Is it silly to get an 85mm f1.8 as my first lens?

Winter

Winter

Suspended / Banned
Messages
677
Name
Sheylara
Edit My Images
Yes
As mentioned in my other thread, I've decided to buy a Nikon D750 as my first DSLR. Now it's time to decide on lens(es).

At first I was thinking a 50mm and a cheapish zoom. But as I was researching lenses, I fell in love with portraits taken with 85mms. All that lovely bokeh. Exactly the kind of photos I want to take.

But considering that I am a beginner with DSLRs, is it silly to start off with that lens? I have no idea.

Also, I don't really know which zoom lens to get. I guess I would need one for street photography for the flexibility of capturing moments wherever I happen to be standing. Zooms are so expensive though!

These are the types of photos I will be taking most often:

1. Children playing + portraits
2. Food
3. Street

Thanks again for the help!
 
Hi

For children playing I think you would need a zoom.

The Nikon 24-120 f4 goes well with the d750. Fund depending, why not get that to start off, save up and get the 85mm later.
 
If it floats your boat, why not. Though a 50mm is usually quite cheap, so you might as well get that (or a 35mm) and the 85mm.

Sure the D750 is the right camera for you? That seems to be the much larger investment.
 
There's no issue with using a prime lens when starting out, some people even recommend it as they say it makes you stop and think more about composition more. I've never bought this personally as I put the same amount of thought into the shot regardless of lens.

85mm is a lovely portrait lens, but you could find it restrictive indoors. For example if you want to take a pic of your kids playing in the lounge then you might find the 85mm is not wide enough (unless you have a massive lounge and stood on the opposite side ;))

If you have the cash then I'd consider the 24-70mm f2.8 (save your money and get the non VR version, or save even more and get the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC which is an excellent lens). The 24-70mm is a more versatile lens, but still capable of producing great subject isolation with nice bokeh ( although granted not quite as nice as the 85mm).

The D750 like all pro cameras is very complex and there's a very steep learning curve. It would not surprise me if a lot of your shots are rubbish to start with and you may probably find you have more success with your camera phone. But persevere and you will be rewarded. Learn the basics of the exposure triangle so that you're not shooting in Auto, and learn about composition and lighting. Also as far as the camera is concerned get to grips with the different focussing modes ASAP. 99.9% of the time you'll probably find you want to use single point autofocus so that you can have the focus point on the exact point of the subject you want.
 
85mm as your only lens will be a tad restrictive, 50mm or 35mm if you're going with one prime or better yet a general zoom so you can work out your preferred / most commonly used focal length and then sell it and get the appropriate prime 6 / 12 months down the line.
 
Cistron said:
If it floats your boat, why not. Though a 50mm is usually quite cheap, so you might as well get that (or a 35mm) and the 85mm.

Sure the D750 is the right camera for you? That seems to be the much larger investment.
Click to expand...
This.

Beginners often think that the camera they're buying is the most important thing in the world, then they have a limited budget for lenses and make compromises that they don't really want to.

With a clean slate, I'd suggest a camera body should be 25% - 30% of your budget, spend the rest on lenses and whatever else is necessary for your chosen field.
 
Cistron said:
If it floats your boat, why not. Though a 50mm is usually quite cheap, so you might as well get that (or a 35mm) and the 85mm.

Sure the D750 is the right camera for you? That seems to be the much larger investment.
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
This.

Beginners often think that the camera they're buying is the most important thing in the world, then they have a limited budget for lenses and make compromises that they don't really want to.

With a clean slate, I'd suggest a camera body should be 25% - 30% of your budget, spend the rest on lenses and whatever else is necessary for your chosen field.
Click to expand...

TBH no, I'm not sure it's the right camera for me. I'm not sure any camera is right. But I've deliberated for 6 months, and everyone gives me a different opinion so in the end it's like back to square one and I have to make a choice with all the contrasting info I get.

I wanted a D5500 initially but many said don't waste money on entry levels and that's why I decided on a D750 as its the most popular choice for a budget FF. :p
 
snerkler said:
There's no issue with using a prime lens when starting out, some people even recommend it as they say it makes you stop and think more about composition more. I've never bought this personally as I put the same amount of thought into the shot regardless of lens.

