JohnKlingel

I find prime lenses very restrictive. When I work a scene, I want different focal lengths. The one situation where I have a prime is for wildlife. I have a Nikon 300 that weighs 1.5 lbs and use it for situations where the light weight is crucial like photographing a Jaguar while standing in a boat. Recently, I was photographing Bighorn Sheep and 300mm was too much as I was very close to the Bighorns and couldn't get the whole animal in the frame. So unless you're doing something where distance from subject is fairly consistent like studio portraits, a prime can be restrictive.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Thanks for starting this topic! It's been on my mind as well.

I agree with the suggestion to "tape" a conventional or kit lens at a specific setting and use it that length alone for a couple of days - that's the best way to get the feel, IMHO. In old 35mm film days, I would most often have a 35mm on as my prime, and, when possible, a 105 in my pocket (Yeah, bad joke, "Is that a 105 in your pocket or are you....")

I'm facing the same exact question right now, for my Nikon crop bodies - wondering whether my "old" 35mm prime choices translate well for D3200 / 7200 use. Personally, I always found the 50mm too "in between" when I was composing, thus the 35 mm f 1.8 or 105 mm f 2.8 as my prime lenses (would have gone for a faster 105, but they were quite pricey back in my heyday). Those would translate into 25mm and 75mm in crop sensor terms, with the "normal" 50mm prime coming in at about 30 mm (as others have said) and the "short portrait" normal equivalent of 85mm equating to about 61 mm. I'm looking at Sigma, Tokina, and Nikkor as possible sources of primes, so I'll likely go with the 50mm Nikkor f1.8, with a full frame equivalent focal length of 70mm. My local shop has one, used, for $50. For my "go to" wide prime, I don't see much available at a 25mm focal length, so I'm looking at the Sigma 30 mm f1.4 (equivalent to about 45mm for full frame) as my best bet. They're about $500 at all the usual suspects.

Anyone have specific brand and speed recommendations on primes in this range?

Andy

jeffkempton

I only have the 50mm right now for my D7100. I am considering getting the 85mm 1.8G. I have not yet needed a shorter prime.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Nikon has done a great job of keeping lenses compatible. If the lens fits on your camera now and it auto focuses and auto exposes, it is fine. Some of the really older lenses will work but have to be manually focused and or manually adjusted for aperture. But, fortunately, the older lenses have aperture and focus rings so manually adjusting is an inconvenience and not an impossibility. I wouldn't scrap older glass until I was able to replace it with the same QUALITY in new glass. One thing that you have to be aware of is that Nikon (and other lens makers) have multiple levels of quality (and prices) in their lenses. So, the newer lens may have a built in focus motor (which makes it a requirement for the D3xxx and D5xxx camera because they don't have a focus motor in the camera). For the photographer, the focus motor in the lens (SWM or Silent Wave Motor) is faster and quieter than the focus motor in the camera and uses less battery. AND is more expensive. Nikon still has some lenses that require the focus motor in the camera and are slower but still have excellent glass (Nikon 80-400mm older model lens for instance) and is considerably less expensive and you can probably find a used but in good shape from KEF, Adorama, B&H or others at a really good price (I got mine for $400 and it had a Kirk tripod mount on it which retails at about $150). Don't scrap your lenses because they are old, only because your camera won't use them or they don't fit your needs.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

One remark i"d like to interject is that I normally buy FX "G" lenses just in case I add a full frame camera down the road.

le boecere

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have a number of prime lenses in my Canon kit: 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 45mm, 50mm, 60mm, 65mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 180mm, 300mm and 500mm. Also 1.4X and 2X teleconverters that I use with some of the longer focal lengths.

They serve various purposes... and to some extent it depends upon the sensor format. Since you use an APS-C crop camera, I'll tell you how I use these on my APS-C camera (they tend to serve different purposes on my full frame).

The 20/2.8 lens serves me as a "wide normal" and landscape lens. I occasionally use it - carefully - for environmental portraiture. (A wide lens like this tends to distort a subject's appearance in several ways, if used too close or if the subject is positioned too close to the image edge.)

My 24mm and 45mm are both Tilt-Shift lenses (manual focus), with lens movements that effect image perspective and the plane of focus. I especially use them for architecture and small product photography. But also for landscape and some other purposes.

