First Prime Lens for d3100

Karl12347

Karl12347

Suspended / Banned
Messages
513
Name
Karl
Edit My Images
Yes
I am interested in buying my first prime lens for my d3100 and from the limited research i have done If I buy the 35mm af-s dx lens this is the equivalent of 53mm lens on a none DX camera.

I would appreciate some help from other people on other options available to me.


My main purpose for the lens is to take portrait photo's of my son, new baby and get the brighter photos that the zoom lens does not offer.

I am sorry if this question has been asked before.
 
The only real benefit from the 35mm is the ability to shoot in lower light with the wider aperture. As for portraiture i would personally prefer the long end of the zoom you currently have.

If you want to spend money on a 35mm prime then perhaps you should try putting your zoom at 35mm and then looking to see if you like the images you produce. Simply buying a 35mm prime doesn't necessarily equate to better images.

It's really horses for courses. I bought a 35mm but very rarely use it. I much prefer the versatility of my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses.

Happy hunting
 
The 35mm f/1.8 DX is a great lens on a crop sensor. It sucks light and is a good angle of view for shooting kids. Keep in mind that if you want to take headshots of your kids with shallow DOF then you will have to get quite close with this lens. 35mm causes a little too much distortion. I found the 50mm f/1.8 AF-s to be much better for headshot type portrature with kids. The 50mm is also quite good for detail shots of babies ie: little feet, hands etc. I haven't shot the 85mm on a crop sensor but it would be ~120mm equivalent so great for portraits but maybe a bit too tight for more general shots...?
 
Actually he doesn't need 85mm for his demand. I just suggest it as an alternative for outdoor shooting.

In my experience of shooting kid portrait, if you get too close to them, they will run away or do something stupid that you don't want to capture. If you have a long prime lens or long zoom lens, it would be great for shooting outdoor. You stand away from them, watch them play and shoot beautiful pictures naturally.

Sorry for my bad English.
 
ams99 said:
The only real benefit from the 35mm is the ability to shoot in lower light with the wider aperture. As for portraiture i would personally prefer the long end of the zoom you currently have.

If you want to spend money on a 35mm prime then perhaps you should try putting your zoom at 35mm and then looking to see if you like the images you produce. Simply buying a 35mm prime doesn't necessarily equate to better images.

It's really horses for courses. I bought a 35mm but very rarely use it. I much prefer the versatility of my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses.

Happy hunting
Click to expand...

I think you've missed half the point of a fast prime, particularly with portraiture.

The fantastic shallow depth of field of f/1.8 - f/2.8 lenses make beautiful portrait lenses, which is why they are used as such and not super-zoom lenses.

That's without even talking about the far better IQ as well...
 
Karl,

either of the 35 or 50 1.8 AFs lenses are what you want. I started with the 35 and then added the 50 (AFd). For a single person in the frame, I prefer the 50. If I want background or surroundings, I want the 35. Both are very sharp, have good out of focus qualities, and both are really lightweight as 'tagalong' lenses. I find that I throw the 50 in my pocket regardless of whatever other lens is on the camera just because it is so light and small to carry around- why not? The 35 is a big chunkier (the 50 AFs would be the same as the 35 for 'chunky') but still pocketable.

The 35 is a nice walkaround lens and tourist/snapshot lens. The 50 is a little long for that for me, but it excels when you are shooting people.

Thanks,
Rick
 
Had a 50mm - was too long indoors.
Got 35mm - much better indoors, and actually doesnt feel 'that' short at times still on a crop body.
The point is low light, shallow DOF imo.
The 18-55 is actually not a bad lens to be honest, just a shame its 3.5, no one lens has it all though.
~f2.2 is superb for indoors - i take a lot of baby shots at night in a dim room etc.
Feel free to check some out in my gallery, I'm nowhere near 'good' yet, but it might give you an idea of what I use mine for and the style I go for.
This on my D3000.
Also, both the 35 and the 50 are more 'contrasty' than the kit which increases perceived 'sharpness'.
Outdoors in brighter conditions i use my 55-200 and it does fine for parks/action etc of the kids.
 
ams99 said:
The only real benefit from the 35mm is the ability to shoot in lower light with the wider aperture. As for portraiture i would personally prefer the long end of the zoom you currently have.

If you want to spend money on a 35mm prime then perhaps you should try putting your zoom at 35mm and then looking to see if you like the images you produce. Simply buying a 35mm prime doesn't necessarily equate to better images.

It's really horses for courses. I bought a 35mm but very rarely use it. I much prefer the versatility of my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses.