85mm is a lovely portrait lens, but you could find it restrictive indoors. For example if you want to take a pic of your kids playing in the lounge then you might find the 85mm is not wide enough (unless you have a massive lounge and stood on the opposite side ;))

If you have the cash then I'd consider the 24-70mm f2.8 (save your money and get the non VR version, or save even more and get the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC which is an excellent lens). The 24-70mm is a more versatile lens, but still capable of producing great subject isolation with nice bokeh ( although granted not quite as nice as the 85mm).

The D750 like all pro cameras is very complex and there's a very steep learning curve. It would not surprise me if a lot of your shots are rubbish to start with and you may probably find you have more success with your camera phone. But persevere and you will be rewarded. Learn the basics of the exposure triangle so that you're not shooting in Auto, and learn about composition and lighting. Also as far as the camera is concerned get to grips with the different focussing modes ASAP. 99.9% of the time you'll probably find you want to use single point autofocus so that you can have the focus point on the exact point of the subject you want.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Lol, I forgot about children playing in the lounge at all as my mind was full of those beautiful outdoor bokeh portraits.

Yes, I have read many times beginners will take rubbish shots in the beginning so I'm well prepared for that!
 
sep9001 said:
Hi

For children playing I think you would need a zoom.

The Nikon 24-120 f4 goes well with the d750. Fund depending, why not get that to start off, save up and get the 85mm later.
Click to expand...

Whippet said:
85mm as your only lens will be a tad restrictive, 50mm or 35mm if you're going with one prime or better yet a general zoom so you can work out your preferred / most commonly used focal length and then sell it and get the appropriate prime 6 / 12 months down the line.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your suggestions! Yeah, maybe I will save the 85mm for later... With a lot of wistfulness!
 
Winter said:
TBH no, I'm not sure it's the right camera for me. I'm not sure any camera is right. But I've deliberated for 6 months, and everyone gives me a different opinion so in the end it's like back to square one and I have to make a choice with all the contrasting info I get.

I wanted a D5500 initially but many said don't waste money on entry levels and that's why I decided on a D750 as its the most popular choice for a budget FF. :p
Click to expand...
That's the problem with asking simple questions in 'gear' forums.

All the 'photographers' I'd take heed of, would recommend that you bought a second hand mid range camera. Then spend more on lenses (again second hand). Whereas gearheads always recommend a camera just above the suggested budget.

Forgive my bluntness, but the truth about a first camera is that it'll end up for sale within 2 years, because:

  • You never really got the hang of it and sold it to fund fishing tackle/ guns/ HiFi or whatever your next obsession is.
  • You wore it out and replaced it with similar but better
  • You really got into photography and replaced it with a more suitable camera that fit your needs.

There's an old truism that goes
Beginners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about light
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
That's the problem with asking simple questions in 'gear' forums.

All the 'photographers' I'd take heed of, would recommend that you bought a second hand mid range camera. Then spend more on lenses (again second hand). Whereas gearheads always recommend a camera just above the suggested budget.

Forgive my bluntness, but the truth about a first camera is that it'll end up for sale within 2 years, because:

  • You never really got the hang of it and sold it to fund fishing tackle/ guns/ HiFi or whatever your next obsession is.
  • You wore it out and replaced it with similar but better
  • You really got into photography and replaced it with a more suitable camera that fit your needs.

There's an old truism that goes
Beginners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about light
Click to expand...
Thanks for your advice. Do you have a suggestion which Nikon model would be appropriate for my needs?

That old truism sounds cool when you first read it, but then I would think its all about having the right mix of all three. :P If the camera really didn't matter, then I would just continue taking photos with my Sony point-and-shoot, or even my iPhone!
 
Oh, I've just had another thought. I do remember reading about people saying it's not the camera but the skill of the photographer. And I do agree with that to a large degree.

But if that is the case, then why would talented and professional photographers spend, say, £5,000 or £10,000 on a body if the camera weren't supposed to be that important and it's really all about skill, or light, or whatever?
 
Winter said:
Thanks for your advice. Do you have a suggestion which Nikon model would be appropriate for my needs?

That old truism sounds cool when you first read it, but then I would think its all about having the right mix of all three. :p If the camera really didn't matter, then I would just continue taking photos with my Sony point-and-shoot, or even my iPhone!
Click to expand...
You could look at a D7000 body which can be picked up for great prices second hand. Should be more than you need, and will leave more of your budget for lenses etc.
This should be more than good enough for what you plan to shoot.
 
Last edited:
Winter said:
Thanks for your advice. Do you have a suggestion which Nikon model would be appropriate for my needs?