My 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2 are all excellent low light lenses. Their large apertures also allow me to strongly blur down background and on APS-C the 50mm and 85mm, in particular, are my "go to" portrait lenses. The 28mm is quite compact and makes for a good, slightly wide "normal" lens on my APS-C cameras. The 135mm is an excellent telephoto for everything from sports to wildlife to long-lens portraiture (on APS-C) and works very well with a 1.4X teleconverter (as an effective 189mm f2.8 combo), so I don't feel any need for a 200mm lens in my kit (plus I have several zooms that cover 200mm).

The 60/2.0, 65mm, 100/2.8 and 180/3.5 are all macro lenses (I also have a vintage 90mm macro that I sometimes use with my DSLRs).

The 60/2.0 is a Tamron SP with an unusually large aperture for a macro lens, which makes it nicely dual-purpose, great for portraits too. It is quite compact, when I want to lighten my load takes the place of a 100mm macro, 50mm and 85mm portrait lenses in my kit, and is one of my few "crop only" lenses. (Most of my lenses are usable on both crop and full frame because I use cameras with both sensor formats, though I use APS-C the most by far).

The 65mm Macro is a very specialized, ultra-high magnification, manual focus-only lens. It actually starts at 1:1, which where most macro lenses stop. It doesn't focus anywhere close to infinity. In fact, the most distant subject it can focus upon is only about five or six inches from the front of the lens, set to it's lowest 1:1 magnification. And it goes to 5:1 or five times life size, where the subject will be about two inches from the front element of the lens. The MP-E 65mm "grows" in length from under 4 inches at 1:1 to around 9 inches at 5:1. Due to this, it's "effective" aperture also changes... the smallest settable f16 at 1:1 becomes an effective f96 at full 5:1. For this reason, it's almost always necessary to use specialized macro flash with it. But, set to it's highest magnification I can fill my camera's viewfinder with a grain of rice, for example.

The 100/2.8 is probably my most used and most versatile macro lens. It goes from infinity to 1:1 magnification Canon's 100mm macros are great because they can be fitted with a tripod mounting ring, which is a really useful feature when shooting macro. But this is also a good focal length for handheld close-up and macro shooting. (Shorter focal lengths can put you too close to macro subjects... while longer ones are much harder to hold steady).

The 180mm macro is less frequently used, is a lot more difficult to steady at higher magnifications so tends to require a tripod or monopod much of the time, but can be essential for certain types of subjects (especially shy critters... or those that bite or sting!)

I actually have three 300mm lenses... an f2.8 and two f4. I use these for wildlife and sports primarily. The f2.8 is big and heavy, most often requiring a tripod or at least a monopod, for anything more than a few minutes of shooting. I use the f4 lenses a lot more often - enough so that I bought a second one as a backup. They are considerably lighter and smaller, leaving me more mobile, and I use them almost exclusively handheld... occasionally on a monopod. I sometimes use a 1.4X teleconverter with all three 300mm lenses. I also sometimes use a 2X with the 300/2.8, but not with the f4 lenses. The 300mm f4 lenses also are exceptionally close focusing for telephotos, to under five feet (the 300/2.8's closest focus is just over 8 feet)... Because of this they can also be quite useful for close-up/near macro work, when even a 180mm macro lens doesn't give enough working distance. (Note: I also always have some macro extension tubes with me, which can further reduce any lens' closest focusing distance and increase it's magnification).

The 500/4 I almost exclusively use for wildlife photography, and on rare occasions for sports. It's big and heavy enough that it's almost always on a tripod (I can probably count on my fingers the number of shots I've taken with it handheld, in 15 years using it). I occasionally use it with 1.4X and, more rarely, 2X. A really long focal length like this is challenging to keep on target with small or distant, moving subjects. Using a 500mm on an APS-C camera exacerbates this.

Both my 1.4X and 2X teleconverters are very high end and work quite well with prime lenses, in particular. I use them much less frequently with zooms.

