Buying your first lense - how do you go about it?

[A5H]

Originally Posted by CourtJester

This is part of my question...I feel as though a prime lens makes things more difficult, but I could very well be making this up. Without experience, I don't truly understand the disadvantage of not having the zoom.

Which is why a kit lens is a good cheap starting point. Set it at 50 and leave it there, and spend a day taking shots to see how you get on.

[Shokinen]

You'll have to find your own style before you can really answer those questions. The answer will come naturally as you get deeper in this hobby. I will second A5H, kit lens are the less expensive options to start with and you can use them as prime to see if you like it or not before even spending a penny.

Primes are not more difficult to use, they are just less convenient for some people. Others will never think about using anything else.

I use both zoom and prime lens. My 16-85mm is on when I don't know what I want. But when I'm in the mood to practice my composition, or getting pictures with strong bokeh (blurry background), my 35mm is definitly my favorite choice. They are both usefull.

You'll notice after a while that you tend to create the picture in your mind before shooting. But you have to start somewhere and I don't think you'll be loosing with the 18-105 VR that comes with the kit. It's a nice all-around lens.

[vandergus]

Originally Posted by CourtJester

This is part of my question...I feel as though a prime lens makes things more difficult, but I could very well be making this up. Without experience, I don't truly understand the disadvantage of not having the zoom.

A zoom lens is more versatile with regards to framing. A prime lens is more versatile with regards to lighting. Let's look at two lenses you might be considering.

zoom: 18-55mm f3.5-f5.6
prime: 35mm f1.8

The zoom lens will allow you to frame any where from a wide angle to a short telephoto field of view, giving you more options in how you frame your subject or what perspective you choose. But it is limited to scenes with ample light because of its slow aperture. The prime lens fixes you at 35mm giving you fewer option for framing and perspective but allows you to shoot in situations with less available light because it has a larger maximum aperture (f1.8 vs. f3.5). So the zoom lens may give you more options if you're outdoors where the amount of light isn't an issue, but won't do very well indoors where light is scarce. The prime lens, however, will be able to shoot indoors and outdoors with more limited choices for framing.

A secondary advantage of the prime lens could also be that it gives you greater control over the in-focus and out-of-focus areas of the image, allowing you to choose a very shallow depth of field because of the larger maximum aperture.

[CourtJester]

Originally Posted by vandergus

A zoom lens is more versatile with regards to framing. A prime lens is more versatile with regards to lighting. Let's look at two lenses you might be considering.

zoom: 18-55mm f3.5-f5.6
prime: 35mm f1.8

The zoom lens will allow you to frame any where from a wide angle to a short telephoto field of view, giving you more options in how you frame your subject or what perspective you choose. But it is limited to scenes with ample light because of its slow aperture. The prime lens fixes you at 35mm giving you fewer option for framing and perspective but allows you to shoot in situations with less available light because it has a larger maximum aperture (f1.8 vs. f3.5). So the zoom lens may give you more options if you're outdoors where the amount of light isn't an issue, but won't do very well indoors where light is scarce. The prime lens, however, will be able to shoot indoors and outdoors with more limited choices for framing.

A secondary advantage of the prime lens could also be that it gives you greater control over the in-focus and out-of-focus areas of the image, allowing you to choose a very shallow depth of field because of the larger maximum aperture.

Thank you, this makes sense. What I did, was compare photos taken by 3 lenses (D90 kit, 35mm 1.8, and 50mm 1.8 on pixel-peeper. This is probably a rookie way to explore which lens may be best for me, but I am a very visual person and need to SEE things. What I found was that I loved almost every shot taken with the 50mm and can see myself taking similar photos. The 35mm kind of seemed in the middle of the range where I'd like to be, not quite wide enough and not shallow enough either. After reading Ken Rockwell's glowing review of the 35, it would be hard to pass up but if it's not right with me then it just isn't right.

I may now focus my attention on a wider lens for the landscape shots, maybe in the 18-24 range and go with that and the 50mm?

I completely understand the thought process that I should go with the kit lens and determine from there what I'd need, but with my budget, I see it almost as a few hundred dollar trial period to see what I DON'T need and that is hard to justify quite honestly.

[Mr Guy]

Maybe this is me being an ass, but I'd cause that the thing to remember is that there are a lot of people who respect Ken Rockwell, but there's are tons more who think he's a complete idiot. He says a lot of stuff that's flat out wrong, so while his opinions may be spot on for that particular lens, I'd be very very careful lusting after it based just on his recommendation.