That old truism sounds cool when you first read it, but then I would think its all about having the right mix of all three. :p If the camera really didn't matter, then I would just continue taking photos with my Sony point-and-shoot, or even my iPhone!
Click to expand...
The camera needs to be capable, but that rarely means it needs to be top of the range. It just needs to be a camera in full control of the person using it. Some shots require specialist lenses, but 99% of all photographs you see don't.

OTOH if you show me 5 'wow' photographs, there's a chance that they owe their beauty to the light.

And trying not to sound like a clever dick, gearheads tend to spend their time and effort measuring their equipment and rarely wonder why their images are never any good.

As for a camera, I'm no Nikon expert, sorry. I don't really know much about cameras, I've been studying photography.
 
Winter said:
Oh, I've just had another thought. I do remember reading about people saying it's not the camera but the skill of the photographer. And I do agree with that to a large degree.

But if that is the case, then why would talented and professional photographers spend, say, £5,000 or £10,000 on a body if the camera weren't supposed to be that important and it's really all about skill, or light, or whatever?
Click to expand...

Pro's buy pro gear mainly because its more robust and less likely to fail while on a job as they are used on a daily basis. Good gear will make it easier to get the shot however a skilled photographer will however get the shot regardless of gear.

Above you have said you have been trying to make a decision for 6 months on what camera to buy :D that's just mental. Buy whatever you want people on here will only advise you to buy what they have bought to justify there own purchase. ;)

For what it's worth in your situation I wouldn't be looking at a full frame camera and if I was considering price vs spec etc. and for what you are intending on using it for I would probably get a Canon 6D cheaper than the D750 very capable and as you are only shooting for fun not missing any features that will any sort of issue. In reality though I would probably buy a crop sensor camera and some decent lenses and if I felt the need to upgrade would do that later on down the line.
 
Last edited:
A second hand camera will still be worth most of what you paid for it in a few months so you can sell it on if you want/need something better.
Second hand lenses are also well worth looking for as they will hold their value for longer than a body and again, you can work out what suits you as you learn more

Most of my pictures are of children in classrooms and a zoom is what I use as it is so flexible - do have an 85mm but it is rarely used in a class as it isn't..!
 
I think the op is right to spend time thinking and probably right to be going for high end kit too. This always makes me smile when I think about it...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

That rings true for me but my photographic tastes have changed over the years and as a consequence so has the kit I use so I couldn't have gone for the top end body and two lens solution all those years ago and stuck with it. Still makes me smile though :D

Personally I think that amongst the biggest decisions these days are to go DSLR or mirrorless and deciding on the format size to go for. Again, personally, for me mirrorless is the future rather than conventional DSLR's.
 
Also take into account that, whilst a small camera for 35mm, the D750 is a hefty thing to carry around. In particular when you add all your lenses you quickly log around a full bag. Not sure where it would fit into your children's play-bag.

This is the main reason why I'm pondering switching my 5D to a much smaller Sony a6000 (once they release the new model and prices plummet).

Phil V's got a good point with buying second hand for your first camera.
 
Winter said:
Oh, I've just had another thought. I do remember reading about people saying it's not the camera but the skill of the photographer. And I do agree with that to a large degree.

But if that is the case, then why would talented and professional photographers spend, say, £5,000 or £10,000 on a body if the camera weren't supposed to be that important and it's really all about skill, or light, or whatever?
Click to expand...

I could show you some amazing examples of photography where the photographers use basic gear. It's easy to get caught up with gear, and believe me, I've been there. But Phil's right, try a decent mid range body and lens and learn the basics. When you get better, promise yourself an upgrade as a reward.

Personally I think a D750 is a bit OTT. Lenses are a better long term investment; bodies typically get changed every 2-5 years depending on your own desires to have the latest kit. I think 2 years would give yourself ample time to decide what direction to take.

If it were my money, I'd buy a D7100, 24-120, 50 1.8G, SB700 - all for less than a grand. That set up will deliver excellent results and plenty of flexibility. The 50mm on that body will give you the same field of view as an 85 on a full frame.

Then in 2 years time when you fancy a full frame, probably the 750 replacement, you will have two lenses that will fit already.
 
Winter said:
TBH no, I'm not sure it's the right camera for me. I'm not sure any camera is right. But I've deliberated for 6 months, and everyone gives me a different opinion so in the end it's like back to square one and I have to make a choice with all the contrasting info I get.

