Fancy a Prime lens - but which one to go for?

[Joyrider1]

The time has come for me to buy my first lens for my Nikon D3100 - Have got a baby due in October and so would like a lens that gives really nice portrait shots, and as I want to learn a lot more about composition I think a prime lens is the way to go (I'm not too interested in bigger zoom than the kit lens offers)

Now my question is, which one do I go for? Only want to spend up to about £200 mark, so it seems I have the choice of the 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8.

Can anyone recommend which one to get? I'm leaning towards the 35mm as that seems to be more practical from the reviews I've been reading, but would like some advice.

Anyone?

[Beardy10]

I'd get the 50mm.....you're going to be taking photo's of a little person! The classic portrait length on full frame is 85mm which is pretty close to what a 50mm works out to on your camera (and mine).

I have young children (my youngest is 8 months) and use a 50mm as a portrait lens for them....I actually use my 70-200 quite a bit too especially outside.

Have you got a zoom that covers those lengths currently ? Try setting it to 35mm and find something about the size of a babies head and see how close you need be to get a shot that would fill the frame as you would desire.

I can show you a shot of one of my kids taken with a 50 mm taken from say 5 or 6ft if you want an idea of what it'll give you.

[K12beano]

I picked up a secondhand 50mm f/1.4 for about £130. Awesomely good value.

In fact I currently have 10.5, 35, 45, 50, 85 (f/1.4), 105 and have previous experience of the 20, 55, 85 f/1.8 and 180.
Either of the 50s or an 85 f1.8 would be good, but have you considered (secondhand?) a 60mm f/2.8 micro, because these aren't half bad at doubling as portraiters. Earlier versions (55mm) are a bit of a one trick pony.

In a corner - the 85mm is lovely on DX format.

[Joyrider1]

So far I only have the standard 18-55mm kit lens - Since my post I've just been playing around with it at both 35mm and 50mm, and although I want it mainly for taking nice pics of the new baby (to start with anyway), I will also want it for general use and it seems to me that if I got 50mm then I'm going to be more restricted indoors...not sure if I'm answering my own question here!

Need an AF-S lens for the D3100 also, so am restricted at this budget to the 35mm or 50mm - Ok, I could get an AF one and spend half the money but would like the autofocus, and I'm taking advantage of the Tesco voucher deal at Jessops (£5 vouchers worth £10) so can't really go second hand.

Sorry, I am bit of a newbie when it comes to photography so might seem a little vague (or indeed wrong) in places :-)

Appreciate your advice guys

[tilley441]

K12beano said:

In a corner - the 85mm is lovely on DX format.

just make sure you get the AF-S due to the lack of motor on the D3000

[andy-xr]

You're going to need AF-S lenses on that body unless you fancy manual focus

50mm 1.4 would be the better option over the 50mm 1.8, couple of hundred quid though

[Simpo Two]

Of the two, I'd go for the 50mm - better working distance.

[Joyrider1]

So next question then (bear with me on this), as Beardy10 says above, as this is a DX lens/camera, the 50mm lens works out at equivalent to around 85mm, and the 35mm works out equivalent to around 50mm.

So as the general consensus here seems to be that 50mm is best, does that mean I should get the 35mm to be closest to what you guys are recommending? Or are you already taking this into account?

[andy-xr]

50mm is on a full frame closest to standard vision, i.e. what you see with your eyes. If you're doing portraits though, 85mm on full frame is more where you want to be to avoid distortion. But 50mm on crop for portraits is fine

[Adz The Rat]

Go for the 50mm.

You don't need the AFS at all, I used mine on a D40 for over a year and the manual focus helped me learn to set up shots better.

[RobDickinson]

Adz The Rat said:

You don't need the AFS at all, I used mine on a D40 for over a year and the manual focus helped me learn to set up shots better.

You have a fast/prism focus screen? Because the standard focus screens in dSLR's wont show anything shallower than f4ish DOF making manual focus through the viewfinder almost impossible.


If I had nikon I would have the 35/f1.8 straight away, great FOV and tack sharp, its bokeh is a little ropey compared to the better 50's ( like the new 50f1.8 af-s) but its a very usable focal length.

[Simpo Two]

Joyrider1 said:

So next question then (bear with me on this), as Beardy10 says above, as this is a DX lens/camera, the 50mm lens works out at equivalent to around 85mm, and the 35mm works out equivalent to around 50mm.

So as the general consensus here seems to be that 50mm is best, does that mean I should get the 35mm to be closest to what you guys are recommending? Or are you already taking this into account?