I was going to write that the kit lens shouldn't ever be more than a $50 decision, but oddly, it doesn't look like there ARE decent prices on a D90 kit with the standard 18-55mm kit lens. I'm not even seeing that particular package, probably because they don't expect people to jump right into the D90 without either having lenses or wanting a slightly higher quality superzoom.

The one thing I'm not sure what you mean is in regards to the "shallowness" of the 35mm. It's an f/1.8 with a minimal focal length of 1 foot. That means you can focus on the tip of an eyelash and have the eyeball be out of focus, if your eyes are good enough to focus that manually (AF wouldn't ever be able to pull it off in practice).

I'd focus more on the field of view than perceived shallowness. 35mm is a lot better walk around length than 50mm on a crop body DSLR.


The flip side to the versatility of zoom lenses is that it's far easier to have a much higher quality lens with a prime lens. As I've said before, Nikon and Canon primes are basically remounted versions of their film lenses. They have different lines of prime lenses at different price points. Each one is going to be relatively faster and most likely slightly higher quality than their zoom lens line at the same price point. Pentax went a different way compared to Nikon and Canon. Pentax has a traditional quality for price advantage in terms of lenses, and has built their reputation on the strength of their prime lenses. Instead of having multiple lines of primes, they generally only have one or two at a given focal length, but they are on par quality wise with the best the others have to offer at a cheaper price.

Nikon's lines are a bit foreign to me, because I'm not familiar enough with them to read their acronyms, but a typical pattern using Canon as the example, with the exception of the super cheap $100 low end 50mm, would be Canon or Nikon would have $400 f/1.8 version, a $600 to $800 mid grade f/1.4 with better glass, and then a very high end version L glass version at f/1.2 with the best glass in the $1.5k+ price range.

Pentax, on the other hand, tends to use different focal lengths for their primes because they seem to not care in the slightest about competing directly, but instead turn out lenses according whatever the heck it is that inspires their engineers. They may only have one lens at, or close to, that focal length, but it'd be comparable in quality to L lens, but usually slightly slower and around half the price. For example, Canon has a beautiful 35mm f/1.4L around $1500. Pentax has a droolworthy 31mm f/1.8 at $800, and a stunning 35mm f/2.8 Macro at $500.

[CourtJester]

Thanks Mr Guy...It's the cost of the D90 kit lens that has me all over the place. Assessing my situation for the one millionth time, I think going back down to a lower model body to save some money and grabbing better glass may be the best move here. Although I didn't love the D5000 with the screen, I think I can look past that as long as the shots I get are dynamite (thats all that matters anyway, right?)

My new plan (please tell me if I'm crazy) - Buy a lesser body such as the D5000 and pair it with these 2 lenses:

1. For portrait and closer shots including foliage - 50mm 1.8
2. Landscape and architecture - 24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by CourtJester

Buy a lesser body such as the D5000 and pair it with these 2 lenses:

1. For portrait and closer shots including foliage - 50mm 1.8
2. Landscape and architecture - 24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor

The D90 is a wonderful body. The problem with the D5000 is if you play with Aperture, ISO, shutterspeed (I shoot almost always in manual), you'll have to spend your time in the menu. Those settings can be change right on the body with the D90.

As for your choice of lens, like most people, i tend to go wide for lanscape but I also have a few shots like this one that were taken with my telephoto.

D60 with 70-300mm @ 70mm f/10


There is a good article about this right here:
Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography

My point is I'm affraid you'll want more flexibility and you will you end up disapointed with this setting. Give yourself the chance to experiment. I would buy the 18-105 VR kit and wait a couple month for a prime. Rome wasn't build in one day...

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Shokinen

My point is I'm affraid you'll want more flexibility and you will you end up disapointed with this setting. Give yourself the chance to experiment. I would buy the 18-105 VR kit and wait a couple month for a prime. Rome wasn't build in one day...

I'd actually suggest your own kit: D90, 16-85 VR, 70-300 VR, 50mm 1.8

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'd actually suggest your own kit: D90, 16-85 VR, 70-300 VR, 50mm 1.8

I must admit I love my kit.

p.s. I have the 35mm not the 50mm

[vandergus]

The D90 is a wonderful body. The problem with the D5000 is if you play with Aperture, ISO, shutterspeed (I shoot almost always in manual), you'll have to spend your time in the menu. Those settings can be change right on the body with the D90.

Actually you can. The timer button on the left hand side of the body can be reprogramed to change ISO. And the aperture and shutter speed can be changed with the rear command dial. No denying that the D90 has more dedicated controls for things like metering and autofocus mode but you can at least access the three points of the exposure triangle on both.