.")
 
Personally I'd go for the Nikkor 50 f/1.4G - tis a very nice lens and plugs your lens-gap nicely.
 
I'd second that as well, having a d 90 and a 50mm 1.4.

If you are in London for half a day or something, happy for you to take a few shots to see if you like it.

sam
 
I have opted for the 85mm f1.8 (Just delivered about 20 mins ago!)

I tried this out quite a bit before buying and decided to sell my 50mm to help fund it. Since getting the 35mm F1.8 my 50mm hardly ever got used.
 
Thanks for those responses; I'd not thought of the 85 f1.8.

It is close to the 90 but that much faster.

I might think of selling on the 90mm and get the 85. I still think however that 35-85 is a long gap to leave uncovered.

Is there a great advantage of the 1.4 over the 1.8? I'd be concerned that while it will allow for more light, it will at the same time have a shallower depth of field. I'm not into portrait photography which is what I believed the 1.4 would be best for?

Thanks for any light which can be thrown on this!
 
Slightly OT, is the jump from the 1.8 to the 1.4 on the nifty fifty worth the £200 price difference?
 
I am no expert in lens' but I recently bought the 50 f1.4/G and although I am extremely happy with its performance I have gone back to using the 1.8 for everyday use. I can't really use the 1.4 wide open and when you have stopped them both down a few notches I struggle to notice any difference in the images. The 1.8 fits in a trouser pocket so you can take it with you every time you go out without having to think about carry room.

I dont have a 35mm prime but I can imagine it would be handy. The 35 f1.8 dx gets great reviews from my friends. If I were you I would stick your 18-50 at 35mm and spend a day shooting with it and then the same at 50mm and see which suits your style better.
 
I am no expert in lens' but I recently bought the 50 f1.4/G and although I am extremely happy with its performance I have gone back to using the 1.8 for everyday use. I can't really use the 1.4 wide open and when you have stopped them both down a few notches I struggle to notice any difference in the images. The 1.8 fits in a trouser pocket so you can take it with you every time you go out without having to think about carry room..

Why not? :shrug:

That's what makes this lens so good - it's 'as' sharp as the f/1.8, if not slightly sharper once you get past f/2 and gives you that wonderfully narrow DoF for 1/2 and 3/4 length portraits...
 
Slightly OT, is the jump from the 1.8 to the 1.4 on the nifty fifty worth the £200 price difference?

That's something I meant to ask; it certainly a big jump in cost.

The 35 f1.8 dx gets great reviews from my friends.
As it does from me - I really like my one!

If I were you I would stick your 18-50 at 35mm and spend a day shooting with it and then the same at 50mm and see which suits your style better.
That's an idea; I believe that the 50 1.8 will be much sharper than the 18-50 is wide open at 50mm.
 
I have no doubt it is the better lens. I just find that there are not that many scenarios where 1.4 is needed. Many times I found myself using 1.4 just because I could and not because it made the image better. The other problem I encountered and this is probably down to my ability is that my number of keepers drops when using it wide open because any slight movement forward or backward by the subject or myself renders the shot useless.

There is no situation where I think the 1.8 is better optically but I really missed my little 50mm tucked away in a pocket somewhere, I never had to think about him until I needed that shot and he was there! If I was travelling my 50mm would be a grab lens behind a nice mid range zoom.
 
The 1.4AFS is my favourite lens. Great fun, need to take a little care at 1.4 but very sharp and fantastic buy.
 
If you are going to stick to a 1.8 then the 35mm maybe better especially for indoor shots, rather than the 50mm.

However, I had a 50 1.8 for a couple of years and really loved it. For some insane reason I then changed to a 50mm 1.4, having sold the 1.8.

Do I regret it? I am not sure, but the 1.4 does mean I can shoot in lower light and it does seem to let in more light (the glass is less recessed) - v subjective I know. Also in the longer term it means that if I ever get more creative I have the f stops.

I have also linked a site which does a comparison.
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/nikon-50mm-review/

It sort of swayed me towards the 1.4

sam
 
Thanks Sam.

I have the 35mm f1.8 which I like a lot. After that, my next one is 90mm so I need something in between - 50mm seems to fit the bill.

As for the f1.4 over the f1.8, money sways me towards the f1.8 at the moment.
 
Between 35mm and 85/90mm - you use your feet!!
 
hi guys, sorry to hijack the thread slightly, but i'm considering getting a 1.8 for my nikon d5000. Which exact one should i be looking for, given that i need auto focus. thanks.
 
I know - and I have a 35 - 50 - 85 for just such occassions :)
 
for general shooting and decent landscape angles
i would suggest a lens which is equivalent to a 35mm lens on 35mm film cameras
so that would be

2/3*35?

24?

imagemagic.php
 
Last edited:
Why not get a 60mm macro? granted it's "only" f/2.8 but it's a decent in between length and will also add 1:1 macro to your bag?
 
Back
Top