Another Lens Question (Sorry)

[Downton Mini]

I have a question about lenses I have been thinking about buying a Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G Lens as I have read these are good for landscapes but I have a the stnadard 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera (D3100) so my question is whats the difference apart form the the 18-55 being a dzoom lens and the 35 being a fixed lens?

[Ari]

For a start a wider aperture, which will give the ability for a faster shutter speed and much shallower depth of field.

Beyond that, with much less complication in terms of lenses, compromises, etc it should give sharper images than the zoom set to 35mm.

[GetCarter]

It'll do one thing very well, as opposed to the lens you own, which does lots of things averagely.

[flat-planedCrank]

As has been said - an f1.8 lens will let in (much) more light.

E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aperture_diagram...


Creative possibilities of narrow dof can be really useful too

[DibblyDobbler]

If it's to do just landscapes I wouldn't bother to be honest - you typically wouldn't use the wide aperture and 35mm on a crop sensor is not that wide ...

[flat-planedCrank]

DibblyDobbler said:

If it's to do just landscapes I wouldn't bother to be honest - you typically wouldn't use the wide aperture and 35mm on a crop sensor is not that wide ...

^ ah, good point indeed Didn't spot the landscape reference...

[RobDickinson]

35mm is imo a bit narrow for me for landscapes but good for stitching.

It'll be better than the kit lens even stopped down. And its a fantastic all round lens.

[Downton Mini]

Thanks for the replies guys

Rob what lens would you recomend on a budget (I appreciate that normally the more you pay the better you get)

[300bhp/ton]

Downton Mini said:

Thanks for the replies guys

Rob what lens would you recomend on a budget (I appreciate that normally the more you pay the better you get)

In many ways it doesn't really matter the lens so long as it isn't completely crappy. It's more about the person behind the camera and the location you are shooting at.

Prime lenses should offer up sharper images than any zoom lens, as a zoom is a compromise, but a zoom offers convenience instead. On this note, if you are shooting with a prime I find it makes you think more about composition and location. You have to get yourself into the right place moreso, rather than just zooming in.

In terms of the F stop, for landscapes you are less likely to need the fastest lens ever. But it can still be an advantage and can allow differing creative affects. Also consider if you will be using a tripod or shooting in low light conditions.

Also are there any other uses you might want to use the lens for?

[DibblyDobbler]

Downton Mini said:

Thanks for the replies guys

Rob what lens would you recomend on a budget (I appreciate that normally the more you pay the better you get)

If it's for landscapes then the stock answer for a decent budget-ish lens would be a Sigma 10-20

[MysteryLemon]

It's a lovely lens to use and can produce some very nice, sharp pictures.

I wouldn't say it was ideal for landscapes any more than any other lens. Infact, I would probably say that if you were planning on buying it soley to take landscape pictures with, then don't.

If you want a generally better quality lens, try the Nikkor 18-70mm. Its far nicer to use than the 18-55 and much sharper. Cheap too!

The 35mm prime is a lovely lens but not one I would buy to shoot landscapes on.

[JDRoest]

Downton Mini said:

I have a question about lenses I have been thinking about buying a Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G Lens as I have read these are good for landscapes but I have a the stnadard 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera (D3100) so my question is whats the difference apart form the the 18-55 being a dzoom lens and the 35 being a fixed lens?

It'll do low depth of field better and that's about it. People will bang on about sharpness (a prime will be sharper) but unless you are really taking photography seriously you'd be hard pressed to see it easily. People also overlook how good a kit lens really is - they will happily denigrate it because it's cheap, yet forget that because the camera companies sell ooodles of the things, they are actually amazing value for money.

Personally, I'd find 35mm a little restrictive, but you can easily see that yourself - set your kit lens to 35, wander round and never change the zoom. If you can live with 35mm on the kit, then you'll enjoy the prime.

[300bhp/ton]

JDRoest said:

It'll do low depth of field better and that's about it. People will bang on about sharpness (a prime will be sharper) but unless you are really taking photography seriously you'd be hard pressed to see it easily. People also overlook how good a kit lens really is

I sort of agree, but sometimes the difference is quite shocking and quite easy to see and spot.

I know this is going back a few years, but when I bought my Nikon D70 (just after it was launched) I got the "kit" Nikon lens with it and bundled with a what should have been a cheap Sigma lens. The kit Nikon lens truly isn't as good and produces very soft images vs even the cheap Sigma one. And I have no doubt compared to quality prime lens it'd be an even more obvious difference.