sf
Veteran
I will be shooting people for my newest photographic project, and need to produce the best clarity images with the D70 sensor. From my own understanding, prime lenses are sharper than zoom lenses. And much faster within similar price ranges.
So should I buy a fast prime or buy the ED zoom kit lens because if i need (want) zoom, it will be there? Image quality is absolutely vital.
So should I buy a fast prime or buy the ED zoom kit lens because if i need (want) zoom, it will be there? Image quality is absolutely vital.
Well, I'm biased, since I haven't much use for zooms! Though I do have a couple of them, almost accidentally... I tend to use them like a prime; I decide what focal length is suitable for what I anticipate shooting, set the zoom to that focal length, and then leave it there. I do not let the zoom do my walking for me!
Anyway, zooms are heavy and slow and large and expensive and have a lot of elements that may be misaligned and have reflective surfaces to cut contrast. Besides, some groups of elements move back and forth in strange patterns that make one wonder about manufacturing tolerances. All-in-all, I'm totally amazed at how well they actually work! These days, at least; zooms of the distant past can be pretty awful.
So the question is: Is the variable focal length feature so attractive to you as to overcome all the drawbacks?
Image quality? Me, I'd go for the prime, carefully chosen focal length and speed to suit what I will do most. Maybe a second prime later to cover other needs. Speed is useful not only for dim light, but to limit depth-of-field to isolate your subject or give greater sense of depth to the image. The prime is more likely to have pleasant bokeh than the zoom.
To choose your focal length, consider how far away from the people you will be, and how much of their surroundings you want to capture too. A "conversational" distance tends to give a natural sort of perspective... consider how far you are from people during a conversation. Of course it varies, and so can your photo distance for the same feeling. In some conversations you're concentrating on eyes and lips, while in others you're considering more body language and gestures or even surrounding stuff.
Anyway, zooms are heavy and slow and large and expensive and have a lot of elements that may be misaligned and have reflective surfaces to cut contrast. Besides, some groups of elements move back and forth in strange patterns that make one wonder about manufacturing tolerances. All-in-all, I'm totally amazed at how well they actually work! These days, at least; zooms of the distant past can be pretty awful.
So the question is: Is the variable focal length feature so attractive to you as to overcome all the drawbacks?
Image quality? Me, I'd go for the prime, carefully chosen focal length and speed to suit what I will do most. Maybe a second prime later to cover other needs. Speed is useful not only for dim light, but to limit depth-of-field to isolate your subject or give greater sense of depth to the image. The prime is more likely to have pleasant bokeh than the zoom.
To choose your focal length, consider how far away from the people you will be, and how much of their surroundings you want to capture too. A "conversational" distance tends to give a natural sort of perspective... consider how far you are from people during a conversation. Of course it varies, and so can your photo distance for the same feeling. In some conversations you're concentrating on eyes and lips, while in others you're considering more body language and gestures or even surrounding stuff.
GeneW
Veteran
For me the decider would be the type of light you'll be shooting in. If you'll frequently be shooting hand held in dim light, fast primes are an asset. If you'll be using tripod or have sufficient light, the zoom would give you a more flexible kit. Today's zoom lenses are very good and, stopped down a couple of stops, the results are difficult to distinguish from those of primes, especially on a digital camera.
Gene
Gene
K
Kin Lau
Guest
1st, get the kit zoom. The quality is "not bad", and it'll likely be the most affordable wide angle. Then get the 50mm prime, which is usually the best bang for the buck.
Do checkout and post this on Jorge's DSLRExchange.com as well.
Do checkout and post this on Jorge's DSLRExchange.com as well.
kiev4a
Well-known
Zooms are much better than they were 20 or 30 years ago but anytime you have that many glass surfaces that have to be precisly aligned. the prime is going to be faster, lighter and sharper. The images produced by my 24 and 35mm Nikkor prime lenses made in the 1970s are noticably superior to those from modern, computer-designed, expensive Nikkor zooms. The old primes were a lot cheaper, too.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I'd opt for fast primes - you'll be more able to control DOF.
Robert
Robert
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Kin Lau said:
I thought I had inadvertently clicked on DSLRExchange! ...or is Nikon up to something?
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
Kin Lau said:
I agree with Kin.. the kit lens is nice, but wouldn't compare to most photos you see here that have been taken with a prime lens.. it's a very versatile lens, so it's worth buying.. but if you want crisp photos, you'll have to add to your glass collection
stephen_lumsden
Well-known
I had the same question with my Canon SLR. Had a 50mm and a 24mm. I originally got into Rangefinders in order to get a 35-40mm lens and got a Canonet (£60) instead of the 35 mm f2 lens (£200).
Since I have got in to rangefinders I have decided to ditch the fixed lens efforts on the SLRS, as I think the SLR is more suited to speed with a good consumer zoom and just have primes on rangefinders, as IMO the good prime lenses on SLRS are just too much more money and cannot be justified if I have also fixed lenses for RF. Sold the prime lenses in order to get a YAshica Mat, which I will use for its better image quality as it is medium format.