Happy hunting
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused. From what everyone has been saying there is not a comparison between a zoom lens and a prime lens. They say the prime is always going to win on image quality. I just got a 17-55 f2.8 Canon and it's great compared to my 18-55 kit lens but my 50mm 1.8 still has a edge on image quality from what I can tell (haven't had the 17-55 long).
 
shaylou said:
They say the prime is always going to win on image quality.
Click to expand...
This is correct - IMO there is a clear difference between the 18-55 and the 35.
'Just' the ability to shoot in low light, and 'Just' the ability to shoot at a wider aperture make a huge difference, and that's before you compare the contrast and colour differences between the 2 lenses.

Also do you think manufacturers would have a market for a lens that 'was the same quality' but didnt zoom?:thinking:

You can get good pics from the kit lens (I rate it pretty good), but the prime is a different league, and if you are starting out, I think the prime would really help you think more about composition as well, perhaps.
 
I love my 50mm lenses, I have three now, I didnt use them much before my 24-70 packed up, but now I use them loads and absolutely love them, I am tempted to get the 35mm but am not sure I would get on with it as you need to be so close to the subject.
 
:plusone: for the 35mm f1.8g (links in sig)

You may want to consider the sigma 30mm f1.4 (but its another 100ukp on top of the 35mm - also you'd need to confirm it would af on your camera).

50mm f1.4d - links in sig is also good.

If you have a kit lens, take some shots at each mm to see the difference (for field of view). The f1.4/f1.8 can give you better bokeh.

An alternative might be a crisper zoom lens... I think a colleague said a tamron 17-50 was very crisp and will allow you to zoom a little should your subject (baby) be moving about...


If you know some one nearby who has the lens and you can borrow it for a day or go on a meet with them, perhaps you can see whether it would be good for what you need?

Good luck
 
Also not sure if you have picked up on the depth of field issue with zooms - you can only use their widest aperture at their shortst focal length (unless you spend a lot of money) but as you zoom in the aperture will close and the resultant shallow depth of field lost. Put your zoom on your camera at the shortest focal length and widest aperture, look through the viewfinder and zoom in and you will see the aperture change.

I think that is the case unless you spend a lot of money on your zoom unless anyone else knows of one that doesn't so that.
 
Cheaper zooms have variable aperture, but you don't need to spend a lot to get a fixed aperture zoom like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8.
 
There is some free software, I am sure someone on here can tell the name I have forgotten , that will give you a breakdown of the images on your computer .
Then go for the prime nearest to the size you use the most . Just IMHO
 
I'm having the same dilemma with my D3100.." too long" or " not long enough". It'd really be used for my kids portraits, parties etc as well as car shows ( the cars would be stationary )...

Can't decide:thinking:
 
I found the 35mm f1.8 to be too long for indoors shots - will shortly be purchasing a Tamron 17-50. Will probably keep the 35mm though as it's such a great lens.
 
Last edited:
Awww...don't say that, I thought I'd made my mind up
 
Plus one for the 35mm! A smashing lens for the money, quality is superb. I find I use this for the majority of my shots now, it's always the first lens I go for when I want to photograph my 17 month old.
Like others have already said, take some shots at 35 and 50mm on your kit lens and see which you prefer/feel more comfortable with. This is what I did and 35 was great for me. It's a personal choice ultimately.
 
damianmkv said:
Awww...don't say that, I thought I'd made my mind up
Click to expand...

Tbh thinking about it it's probably ideal for pics of young children and babies, I just have trouble fitting a bunch of fully grown adults in :)
 
Phil1974 said:
Plus one for the 35mm! A smashing lens for the money, quality is superb. I find I use this for the majority of my shots now, it's always the first lens I go for when I want to photograph my 17 month old.
Like others have already said, take some shots at 35 and 50mm on your kit lens and see which you prefer/feel more comfortable with. This is what I did and 35 was great for me. It's a personal choice ultimately.
Click to expand...

Have been testing out this on the kit lens today and think that the 35mm is going to be for me. at 50mm it just felt a little close for me and think i would end up having to move away constantly from my kids to get the correct depth of field. where as with the 35mm it seemed just right.

Thought there may have been a sigma lens or tamron lens that someone may have suggested as an alternate.
 
I've just bought the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and I'm really happy with it, I don't really use the wider angle so I thought I'd go for the extra length.

In saying that I do love my 35mm :)
 
Karl12347 said:
Have been testing out this on the kit lens today and think that the 35mm is going to be for me. at 50mm it just felt a little close for me and think i would end up having to move away constantly from my kids to get the correct depth of field. where as with the 35mm it seemed just right.