I wanted a D5500 initially but many said don't waste money on entry levels and that's why I decided on a D750 as its the most popular choice for a budget FF. :p
Click to expand...

Just to add a slightly different perspective, this Christmas my brother got a D5500 + 18-140 lens while I acquired a D610 (somewhat like the D750) + 50 f1.8 prime. When it came to taking pictures after dinner, in soft lighting I couldn't even see faces clearly in his viewfinder, while I had enough light to manually focus with mine because of the much better viewfinder from full frame and brighter lens. If you're expecting to take lots of pictures inside with ambient lighting then the D750 will be easier to use than a D5500.

As for lenses, you aren't a pro, and don't need an 'instant kit' of lenses to start work. There's no reason not to get a good body that will last 5-10 years and slowly add lenses as you feel you need more, particularly since Nikon don't seem to change their mount like other makers. In you place a 50mm lens and short zoom would probably work well to begin.
 
Winter said:
Thanks for your advice. Do you have a suggestion which Nikon model would be appropriate for my needs?

That old truism sounds cool when you first read it, but then I would think its all about having the right mix of all three. :p If the camera really didn't matter, then I would just continue taking photos with my Sony point-and-shoot, or even my iPhone!
Click to expand...

Winter said:
Oh, I've just had another thought. I do remember reading about people saying it's not the camera but the skill of the photographer. And I do agree with that to a large degree.

But if that is the case, then why would talented and professional photographers spend, say, £5,000 or £10,000 on a body if the camera weren't supposed to be that important and it's really all about skill, or light, or whatever?
Click to expand...

I go against the grain to a lot of folk and if you can afford to get good gear from the start then I think that's a good way to go. I listened to advice of starting 'basic' and wasted a lot of money chopping and changing in the process, finally getting what I wanted. If I had my time again I'd have just bought my D750 from the start and I'd now have a lot more money to spend on lenses. However, this is providing that you know that you are serious about it and it's not just a passing fad and so going to last you a good while, and that you appreciate that it doesn't make you a great tog. Buying used is a good idea for sure, although some of the 'pro' lenses don't lose a lot and the difference between new and used isn't that great, especially when cash back deals come along.

As for the gear making a difference, yes it does for sure. I pulled my hair out for ages as there was a look to images that I wanted and every time I asked how to achieve it I was always told it's all about composition and lighting. So I tried and I tried to get it, asked more questions, got the same response, tried some more and nearly gave up. Took the punt on new gear and guess what, I got to look to images I wanted.

Now all that being said this was a very specific thing and having the right gear is wasted if you don't know how to use it. Lighting, composition and technique are obviously essential and it is true that a good tog can take a better pic with a compact than someone with all the gear and no idea.

The point I'm trying to make is that whilst lighting and the tog play the largest part, gear also plays a part (depending on the type of shooting you are doing and what you want to achieve).
 
Last edited:
The future is mirrorless - with a decent zoom (Fuji XF18-55) to get you started.
 
Phil V said:
There's an old truism that goes
Beginners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about light
Click to expand...

I got asked this question in theatre last night. One of the surgeons asked about how to get good shots of his kids. My exact answer was "good light". He laughed[emoji23][emoji23]

He had a Canon cropper and an 85 f1.8. He mainly used his iPhone for pics of his kids and wanted better pics using his camera. Quick your of the exposure triangle and the importance of shutter speed with fast moving kids.

There no shortcut to good pics. Take lots of pics, understand the exposure triangle and the importance of light.

Back to the OP

As a starting lens a 24-85 or a 24-120 matched with a reflector and possibly a 50mm f1.8. More than enough for good pics of kids.
 
snerkler said:
I go against the grain to a lot of folk and if you can afford to get good gear from the start then I think that's a good way to go. I listened to advice of starting 'basic' and wasted a lot of money chopping and changing in the process, finally getting what I wanted. If I had my time again I'd have just bought my D750 from the start and I'd now have a lot more money to spend on lenses. However, this is providing that you know that you are serious about it and it's not just a passing fad and so going to last you a good while, and that you appreciate that it doesn't make you a great tog. Buying used is a good idea for sure, although some of the 'pro' lenses don't lose a lot and the difference between new and used isn't that great, especially when cash back deals come along.