Primes can generally be faster (i.e., larger aperture), smaller, lighter and less expensive than zooms. I started photography 35+ years ago when zooms really sucked, so learned with and real;ly got in the habit of using prime. Still tend to "think" in prime focal lengths and to prefer them whenever I can use them. That's a large part of why I have so many primes. I also think zooms make me a little lazy... allowing me to stand in one place and not need to move around the way I do with primes.

When I'm shooting with APS-C cameras I nearly always carry the 28/1.8 and 60/2 lenses, regardless of what other lenses I'm using. The two of them don't add much weight or take up much room in may camera bag. They're smaller and lighter than any one of my zooms. And I like to have them on hand, in case of an unexpected need for a low light/large aperture or especially close focusing lens. They are a full stop or more faster than any of my zooms. I used to carry the 28mm, plus a 50mm and 85mm portrait lenses, and a 90 or 100mm macro. Now the 60mm takes place of the 50, 85 and macro. It's only minor drawback, while just fine for macro and portraiture work, the 60mm is too slow focusing to serve for sports/action. (But, in fact, most macro lenses are slower focusing... putting more emphasis on focus precision, with some cost in speed.)

Now, today's zoom lenses are much better than those from a couple decades ago... and they can be a lot more versatile and I use some of them, too. Their primary limitations are that very few offer faster than f2.8 aperture, they tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. They also are necessarily a lot more complex, so may be less durable or more problematic than a simpler prime lens. But zooms also can be essential for certain subjects and purposes. I use two ultrawides especially made for crop sensor cameras (10-22mm and 12-24mm), three "walk around" zooms (two 28-135mm and a 24-70/2.8), and three telephoto zooms (70-200/2.8, 70-200/4 and 100-400mm).



IMO, that's pretty silly. If you only own and use a DX camera, there is really no good reason not to take advantage of DX specific lenses. They can save you money, weight and size.

Granted, all but one of my primes are FX capable (and, thus, also DX capable)... but this is because a.) I bought some of them before any comparable "crop only" lenses were even offered, b.) in fact I bought a few of them back when I was shooting "full frame" film cameras, before I even owned a crop sensor DSLR (2004) and c.) I already have and use both crop sensor and full frame DSLRs (since about 2009). But in spite of that, I still have several "crop only" lenses, especially for use on my crop sensor cameras.

If and when you "add" a full frame camera in the future (there is less and less reason to do so, as DX cameras have continually improved and more than meet most peoples' actual needs), if they're no longer needed you can very likely sell off any DX only lenses and recoup some or much of what you spent on them. A couple of the primes I bought 10 or 15 years ago now sell used for more than what I paid for them! So if I were to sell them, I might make a profit even after using them for 10+ years! Others have depreciated... but not nearly to the extreme that my earlier DSLR cameras have! Lenses tend to hold value pretty well. OEM lenses hold value better than third party. And lenses that are superseded by a new and improved model tend to depreciate a bit faster, too. But, still, they often retain much more of their value than the cameras they're used upon... and you're more likely to keep and use your lenses, even while camera upgrades come and go.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As noted above, 35 and 85 are reasonable for full sensors. A 35mm on a Nikon APS-C is equiv to 50 X 1.5 = 52.5mm on a full frame. 50mm is considered normal.

That is interesting if you typically take photos at 20 ft, which is rather far for portraits. The closest to a portrait is 20ft at 280mm. If I do my math right, that would give the same magnification as 10 ft at 140mm, or 5 ft at 70mm.

I would recommend taking a series of shots at different focal lengths at the distance you would typically take portraits. Do the same for landscapes. That should give you a good idea as to what suits you best.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

After many good suggestions, I am still of the opinion that the OP can probably more easily decide what his choices might be by trying Rpavich's suggestion:

"A good way to find out what you like is to put your zoom on a set focal length; pretend 28mm. Then tape it there. Shoot it that way for a week. At the end of the week evaluate how useful it was and how many times you wished it were some other focal length.

Then change it to 35mm and start again...etc.

Really it's very personal. You have what you like in distance, type, and quality of photograph and subject and only you can decide what works for you.

Focal length also plays into how far you are from your subjects and how you frame them and that affects how the backgrounds look. A 50mm f/1.4 doesn't ALWAYS produce a blurry background, it's dependent upon your aperture and subject to camera vs camera to background distance. Likewise, I've taken some very creamy background portraits using a 300mm f/4.5 lens.

