Do you really need a prime lens?
Jun 12, 2013 22:10:06 #
OlinBost
Loc: Marietta, Ga.
I have the following lenses in my kit: 18-55, 28-80, 55-200, 70-300. Is there a great need or benefit to have a 50mm prime lens with F/1.8 for low light?
Jun 12, 2013 22:17:06 #
Jun 12, 2013 22:37:06 #
Jun 12, 2013 22:49:51 #
Only if you find you don't have a fast enough lens for the shooting you want to do. If you are shooting with a crop camera I would think about the 35mm f/1.8. It is more like your eye sees. For most of us that did 35mm film with a 50mm lens it feels just right. - Dave
Jun 12, 2013 22:53:39 #
It's amazing how much light that f1.8 brings in. Get the f1.8D, it's about $100 cheaper if you have an af motor in your camera.
Jun 13, 2013 06:38:14 #
wilsondl2 wrote:
Only if you find you don't have a fast enough lens for the shooting you want to do. If you are shooting with a crop camera I would think about the 35mm f/1.8. It is more like your eye sees. For most of us that did 35mm film with a 50mm lens it feels just right. - Dave
I will 2nd that. I have this lens and I use it quite often. Its almost like using a 55 mm lens on my old Nikon F 35 mm film camera. This lens is also an excellent quality lens for the money.
I also have in my glass arsenal a 90 mm macro lens which I use quite often rather than some of the larger zoom type lens. I guess bottom line is what ever fits your needs.
Jun 13, 2013 07:17:42 #
Jun 13, 2013 07:38:48 #
OlinBost
Loc: Marietta, Ga.
I want to thank for all of the input. The cameras that I have are Nikon D70 and D90. There have been several articles about prime lenses that have left me a bit confused. I found the 50mm lens on eBay for $99.00 and am in the process of considering a purchases. Some of the pictures I want to take are in low light indoors and outdoors. Thanks again for your input.
Jun 13, 2013 10:12:30 #
OlinBost wrote:
I have the following lenses in my kit: 18-55, 28-80, 55-200, 70-300. Is there a great need or benefit to have a 50mm prime lens with F/1.8 for low light?
A prime lens offers better quality than a zoom, is lighter and faster, and will give better shallow depth of field effects for portraiture etc. Not as versatile, but there you go.
Jun 13, 2013 11:06:19 #
Sharpest and shallow DOF of the lenses you have ! Low light is not so much of a concern with today's high ISO capabilites in camera bodies...
Jun 13, 2013 19:03:33 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
OlinBost wrote:
I have the following lenses in my kit: 18-55, 28-80, 55-200, 70-300. Is there a great need or benefit to have a 50mm prime lens with F/1.8 for low light?
It really depends on your needs. Prime lenses serve two purposes. First, as everyone points out they great for low light photography, but just as important, for me anyway, is their ability to control depth of field. While there are many f/2.8 zooms, it's the faster f/1.2 to f/2.0 primes that allow you to capture a very shallow depth of field.
Jun 13, 2013 19:13:43 #
everyone should own a "nifty fifty" of some stripe.
It is on my list of what glass I would like but do not absolutely have to have at the moment.
It is on my list of what glass I would like but do not absolutely have to have at the moment.
Jun 13, 2013 19:33:17 #
OlinBost wrote:
I have the following lenses in my kit: 18-55, 28-80, 55-200, 70-300. Is there a great need or benefit to have a 50mm prime lens with F/1.8 for low light?
Very creative lens as well for those creamy backgrounds...
Jun 13, 2013 20:48:21 #
OlinBost wrote:
I have the following lenses in my kit: 18-55, 28-80, 55-200, 70-300. Is there a great need or benefit to have a 50mm prime lens with F/1.8 for low light?
Henri Cartier-Bresson became world famous using just a Leica camera and a single 50mm "prime" lens. A truly versatile photographer does NOT need an army of lenses.
In the end, your selection of lenses should be determined by your real needs. It is easy to become a lens collector with little real benefit to the quality of your images.
Jun 13, 2013 21:09:39 #
OlinBost wrote:
I have the following lenses in my kit: 18-55, 28-80, 55-200, 70-300. Is there a great need or benefit to have a 50mm prime lens with F/1.8 for low light?
I just came across an online article today, "Why you need a prime lens if you want sharp pictures." I haven't read it yet, but I can imagine what it will say. Primes are generally sharper than zooms.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.