As for the gear making a difference, yes it does for sure. I pulled my hair out for ages as there was a look to images that I wanted and every time I asked how to achieve it I was always told it's all about composition and lighting. So I tried and I tried to get it, asked more questions, got the same response, tried some more and nearly gave up. Took the punt on new gear and guess what, I got to look to images I wanted.

Now all that being said this was a very specific thing and having the right gear is wasted if you don't know how to use it. Lighting, composition and technique are obviously essential and it is true that a good tog can take a better pic with a compact than someone with all the gear and no idea.

The point I'm trying to make is that whilst lighting and the tog play the largest part, gear also plays a part (depending on the type of shooting you are doing and what you want to achieve).
Click to expand...

As a complete newbie, I went for a decent slr to start with as I knew this was something I really wanted to do - went straight for a D90 rather than a d3xxx or d5xxx. Tricky to get to grips with to start with but lasted a long time when I did. Moved up to a d800 after a couple of years.

Would I go straight to a d750 if I had my time again.....if I could afford it, yes. However I wouldn't have got the full benefit of it as I was still learning about the basics when I started.
 
And all of this typifies a forum: everyone has an opinion. Do what you realistically can afford, the 750 won't improve your ability overnight. If money is no object, then sure, get what you want.

I actually enjoyed the upgrade process, in the past I have gone out and bought the best-of-the-best for my chosen interest. I am generally not someone that flits from one thing to another and loses lots of money in the process. Like I said previously, to begin with, in all but awful conditions, your results from a 7100 will be quite similar to the 750 you mention. The 750 will only come into it's own in very low light situations. If you want the better auto focus then the 7200 would be a better bet at an extra £200 and comparable to a 750.

In this digital age (had an old Canon film SLR beforehand but at that time, I hadn't worked out how to get out of auto) I went Canon 400D, Canon 50D, Canon 5Dmk2 and now D750 (and D610 as a backup). Maybe it's just me? Be realistic and enjoy the learning process. That's probably the bit that keeps me interested; the minute I think I have mastered something, the minute I lose interest quickly.That's the fun of photography! With age I have mellowed about gear, but appreciate that many people don't.
 
Wow, lots more comments! I really do appreciate everyone who took the time to offer advice, even if you all have very different opinions which seem to cancel each other out and not make my decision any easier! :P

But every little bit does help. I do have some kind of idea of my end goal and how much I am willing to spend at the outset. Opinions that validate my position give me the confidence to go ahead, whereas opinions that run counter to me open my mind up to possibilities I never thought about, which in the end is all good because it will help me be more informed and prudent in my journey ahead.

So, thanks, everyone!
 
I now have a more specific question for my first lens. I think I will get a 24-85 because it's more affordable and I think it's adequate for my needs for now.

But which one out of these 2 should I get?

AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF
AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

I've tried some reading and am getting the idea that AF-S is better because it's quieter and faster? But the f-stop is bigger, meaning not as good?
 
Winter said:
I now have a more specific question for my first lens. I think I will get a 24-85 because it's more affordable and I think it's adequate for my needs for now.

But which one out of these 2 should I get?

AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF
AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

I've tried some reading and am getting the idea that AF-S is better because it's quieter and faster? But the f-stop is bigger, meaning not as good?
Click to expand...

The 2.8 will be bigger and heavier (and more expensive) and not offer enough extra brightness to be very significant. The AFS should focus faster (I've no experience of either lens) which would be an advantage for pics of children and the VR will reduce camera shake compared to the non-VR version.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The 2.8 will be bigger and heavier (and more expensive) and not offer enough extra brightness to be very significant. The AFS should focus faster (I've no experience of either lens) which would be an advantage for pics of children and the VR will reduce camera shake compared to the non-VR version.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that helps. :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
The 2.8 will be bigger and heavier (and more expensive) and not offer enough extra brightness to be very significant. The AFS should focus faster (I've no experience of either lens) which would be an advantage for pics of children and the VR will reduce camera shake compared to the non-VR version.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Constant f2.8's are/may be bigger and heavier but when the light drops they earn their keep. With a variable aperture zoom if you're shooting at the longer end and f5.6 when the light drops and you want to keep your shutter speed adequate the ISO soon goes through the roof, with the constant f2.8 you can shoot at 70mm and f2.8 and at a lower ISO.

Image stabilisation is a nice thing to have but in situations when it's no help... it's no help.

All in all if the size, weight and cost aren't too significant I'd much prefer a constant f2.8 over a stabilised f3.5-5.6. Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top