[MrBob6939]

Hi all, I am new to digital photography and have recently bought a Nikon D7100 and 18-200mm VRII lense which I am having stacks of fun with.

Now with Xmas just around the corner and cash presents and of course the Nikon money back from the camera purchase due anytime I have been considering a second lense and it's been suggested I should consider a prime.

What do I photograph, anything really, I've not decided what I wish to focus on (pardon the pun) but I enjoy the great outdoors, wildlife, plant life, star trails, landscape and of course people.

So, having cash to burn, albeit not a lot depending how generous people are, what prime should i seriously really consider? Now I realise some will say both, but if I had to choose which one, quality of build and shot are important.

Many thanks

Bob

[MrB]

The 35mm focal length is probably going to be more versatile on the D7100's APSC size sensor - it is equivalent to the standard lens that came with most 35mm film cameras.

Philip

[MrBob6939]

Thanks, I've been looking at them and they look good and a reasonably priced too, very well priced actually...

:-)

[Phil J]

Hi Mr Bob,

Welcome to the forum. There will be as many opinions on this, as there are posters on the subject I suspect. MrB (Philip) in post2, has a particularly valid point in what he says, and in many ways I agree with him. However, when I set about resolving the same problem which you now have, I went for the 50mm F/1.8 and I haven't regretted doing so. This little gem is (or was when I bought mine) available for under £100.00 brand new and it is as sharp as a razor. To get any other lens as sharp as it, you'd undoubtedly end up paying more and in some instances considerably more.

You might be well advised to look on the various websites which review camera equipment, or perhaps take a look at Michael Rachman's 'Luminous Landscape' site from Canada. Another you might want to consider looking at might be David Tejada's USA based site. I think you would find both to be useful in your quest for unbiased review information. Have you considered purchasing on the pre-owned market? If so then I can personally recommend taking a look at 'Greys of Westminster'. They deal in Nikon equipment 'exclusively' and I have used their first class service on several occasions. They provide a 12 month warranty on the pre-owned equipment they sell and their service is second to none. Oh, and I don't work for them, 'unfortunately'

Best of luck with your next exciting purchase in the (what will be seemingly never ending) quest to improve your photographic prowess.

Best regards.

Phil.

[Fritzm]

Hmm, 3 days after the OP. I bought the 35mm lens for indoor shots. Aperture mode, wide open, no flash. works GREAT. No depth of field problems which surprised me, probably because my shots had nothing going on in the foreground. Shutter speeds, auto, were generally fast enough to prevent blurring. I really like the low light performance of this fast lens. My daughter's sh*tty light (technical term) in her house is another matter.

[kNox]

I'm also on the 35mm train, I am seriously considering buying it for my D3100. Or just swapping in my D3100 for a D90 and buying it for that one. Either way, 35mm it is!

[TrueNorth]

Hi all, I am new to digital photography and have recently bought a Nikon D7100 and 18-200mm VRII lense which I am having stacks of fun with.

Now with Xmas just around the corner and cash presents and of course the Nikon money back from the camera purchase due anytime I have been considering a second lense and it's been suggested I should consider a prime.

What do I photograph, anything really, I've not decided what I wish to focus on (pardon the pun) but I enjoy the great outdoors, wildlife, plant life, star trails, landscape and of course people.

So, having cash to burn, albeit not a lot depending how generous people are, what prime should i seriously really consider? Now I realise some will say both, but if I had to choose which one, quality of build and shot are important.

Many thanks

Bob[/size]

[/size][size=large]

[Frenchie]

I had the same issue but ended up buying the AF-S DX 35mm F/1.8. Technically I like the concept of depth of field fuzziness (forget the tech name). I have D3200. Lens procured at boxing day sale at best buy. Played around with it in auto mode, scene mode, aperture priority, and shutter priority. I shoot raw and they look good once downloaded and viewed using View NX 2. I like the clarity and the light weight. It makes you appreciate the concepts of depth of field control so a lot of trial and error is going to take place. Good luck and a happy new year

[TrueNorth]

[quote='MrBob6939' pid='91950' dateline='1387387051']
Hi all, I am new to digital photography and have recently bought a Nikon D7100 and 18-200mm VRII lense which I am having stacks of fun with.

Many thanks

Bob[/size]

Whoops, my comments from the 18th went missing.

I too was faced with this dilemma and after reading a number of reviews, I decided to ask for the 35mm f1.8 G for Christmas.
I'm using it on my new Nikon D5200.
So far, after a dozen or so indoor snapshots, I can't say the lens sharpness is all that much better than the kit lens. Looks like I'll have to set up the tripod and try some real tests.

[john.mcintosh]

Hi Mr Bob
Hope you had a good christmas & looking forward to happy snapping in the neew year.
You are considering a Prime , thats adventureous, my take on Zoom Vs Prime is :

Zoom : offers more flexibility- they offer comparable performance to prime - with greater ISO flexibility & performance (image stabilisation etc) I think you get better value for money with Zoom over a bunch of primes. They also take up less space in your bag.

Prime : This is a fixed focul length lense - these are seriously faster- have a wider maximum aperture, and thats about it.

I have two lenses covering 24/70 & 70/300 and think this , for me for the moment , covers most situations.

In the end , its your call , but hope this helps just a little, keep in touch and lets see your snaps soon.

regards
Jon

Hi all, I am new to digital photography and have recently bought a Nikon D7100 and 18-200mm VRII lense which I am having stacks of fun with.

Now with Xmas just around the corner and cash presents and of course the Nikon money back from the camera purchase due anytime I have been considering a second lense and it's been suggested I should consider a prime.

What do I photograph, anything really, I've not decided what I wish to focus on (pardon the pun) but I enjoy the great outdoors, wildlife, plant life, star trails, landscape and of course people.

So, having cash to burn, albeit not a lot depending how generous people are, what prime should i seriously really consider? Now I realise some will say both, but if I had to choose which one, quality of build and shot are important.

Many thanks

Bob

[Wall-E]

Hi Mr Bob
Hope you had a good christmas & looking forward to happy snapping in the neew year.
You are considering a Prime , thats adventureous, my take on Zoom Vs Prime is :

Zoom : offers more flexibility- they offer comparable performance to prime - with greater ISO flexibility & performance (image stabilisation etc) I think you get better value for money with Zoom over a bunch of primes. They also take up less space in your bag.

Prime : This is a fixed focul length lense - these are seriously faster- have a wider maximum aperture, and thats about it.

I have two lenses covering 24/70 & 70/300 and think this , for me for the moment , covers most situations.

In the end , its your call , but hope this helps just a little, keep in touch and lets see your snaps soon.

regards
Jon

John;

Sorry you think so little of fast lenses.
With the current crop of primes you get a MUCH faster and SHARPER lens for the money than if you buy a zoom that covers that same focal length. There's just less glass to impede and distort the light.

I have a 35mm 1.8 in my arsenal, and it was most helpful when shooting indoor sports without a flash. I also have a 17-55mm 2.8, that cost over 10 times what the 35mm did.

BTW, all I had for 20 years on my Olympus OM's was primes. 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.8. The zooms I got later on were terribly disappointing compared to the primes.

[john.mcintosh]

Hi Bob
In not to worried , i have a zoom which Im very happy with at my early stage of learning, zoom/prome its your call dear friend, keep up the good work , lets see a few snaps.
jon

Hi Mr Bob
Hope you had a good christmas & looking forward to happy snapping in the neew year.
You are considering a Prime , thats adventureous, my take on Zoom Vs Prime is :

Zoom : offers more flexibility- they offer comparable performance to prime - with greater ISO flexibility & performance (image stabilisation etc) I think you get better value for money with Zoom over a bunch of primes. They also take up less space in your bag.

Prime : This is a fixed focul length lense - these are seriously faster- have a wider maximum aperture, and thats about it.

I have two lenses covering 24/70 & 70/300 and think this , for me for the moment , covers most situations.

In the end , its your call , but hope this helps just a little, keep in touch and lets see your snaps soon.

regards
Jon

John;

Sorry you think so little of fast lenses.
With the current crop of primes you get a MUCH faster and SHARPER lens for the money than if you buy a zoom that covers that same focal length. There's just less glass to impede and distort the light.

I have a 35mm 1.8 in my arsenal, and it was most helpful when shooting indoor sports without a flash. I also have a 17-55mm 2.8, that cost over 10 times what the 35mm did.

BTW, all I had for 20 years on my Olympus OM's was primes. 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.8. The zooms I got later on were terribly disappointing compared to the primes.

[helmsmer]

[quote='MrBob6939' pid='91950' dateline='1387387051']
Hi all, I am new to digital photography and have recently bought a Nikon D7100 and 18-200mm VRII lense which I am having stacks of fun with.

Now with Xmas just around the corner and cash presents and of course the Nikon money back from the camera purchase due anytime I have been considering a second lense and it's been suggested I should consider a prime.