So, you have to try and see what works. We can't tell you what you will be happy with."

The price is right as well!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Best Answer!

le boecere

Your statement: The 28mm is quite compact and makes for a good, slightly wide "normal" lens on my APS-C cameras.

Rookie question: Believing 28 x 1.5=42 on many APS-C cameras. And believing that 43mm is actually a more accurate "normal" focal length than the traditionally accepted "nifty fifty", would that not make the 28mm APS-C lens just 1mm inside the category of "slightly wide"?

And could not the 28mm APS-C lens just be considered near the epitome of "normal"?

_Van

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This REALLY comes down to personal preference.

For example, I just find "normal" lenses boring. Instead I've always preferred a slightly wide normal and a short telephoto... 35/40/45mm and 80/85/90mm on full frame... so 24/28mm and 50/60mm on APS-C.

This is true with all focal lengths... people just tend to develop their own preferences.

If a prime isn't handy to experiment with, I like the suggestion to set a zoom to a particular focal length, lock it in place with a piece of tape and shoot with that for a while, to see if you like it. Just keep in mind that a comparable prime will usually be smaller, lighter and likely offer a larger aperture for stronger background blur and/or better low light performance.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I can't believe the dissertations on crop factors and the like. The OP stated he has a crop sensor camera,can't decide which one or two primes to buy and also asked about uses for the 105,and a side thought regarding hyperfocal distance, I guess. He also asked about peoples various uses. We may be confusing instead of helping. Just a thought...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

In theory, yes.

But, out in the real world most "normal" lenses on full frame are in the 50mm to 57 or 58mm range (33.33mm to 38.66mm in DX terms).

Plus, if measured precisely in a lab most lenses marked focal lengths aren't all that exact. They're commonly "rounded off" by the manufacturer. In fact, up to + or - 10% allowance is considered acceptable. So a "28mm" lens might actually be closer to 25mm or to 31mm, or anywhere in between. Who would want to buy a "26.37mm" lens, anyway?

In fact, in an older system of film cameras one of my favorite "normal" lenses was a 40mm f1.8 "Pancake" lens that happened to test as almost exactly 43mm in the lab. So, was that a more "exactly normal" lens... Or was it "slightly wide" when compared to most of the other "normals" available, which were 50, 52, 55, 57 or 58mm focal length?

Prior to that 40mm lens being offered, for a long time I used a 35mm f2 as my "normal". Also a fine lens, although larger and heavier.

I use the 28mm f1.8 now, simply because it's reasonably compact, has the same filter size as many of my other lenses, uses a high performance ultrasonic focus drive, is pretty well built and offers very good image quality (actually better on a crop camera than full frame, since it's corners are a wee bit less sharp than the central image area). Yeah, I might prefer a 24mm... except with that focus length I've only had choice of a much larger, heavier and far more expensive f1.4 model or a sharp, smaller/lighter model that's only f2.8 and uses a less high performance AF drive system. Recently there's been a third model offered with better build and higher performance AF, plus image stabilization, but it's still only f2.8 (and I already have a 24-70/2.8 zoom with higher performance AF, tho not with IS). A third party alternative is a "crop only" 30mm f1.4 lens (Sigma), 2/3 stop faster and a fine lens with high performance AF, but less wide, larger and heavier, more expensive... and third party. So I've stuck with my 28/1.8 "compromise", even though I might prefer slightly wider.

There really are lots of criteria that can come into play when choosing a lens...

- focal length
- max aperture & minimum aperture
- aperture design, # of blades, shape of blades
- price
- size and weight
- filter thread size and ability to use standard filters
- AF drive system... speed, accuracy, smoothness & noise
- manual focus... instant override? length of throw
- closest focus & max magnification
- durability and construction
- internal focusing
- dust and moisture resistant construction
- non-rotating front barrel
- hood design, size and effectiveness
- image stabilization

.... and, of course, image qualities such as sharpness, color rendition, distortion, chromatic aberration, coma, flare dampening, etc.

Those are not necessarily in order of importance (will vary from user to user) and there may be a few other things I'm forgetting!

Leitz Loc: Solms

A lens is only as boring as the person using it.