What would I gain from using a prime lens rather than my 18-200mm?

TimB

TimB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
104
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Been learning to use a Nikon DSLR for 2 years now and started getting some really nice shots finally after getting my head round the essentials.

Just upgraded to a D90 and my one and only lens is a Nikon AF-S 18-200mm ED VR 3.5-5.6 which I absolutely love as it's really versatile and I use it for everything, the VR function is also brilliant as it really does keep things sharper in low light without a tripod.

But I have realised that whilst the 18-200 is great for things like travel, holidays and out and about snapping, I might be get better results if I used a lens more dedicated to a particular situation.

I mostly shoot in low light or dusk/night situations, and I mostly photograph vehicles and buildings and views over a city at night etc. All using a tripod.

I seem to shoot vehicles at around the 35mm range and buildings/cityscapes at 18-25mm depending on what I'm wanting to squeeze in the shot so I'm not sure I need anything that does extreme wide angle.

So my questions are how would I benefit optically from using a dedicated 35mm or 18mm lens for example over my 18-200 zoom?

And can anyone recommend any reasonably priced prime lenses that would suit the sort of things I'm shooting.

Thanks!
 
You would have a sharper more contrasty and less distorted image, you would have more control over dof (background blur) and with a wider aperture you would be able to shoot in much lower light without having to reduce shutter speed or bump up iso as much as with your kit lens. Size and weight would also be reduced a fair amount.
 
Prime would be a great choice. Think you know you want one
 
Thanks for the replies so far.

The next question for me is what length would be most useful to me.... 18mm, 35mm, 50mm?...

Any suggestions on specific prime lenses? I have a D90 so I presume both AF and AF-S lenses would work ok with the autofocus system.
 
35mm F/1.8 DX is a must have for DX DSLR owners IMO, it's sharp and the AF is fast and accurate.
 
Thanks, I'll have a look for one!
 
redddraggon said:
35mm F/1.8 DX is a must have for DX DSLR owners IMO, it's sharp and the AF is fast and accurate.
Click to expand...

This is indeed true. I think Nikon should start replacing their kit lenses with these, just so good for the relatively small outlay.

I think the Nikon 20mm f2.8 lens might also have a place in your kitbag, but it's fairly pricey at around £450 new, I've seen them go for £250 used... I've had a very quick shot with one and liked what I saw, but can't justify that money for a focal length that I don't really use.
 
In my opinion NO.

My son has the 28-300 Nikkor, it is amazing.
I have a Canon with 19-35 and 28-135

YEARS ago I had prime (I'm 50+) and been into photography for years, personally I do not believe you, me or most people would ever see a difference photographically.

And these days I carry two lenses now instead of 5 in the old days.

Personally I think a pre owned 19-35ish and a lens up to 300mm will cover 99% of all needs.

Img_4689a.jpg


120mm
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
And these days I carry two lenses now instead of 5 in the old days.

Personally I think a pre owned 19-35ish and a lens up to 300mm will cover 99% of all needs.
Click to expand...

This is why I like my 18-200mm so much, it just does everything I want and its all I have to carry, but I was worried that by using an 'all in one' superzoom I was really compromising image quality?
 
Why don't you borrow/rent a prime or two and see how they compare? We all have our own opinions, but yours is the important one.
 
Don't think of it in terms of image quality, most modern lenses have good enough IQ (although primes are generally better), what you are primarily getting is a fast aperture which is important for shooting in low light and creating a shallow DoF.
 
This seems to be a topic that even from my limited experience of this forum throws up polarised opinions. So the best advice I've seen would be to probably try before you buy and rent the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

That said I too asked this question a couple of months ago with my first DSLR wondering why you'd want a fixes focal length instead of a zoom.

Although I bought my lens with much more limited knowledge about the differences than between zoom/prime than I have now (because I got it cheaper whilst on holiday shortly after getting my DSLR), using it has made clear to me why the 35mm f/1.8 is seen as a must have lens and brilliant in a lot of situations when compared to a zoom. Not a really specific answer but in my experience it's been the right choice even from a beginner perspective.
 
The 18-200 is a cracking lens for what it does, and is a fantastic tool for everyday use and discovering photography, but as you say there comes a day when you realise that you have a niche that you want to exploit.

Given that you've discovered a niche that suits 35mm then I agree with the others in that the 35mm would be a great addition to your kit bag - I've used one and it's a great lens, but I don't own one as it doesn't suit my personal style.

For the other landscape and wide angle stuff that you do then I think that a prime might be to restrictive, and I would suggest a 10-24 to cover the other ranges that you do - I'm pretty sure you've hit the 18mm end stop a few times on your 18-200 and wished you could go further. The Nikon varient is quite expensive, but sharp. However there are equivelents from Tamron and Sigma that are cheaper and may not be quite up to the Nikon, but may well suffice.
 
Slaphead said:
I'm pretty sure you've hit the 18mm end stop a few times on your 18-200 and wished you could go further.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed... you are very right.

Sometimes If I'm lining up to shoot a building or Cityscape, I hit that stop and wish I had lens that was a little bit wider...

But I think your suggestions are excellent. I will try to bag a 35mm prime for my more standard shooting of cars or houses and then look at a 10-24 or similar for the other stuff.

That will pretty much cover my needs I think.

And I agree about the 18-200 VR is an amazing lens for pretty much everything you encounter day to day. Worth every penny of the £500-odd I paid for it, especially with the VR feature.
 
For what it's worth, I own a 18-105, 70-300, 18-200 and 35mm. It's the last two that live in my camera bag (so much so that I'm considering selling the other two).

The 18-200 is surprisingly good IMO (I know some people hate it) but it has its limitations - its not fast enough for low light or shallow DoF. The 35mm complements it nicely and is light and small (I can squeeze it into my Toploader alongside the 18-200 and D5000).

Also, it's quite fun to just use the 35mm for a day - it's like having one of those fixed focal length P&S cameras from the film days, but better :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top