What do I photograph, anything really, I've not decided what I wish to focus on (pardon the pun) but I enjoy the great outdoors, wildlife, plant life, star trails, landscape and of course people.

So, having cash to burn, albeit not a lot depending how generous people are, what prime should i seriously really consider? Now I realise some will say both, but if I had to choose which one, quality of build and shot are important.

Many thanks

Bob


If you're making portraits or some sports, try a prime 35 to 85mm with as low an f-stop as you can afford. (This will be equivalent to a 100 to 170mm in your DX camera.)

For pictorials and landscapes, you might consider an 18mm prime (equivalent to 36mm in a DX). Again, get the lowest f-stop you can afford.

There are any number of very good zooms at reasonable prices. Check the reviewers for info about these. A very readable reviewer is Ken Rockwell.

For example, you can get an 18-270mm and 10-24mm in excellent to excellent+ from KEH in Atlanta for around $700-$900, in the Sigma/Tamron/etc. class of lenses, and KEH offers a warranty.

Nikon and the other majors offer similar lenses for 150-300% more in cost.

[john.mcintosh]

Hi Bob
In not to worried , i have a zoom which Im very happy with at my early stage of learning, zoom/prome its your call dear friend, keep up the good work , lets see a few snaps.
jon

Hi Mr Bob
Hope you had a good christmas & looking forward to happy snapping in the neew year.
You are considering a Prime , thats adventureous, my take on Zoom Vs Prime is :

Zoom : offers more flexibility- they offer comparable performance to prime - with greater ISO flexibility & performance (image stabilisation etc) I think you get better value for money with Zoom over a bunch of primes. They also take up less space in your bag.

Prime : This is a fixed focul length lense - these are seriously faster- have a wider maximum aperture, and thats about it.

I have two lenses covering 24/70 & 70/300 and think this , for me for the moment , covers most situations.

In the end , its your call , but hope this helps just a little, keep in touch and lets see your snaps soon.

regards
Jon

John;

Sorry you think so little of fast lenses.
With the current crop of primes you get a MUCH faster and SHARPER lens for the money than if you buy a zoom that covers that same focal length. There's just less glass to impede and distort the light.

I have a 35mm 1.8 in my arsenal, and it was most helpful when shooting indoor sports without a flash. I also have a 17-55mm 2.8, that cost over 10 times what the 35mm did.

BTW, all I had for 20 years on my Olympus OM's was primes. 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.8. The zooms I got later on were terribly disappointing compared to the primes.

Bob
Its not that i dont think prime is bad, its just all that "lugging" around in a big bag & multichanges to suit situations.
When you review the technical specification of Zoom ect there just as good if not better in some circumstances. perhaps one day when I can afford Prime i might break open the bank.
Keep up the good work in Prime or Zoom its your call my friend.
Jon

[helmsmer]

[quote='MrBob6939' pid='91950' dateline='1387387051']
Hi all, I am new to digital photography and have recently bought a Nikon D7100 and 18-200mm VRII lense which I am having stacks of fun with.

Now with Xmas just around the corner and cash presents and of course the Nikon money back from the camera purchase due anytime I have been considering a second lense and it's been suggested I should consider a prime.

What do I photograph, anything really, I've not decided what I wish to focus on (pardon the pun) but I enjoy the great outdoors, wildlife, plant life, star trails, landscape and of course people.

So, having cash to burn, albeit not a lot depending how generous people are, what prime should i seriously really consider? Now I realise some will say both, but if I had to choose which one, quality of build and shot are important.

Many thanks

Bob


If you're making portraits or some sports, try a prime 35 to 85mm with as low an f-stop as you can afford. (This will be equivalent to a 100 to 170mm in your DX camera.)

For pictorials and landscapes, you might consider an 18mm prime (equivalent to 36mm in a DX). Again, get the lowest f-stop you can afford.

There are any number of very good zooms at reasonable prices. Check the reviewers for info about these. A very readable reviewer is Ken Rockwell.

For example, you can get an 18-270mm and 10-24mm in excellent to excellent+ from KEH in Atlanta for around $700-$900, in the Sigma/Tamron/etc. class of lenses, and KEH offers a warranty.

Nikon and the other majors offer similar lenses for 150-300% more in cost.

I corrected the numbers above to reflect a 1.5 crop, not a 2.0 as seen above. For some reason, this edited version of the post was rejected by the site. So you'll have to correct as you read. With apologies for incorrect information. Mercer