If its all on 35mm the image quality should be equal. Do not know abot DSLR though. Have you tried some of the Sigma zoom/prime lenses, whcih should cost less than the Nikon stuff?
rgds
Stephen
Since I have got in to rangefinders I have decided to ditch the fixed lens efforts on the SLRS, as I think the SLR is more suited to speed with a good consumer zoom and just have primes on rangefinders, as IMO the good prime lenses on SLRS are just too much more money and cannot be justified if I have also fixed lenses for RF. Sold the prime lenses in order to get a YAshica Mat, which I will use for its better image quality as it is medium format.
If its all on 35mm the image quality should be equal. Do not know abot DSLR though. Have you tried some of the Sigma zoom/prime lenses, whcih should cost less than the Nikon stuff?
rgds
Stephen
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have an older Nikkor AFD F2.8 zoom and it comes very close to my 180 F2.8 in terms of image quality for the size output that I usually do. Fixed focal length lenses may have a slight edge in image quality over top notch modern pro zooms but you may not see any real difference in use. At least that is my thought. A prime may be alot better than the supplied kit lens though.
Bob
Bob
aizan
Veteran
i doubt he'd even need the 50/1.8. with such clean high isos, you can get on fine without it.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Fast lenses are useful for limiting the depth of field - not just for low light photos. Sometimes I want everything in focus, other times, not. That's one reason that I like fast lenses. I like to shoot with natural light, too.
Robert
Robert
K
Kin Lau
Guest
aizan said:
I have the Canon 300D & 350D, and there's been many times where I've used the 50/1.8 @ 1600iso. At f2.8, it's a very good portrait lense. The Nikon probably has similar characteristics.
sf
Veteran
bought the 50 f1.8
bought the 50 f1.8
I have decided, after looking through all my pics, that I shot almost totally around the 50mm neighborhood, and I have always been a huge fan of DOF control. Not to mention, the 50 is a quarter the price of the ED kit lens for the d70. And I like to keep my ISOs down as far as possible, so that aperture width will be very useful.
thanks for the input
bought the 50 f1.8
I have decided, after looking through all my pics, that I shot almost totally around the 50mm neighborhood, and I have always been a huge fan of DOF control. Not to mention, the 50 is a quarter the price of the ED kit lens for the d70. And I like to keep my ISOs down as far as possible, so that aperture width will be very useful.
thanks for the input
R
Robert
Guest
I use an 14-53mm zoom on my Olympus E1. All I will say is the zoom is excellent.
I have to get myself into a different mode to use primes on my rangefinders
I have to get myself into a different mode to use primes on my rangefinders
x-ray
Veteran
I shoot Canon 1DsII for my commercial work and 85% of the time shoot my L primes. I have a very nice complement of L zooms but they can not equal the L primes. For may people shots I shoot my 85 1.2. You might look seriously at the Nikkor 85 1.4. It's a really spectacular piece of glass and may well be the sharpest lens Nikon makes. Like the canon 85 1.2 it's large, heavy, very expensive and has the finest image quality. My second choice would be the 85 F1.8 AF. It's darn close to the 1.4 in image quality and much cheaper, smaller and lighter.
x-ray
Veteran
Here's a little sample of the canon 85 1.2. Fill frame from the 1DsII and 2 100% crops. No special technique or sharpening. Shot in raw and processed in photoshop cs2.
It's really hard to judge images on the internet because of jpg compression but I think this will illustrate the point. The nikkor 85 1.4 is on par with the canon.
It's really hard to judge images on the internet because of jpg compression but I think this will illustrate the point. The nikkor 85 1.4 is on par with the canon.
emraphoto
Veteran
i'm glad you went with the 50. you'll be very impressed... stick with the primes. the 50, and a 28 (nikon) are pretty much the ONLY lenses i use (d1x). you can pick up both of them for the price of a comparable (image quality) zoom. the other consideration is that the 50 and 28 are quite compact. strap a zoom on a d70 or d1x and you have a very large rig. sharp as a tack, cheap, reasonably quiet focusing, compact... i mean jeez, pretty clear for me. have fun, the d70 is a very cool machine (and very capable).
cheers
john
cheers
john
petebown
Established
Since moving to a rangefinder camera, I am now strongly biased towards prime lenses. This is partly due to the optical quality and brighter apertures. However, prime lenses make me think differently. This is true for both rangefinder and SLR.
When I use a zoom lens, I tend to be quite a lazy photographer. I don't move around very much and use the zoom to crop the image, hunting for images through the viewfinder.
With prime lenses, I am forced to move around to find the best shot. The image can be cropped at the print stage, but I rarely do this. If I take a camera out with just one prime lens, I look for images that suit the lens. When I use a zoom I just shoot anything and end up getting very few good shots.
One other thought... When I use zooms, I tend to use the extremes of the zoom range. i.e. With a 70-210mm I tend to use 70mm and 210mm, but rarely use anything in between. I therefore no longer own a 70-210 and have 90mm and 180mm primes instead.
When I use a zoom lens, I tend to be quite a lazy photographer. I don't move around very much and use the zoom to crop the image, hunting for images through the viewfinder.
With prime lenses, I am forced to move around to find the best shot. The image can be cropped at the print stage, but I rarely do this. If I take a camera out with just one prime lens, I look for images that suit the lens. When I use a zoom I just shoot anything and end up getting very few good shots.
One other thought... When I use zooms, I tend to use the extremes of the zoom range. i.e. With a 70-210mm I tend to use 70mm and 210mm, but rarely use anything in between. I therefore no longer own a 70-210 and have 90mm and 180mm primes instead.