Thought there may have been a sigma lens or tamron lens that someone may have suggested as an alternate.
Click to expand...

Such as the Sigma 30mm f1.8?
 
antihero said:
Do you mean the 30mm f1.4? If so, can vouch for that....awesome lens
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, don't know why I typed 1.8!
 
I originally got the 35mm 1.8 for chasing my little girl about the house.... fine when she stood still (ie pre crawling/walking), but I found the 35mm a little cramped at times indoors, especially when she started moving towards me and I ran out of space to walk back into)

I now have the 17-50 2.8 Tamron (non-VC) and its permanently fixed to my D3100...... I love it.

Both great lens, but for me, then Tamron offers a little more versatility at the wide end whilst keeping high quality. (granted, at a slightly higher price)
 
Last edited:
Mick, OK, so how do you rate the Tamron then for things like contrast, colour etc against the 35mm 1.8? I do find the 35 so good, I struggle to see how IQ could be much better (?) - is it mariginal? some slight distortion at both short/long ends? What do you think about the 2? What's the Tamron like compared to the 18-55 kit then (appreciate 2.8 is more useful, but I mean distortions etc)

I love the 35 but also still find myself walking backwards into walls a lot with the kids:lol:
This is after having a 50mm and swapping to 35, I dont know how people can consider the same old debates about whether to get the 35 or 50 for indoors stuff as the 35 is actually still quite wide indoors - unless you live in a mansion. (I've got a D3000, so crop here as well)

Say the 35 at 2.8 and the Tamron at the same ~35mm (I use 2.2-2.8 a lot on the 35) - is it just as good? (appreciate its wide open on the Tamron here)

I've got a 5 months old and an almost 4 year old - the 35 is superb for baby pics cant beat it, but she wont be sitting still for long:lol: Be nice to have a little more versatility.
 
SnappyHappy said:
Mick, OK, so how do you rate the Tamron then for things like contrast, colour etc against the 35mm 1.8? I do find the 35 so good, I struggle to see how IQ could be much better (?) - is it mariginal? some slight distortion at both short/long ends? What do you think about the 2? What's the Tamron like compared to the 18-55 kit then (appreciate 2.8 is more useful, but I mean distortions etc)

I love the 35 but also still find myself walking backwards into walls a lot with the kids:lol:
This is after having a 50mm and swapping to 35, I dont know how people can consider the same old debates about whether to get the 35 or 50 for indoors stuff as the 35 is actually still quite wide indoors - unless you live in a mansion. (I've got a D3000, so crop here as well)

Say the 35 at 2.8 and the Tamron at the same ~35mm (I use 2.2-2.8 a lot on the 35) - is it just as good? (appreciate its wide open on the Tamron here)

I've got a 5 months old and an almost 4 year old - the 35 is superb for baby pics cant beat it, but she wont be sitting still for long:lol: Be nice to have a little more versatility.
Click to expand...

Craig,

I'm no expert by any means, so all my views should be taken with a pinch of salt. :lol:

Firstly, in comparison to the kit lens, I never kept that long enough to make any direct comparisons.... I went Kit Lens > 35mm and 18-70 before replacing the 18-70 with 17-50 Tamron.

I have never done any direct comparisons of the same shot with the 35mm and Tamron.... If I get chance over the weekend I will try and do something for you. Any thoughts on what you're after seeing? A scenario? Something at 2.8 on both? And say 17mm, 35mm, 50mm? :thinking: Indoors/outdoors? Outdoors might yield better results as I don't usually get too much light in the house without resorting to flash. But can be done as long, but might have to bump the ISO a little. :lol: (maybe post a pic of something you'd want replicating?)

I've never noticed any distortion (i assume you mean barrel distortion?), but I do use Lightroom which with its camera profiles sorts that out anywhere. And never really noticed any issues in the corners etc.
 
Last edited:
Hi Mick,
Thanks for the response (and apologies for taking this topic slightly off post!!)
Well I normally take these sort of pics indoors (I usually take the 55-200 out and about for parks with the kids etc).
Don't spend much time though, or feel obliged to take pics for my benefit.
I've just remembered there is pixelpeeper.com (or something like that) that has samples.:clap:
I really like the 35mm, and half had my eye on something like the 16-85 but I'm not too enthusiastic about the f3.5 tbh, so I'm a bit curious about some 3rd parties offerings, just nevrous i'll be constantly comparing to the 35 1.8 though - yes, they are 2 different lenses, but I always look too much into the 'one lens does it all' mistake:lol:. It all come down to you get what you pay for I suppose.
I'll check out Amazon and a few other reviews for the Tamron anyway.
Cheers!:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top