To buy or Not To Buy...

[inHisimage]

That is the question.

I have a Nikon D5000, which came with a kit lens. (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G)

I would really like to get into on-location photography, and I've been hearing different places that kit lenses are very inferior. I've also heard that primes have the best quality... A prime would be fine for me, since I usually leave my zoom lens at 55mm anyway.

After being advised to buy a nifty fifty, I began searching for an AF-S version. Apparently there is none...?

So here are my questions:
Are kit lenses really that bad? :shrug:

Do primes really produce better quality photos?

Should I try for a 50mm 1.4 AF-S, being that it's a little better with lens aperture than a nifty fifty? (But much more costly)

Thanks in advance!

 

[dinners]

There's no getting away from the fact that the 'nifty fifty' is a 'budget' lens and to be honest it isn't a step up in build quality from a kit lens like yours.

That said - it's a great introduction to wide aperture / shallow dof photography as well as being a handy indoor lens when light is at a premium.

With regards to your question - kit lenses can produce some great images. (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G) for example shouldn't struggle with landscapes using little apertures but when push comes to shove - a fast prime will allow you to do much more in terms of shutter speed or keeping the ISO down.

How much you want to spend (1.4 or 1.8) depends on how much you think you need that extra bit of aperture I guess.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

There's no getting away from the fact that the 'nifty fifty' is a 'budget' lens and to be honest it isn't a step up in build quality from a kit lens like yours.

That might be true of the Canon version, but the Nikon 50mm is actually quite a well made wee lens.......

 

[dinners]

That might be true of the Canon version, but the Nikon 50mm is actually quite a well made wee lens.......

Yes - I have it (the Nikon one) but it's still 'nifty' whatever that means. Certainly worth flagging up that whilst it's a 'prime' it's a budget one if the OP wants to compare 'primes' to budget zooms.

 

[cambsno]

Yes, primes are worth getting. I have a tamron 28-75 which is a decent lens, but pics with my 50mm 1.4 afs will always look better and certainly sharper. You could look at the 35mm afs too?

 

[Zsev]

I just checked the specs for the 18-55VR. Telephoto end there isn't really any glaring flaws except the poor overall sharpness. Have a look yourself here...

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews...sreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml?4


By buying the 50mm f1.4 you get
1) Much sharper pictures especially at apertures below f8.0
2) Slightly more distortion.
3) To take very nice portraits and depth of field shots - background blurring.
4) Much better low light shots.

Another option is to sell your D5000 and buy a D90 + 50mm f1.8 for the same total price.
However, I would be tempted however to buy the 35mm f1.8 instead for half the price.

 

[inHisimage]

Very useful info there. Thanks! That dpreview link was really great.

I'm loathe to buy a 35mm, since I wouldn't be able to do head-shots without making my clients look like a horse. I guess I could switch lenses then, but if the light is less than desirable, my kit lens at 55mm doesn't do very well.

The 85mm f1.4 is very tempting, but above my budget right now.

I'm considering keeping the kit lens, and saving up for the 85mm. I've seen reviews that rave about it's beautiful bokeh and sharpness, but does anyone here know if it really is a lot better than the 50mm f1.4?

 

[TCR4x4]

35mm on the D5000 wont look horsey, its equivelent of 50mm on a Full frame.
Its probably better than the 50mm as the 50 can be a bit long on a crop camera.

 

[inHisimage]

Good to know! I have a lot to learn...