The actual focal length of as lens is the same whatever camera you put it on; glass doesn't change shape. The real question is angle of view. A 35mm lens on a DX sensor gives about the same angle of view as 50mm on a full frame/35mm/FX sensor. That's a 'standard' lens; ie the one that roughly sees things as the eye sees it. But get too close to your subject and not only does it start distorting - faces appear pumped up - but in this case the subject is likely to go 'goo' and stick its finger in the lens or act otherwise unusually - which is probably not what you want. Hence the concept of a 'portrait lens' - better perspective and longer working distance. On a full frame camera this is generally 85mm, longer than the 'standard' 50mm. And guess what? Stick a 50mm lens on a Nikon DX camera and you have roughly the same field of view

This is a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 at f2.0:

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 18th August 21:48

[Skaffen]

RobDickinson said:

You have a fast/prism focus screen? Because the standard focus screens in dSLR's wont show anything shallower than f4ish DOF making manual focus through the viewfinder almost impossible.


If I had nikon I would have the 35/f1.8 straight away, great FOV and tack sharp, its bokeh is a little ropey compared to the better 50's ( like the new 50f1.8 af-s) but its a very usable focal length.

I got the 50mm f1.8 af-d as a companion to the kit lens with my first dSLR, a Nikon D60, which also lacked the drive screw. The D60 has an electronic rangefinder function (which I believe the D3100 has) which isn't as good as a focus screen by any means, but does make manually focusing a bit easier. So I would say it's still a good cheap first prime even if the body doesn't auto focus it, if it has a rangefinder.

Having said that if someone has the budget I'd agree getting an AF-S lens makes more sense . I later bought the 35/f1.8 AF-S and it's been a great lens for me.

[Adz The Rat]

RobDickinson said:

You have a fast/prism focus screen? Because the standard focus screens in dSLR's wont show anything shallower than f4ish DOF making manual focus through the viewfinder almost impossible.


If I had nikon I would have the 35/f1.8 straight away, great FOV and tack sharp, its bokeh is a little ropey compared to the better 50's ( like the new 50f1.8 af-s) but its a very usable focal length.

When I had the D40 I used the 50mm on F1.8 quite alot (I don't think Ive used it on anything but F1.8 to be honest) and never found the manual focus to be a problem.

I now use a D7000 so it has the focus motor in the body and the lens focusses fine but I still use it in manual, I just prefer it.

[btsidi]

K12beano said:

Either of the 50s or an 85 f1.8 would be good, but have you considered (secondhand?) a 60mm f/2.8 micro, because these aren't half bad at doubling as portraiters

Nikon have a new AFS 40mm f2.8 macro. On the D3100 that will give you the equiv of 60mm and the micro too. Cost is £249 from Grays.

[mattdaniels]

Simpo Two said:

Small World alert! So how do you know Helen Quigley then?

[james_tigerwoods]

I was in this same position a while back and, while I didn't end up choosing a lens at all, I completely discounted the 50mm as I just couldn't get on with it - it was more of a personal thing, I guess, but I found that I had to be a little further away from things than I wanted to be.

If I was shooting my own child, I would want to be as close as possible to catch as much as possible and while you could see/get this at 50mm, at 35mm, you wouldn't have to be so far away.

However, I can reccomend a different lens - it's not a Prime, but the Nikkor 18-70 is a quicker, more versatile lens than the kit lens. I've used it on my D40 and now my D3100 and love it.

[mattdaniels]

james_tigerwoods said:

If I was shooting my own child, I would want to be as close as possible to catch as much as possible and while you could see/get this at 50mm, at 35mm, you wouldn't have to be so far away.

You wouldn't have to be *that* far away, but also the advantage as mentioned ealier is that you are out of range of sticky fingers and projectile vomit. 50mm is the "truest" portrait lens - if you start using a zoom and sticking an 18mm lens in a babies face it's going to scare the child and give you a horribly distorted image.

[james_tigerwoods]

mattdaniels said:

You wouldn't have to be *that* far away, but also the advantage as mentioned ealier is that you are out of range of sticky fingers and projectile vomit. 50mm is the "truest" portrait lens - if you start using a zoom and sticking an 18mm lens in a babies face it's going to scare the child and give you a horribly distorted image.

True, but I couldn't get on with the 50mm when I tried it - Maybe a user failure

My 3 year old, however, has become so used the the camera (and did at such a young age) she was never scared of it.

Good call on the vomit point though....

[furtive]

I've got a Nikon 50mm and a 35mm. I find the 50mm a bit close and prefer using the 35mm generally