Am i better of with a 35mm f/18 instead of kit lense with nikon d3100?

[Luke2012]

I am planing on getting a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens for zooming anyway so am i better off getting the body only and getting a 35mm f/18 lens or should i get the kit with the 18-55mm VR lens?

[Doug Sundseth]

Well, the answer is, as it often is in photography, "That depends."

The 35mm f/1.8 is a fast "normal" lens. It's quite sharp and it works well in low light. But it's a single focal length, which means you're limited in reach and you can't go really wide.

The 18-55 isn't as fast and, while it's pretty sharp, it isn't as sharp as the 35. But at the wide end it's a decent wide-angle (though not super wide) and at the long end it's a short telephoto. So it's more flexible for composition, but it doesn't work as well in low light.

So, what kinds of things do you want to shoot?

[ccting]

Originally Posted by Luke2012

I am planing on getting a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens for zooming anyway so am i better off getting the body only and getting a 35mm f/18 lens or should i get the kit with the 18-55mm VR lens?

I guarantee that you will regret of having kit lens once you own 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 or faster lens or f/2.8 zoom lens.

So, forget about kit lens. Why?
a) Slow & inacurrate autofocus for indoor photography
b) you usually get image blur for indoor photography indoor @ ISO 200 - too slow.
c) You need to have much more flash power to get satisfactory lighting, very pale saturation and contrast.

So.. my opinion is just get 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 first with camera body. Regarding 50-200mm lens, it is the older lens than 50-300mm. This lens is not suitable for sports and indoor. So.. forget about it first.

For me, 35mm is more flexible as you can shoot wider @ wider aperture than 50mm. Wider aperture because of DOF issue of higher focal length.

35mm f/1.8 is much sharpter than 50mm f/1.8 but 50mm f/1.8 is a bit faster in autofocus. If you can shoot nearer for portrait, i think 35mm is more suit me.. than 50mm. 35mm is much better for indoors ;D

You can buy 50-200 and kit lens, but i guarantee you will get bored with it and replaced with other lens within 2 years time. I never use my kit lens anymore after my brother bought his 50 mm f/1.8. If you wish to experience my regret. go ahead with kit lens ;D. That's why a new kit lens 18-55 is sold USD114 (vs the published price USD228) in my country.

Please consider Tamron 60mm SP f/2.0.. hehe.. 2 in 1 (for portrait and macro

And, don't buy 5100. It even worse than my brother's D3000. The practical flash sync for D5100 is 1/160s while 1/320s for D3000.

The bad about 35mm is you can't use it in fx camera except D4.

In short, buy 35mm / 50mm f/1.8 lens only with a camera body with motor..

[OsmosisStudios]

With Doug on this one: it depends.

What will you be shooting? Do you need the wide end? Do you need WIDER? What's your budget?

[ceremus]

When bought as a lens + body kit, the cost of the 18-55mm is $100. $100 is nothing in terms of the cost of lenses. The kit lens will let you get true wideangle shots. While not true macro, it does a decent job at close-focusing. It has a good standard zoom range and includes a stabilizer which, with practice, means you can get sharp shots at shutter speeds below 1/60. It's not going to be as sharp or as fast as a fast prime lens like the 35mm, but you're not going to beat the price/performance ratio. When I started out I got the kit lens and one fast prime (50mm f/1.4), and personally I felt it was a fantastic introduction to DSLR photography.

[ccting]

kit lens is for professional photographers like Ceremus. We are not professional so i think just avoid that lens. The kit lens is more expensive than 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 in my country. Really not worth to get it. Get it when you have become a pro like Ceremus..

Just try it yourself, try to autofocus in a low-light room for
a) autofocus speed
b) autofocus accuracy
c) output (photo)

Then you can tell whether the kit lens suit you or not. The lowest f-number if 5.6 @ 55mm is really too slow than any other lens. Slow lens tends to create blur image because of camera shake or motion blur.. and it is very hard to control by noobs.

Believe me, noobs like me needs better lens than kit lens

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by ccting

kit lens is for professional photographers like Ceremus. We are not professional so i think just avoid that lens. The kit lens is more expensive than 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 in my country. Really not worth to get it. Get it when you have become a pro like Ceremus..

Just try it yourself, try to autofocus in a low-light room for
a) autofocus speed
b) autofocus accuracy
c) output (photo)

Then you can tell whether the kit lens suit you or not. The lowest f-number if 5.6 @ 55mm is really too slow than any other lens. Slow lens tends to create blur image because of camera shake or motion blur.. and it is very hard to control by noobs.

Believe me, noobs like me needs better lens than kit lens

Are you... serious?

The kit lens is designed specifically for new users. You, ccting, just cant get past the basics and spend way too much time looking at numbers and not actually thinking about what you're doing or talking about.

Everything in your post can easily be dismissed, but I frankly cant be bothered at this point

[TheMoons678]

I say get all 3 lenses, they're all great. I think starting off you need to have a wide range of focal lengths, so a 18-55mm + 55-200mm + 35mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.8G would be great on a d3100 or d5100.

Of those 3 lenses, my favorites are a prime lens and a long lens like 55-200VR, but lately I'm wanting to develope an eye for wide angle shots.

The kit lenses are so cheap and perform well in decent lighting that they are worth getting. They are great for learning, you will experience their limitations and with some time and experience you will understand what upgrades will be best for you.

[ceremus]

Originally Posted by ccting

kit lens is for professional photographers like Ceremus. We are not professional so i think just avoid that lens. The kit lens is more expensive than 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 in my country. Really not worth to get it. Get it when you have become a pro like Ceremus..

Uhhhmm, so. I haven't even owned a DSLR for more than a year now, but thanks for the confidence, I guess?

Anyway, said it once, I'll say it again, since some people don't seem to be getting the message: If you can learn to take good pictures using budget equipment while understanding the limitations of that equipment, then you will be able to take better pictures with higher quality, more specialized equipment. And more importantly, you will understand exactly what limitations you'll need to overcome, and know what specialized equipment will help you get there.

Spending more money on better equipment will never automatically get you better photographs.

[Doug Sundseth]

I used to have a D5000 with a 35mm, an 18-55, and a 55-200. For me, the 35mm was a specialty lens and the others got much more use. The 35mm is very, very good at what it does, and if that is what you need for what you want to do, it's great. For what I do, the versatility of the zoom is more important than the slightly better sharpness and notably better low-light performance of the 35.

As I said, it depends.