I give up - Which lens?
Discussion
Blatant cut and shut from my other thread:
The shortlist so far, in order of likelihood is this:
I'm totally stumped as I like the idea of the 35mm, but have been warned off as it would have a lot of distortion - I like my 18-55 (it's also the cheapest option) - and the 18-105 would be a good catch-all lens.
However, I do want a prime - but I pretty much need the 18-55....
What to do!
JTWs other thread said:
I've been pondering this for a while now as I've been thinking about a new lens - however, my hand has been forced and I'm going to have to buy a new "base" lens as my 18-55 is flaky.
I've done a bit of research and, for what I use it for, the "best" alternative is, well, another 18-55 - the Nikon 18-55 AF-S VR, specifically.
My budget, however, is limited and the lens HAS to be of the AF-S variety (I have a D40). I also already have a 55-200 VR which gets a lot of use.I've done a bit of research and, for what I use it for, the "best" alternative is, well, another 18-55 - the Nikon 18-55 AF-S VR, specifically.
The shortlist so far, in order of likelihood is this:
- Another 18-55, but in VR
- 35mm 1.8
- 18-105
I'm totally stumped as I like the idea of the 35mm, but have been warned off as it would have a lot of distortion - I like my 18-55 (it's also the cheapest option) - and the 18-105 would be a good catch-all lens.
However, I do want a prime - but I pretty much need the 18-55....
What to do!
Edited by james_tigerwoods on Wednesday 12th January 16:02
The 35mm 1.8 prime is going to give you the best quality images of those. It sounds like a cracking lens and I've never read a bad review of it. Low light performance is going to be miles better than the other two. In fact, I'm going to be purchasing one myself in the next few weeks. I don't see why it would distort anything any more than a zoom would at that focal length but maybe I'm missing something. Question is whether you would be ok with a fixed focal length? Does your current lens still work at all? If so, try taking a few shots at 35mm and see what you think?
Of the zooms, it doesn't seem like there is much to choose between them in terms of images and that being the case, I would lean towards the longer lens just purely for flexibility. Or, if you want a one lens does all, save up a little more and get s/h 18-200 VR.
And lastly it's maybe worth looking at the Sigma and Tamron alternatives as well. I know Sigma make a well regarded 18-50 F2.8 which is in your price range and has a usefully wider aperture than the Nikon zooms you're looking at.
Of the zooms, it doesn't seem like there is much to choose between them in terms of images and that being the case, I would lean towards the longer lens just purely for flexibility. Or, if you want a one lens does all, save up a little more and get s/h 18-200 VR.
And lastly it's maybe worth looking at the Sigma and Tamron alternatives as well. I know Sigma make a well regarded 18-50 F2.8 which is in your price range and has a usefully wider aperture than the Nikon zooms you're looking at.
Gad-Westy said:
The 35mm 1.8 prime is going to give you the best quality images of those. It sounds like a cracking lens and I've never read a bad review of it. Low light performance is going to be miles better than the other two. In fact, I'm going to be purchasing one myself in the next few weeks. I don't see why it would distort anything any more than a zoom would at that focal length but maybe I'm missing something. Question is whether you would be ok with a fixed focal length? Does your current lens still work at all? If so, try taking a few shots at 35mm and see what you think?
Of the zooms, it doesn't seem like there is much to choose between them in terms of images and that being the case, I would lean towards the longer lens just purely for flexibility. Or, if you want a one lens does all, save up a little more and get s/h 18-200 VR.
And lastly it's maybe worth looking at the Sigma and Tamron alternatives as well. I know Sigma make a well regarded 18-50 F2.8 which is in your price range and has a usefully wider aperture than the Nikon zooms you're looking at.
I'm still leaning towards the 35mm as I like the idea of having a 35mm 1.8 - I can manage with the flaky 18-55 until my birthday when I'll get a new one. That's the plan anyway.Of the zooms, it doesn't seem like there is much to choose between them in terms of images and that being the case, I would lean towards the longer lens just purely for flexibility. Or, if you want a one lens does all, save up a little more and get s/h 18-200 VR.
And lastly it's maybe worth looking at the Sigma and Tamron alternatives as well. I know Sigma make a well regarded 18-50 F2.8 which is in your price range and has a usefully wider aperture than the Nikon zooms you're looking at.
furtive said:
I've got the 35mm 1.8 and it's never off my camera these days.
On a D40?
Gad-Westy said:
The 35mm 1.8 prime is going to give you the best quality images of those. It sounds like a cracking lens and ... I don't see why it would distort anything any more than a zoom would at that focal length but maybe I'm missing something. Question is whether you would be ok with a fixed focal length? Does your current lens still work at all?
That's what I mean. On a cropped body it will be a 50mm crop but 35mm perspective.ian in lancs said:
Gad-Westy said:
The 35mm 1.8 prime is going to give you the best quality images of those. It sounds like a cracking lens and ... I don't see why it would distort anything any more than a zoom would at that focal length but maybe I'm missing something. Question is whether you would be ok with a fixed focal length? Does your current lens still work at all?
That's what I mean. On a cropped body it will be a 50mm crop but 35mm perspective.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff