User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Prime lens for a D90

  1. #1
    Member snat56's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Sep 2010
    Location
    Ngunnawal
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Prime lens for a D90

    Hi all - taking a leap here. Have a D90 with a 18-200 vr (1not 2). I find it a good lens especially for my skill level (ha). Am planning a trip to Malaysia in April and thought maybe I dont want to lug that 18-200 around (I like the idea of a fast 24). Would welcome anmy thoughts comments on a prime in the 24 to 35 mm range.

    ... and I apologise in advance if a thread already exists on this...

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    18-200 is a paperweight really

    Nevertheless it's pretty slow, I like the look of th 35 1.8
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  3. #3
    Member Zonda's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got the 35mm F2 Nikon and absolutely love it. I compared the F1.8 to the F2 and whilst the F1.8 has AF-S i liked the build quality of the F2. I also have a 50mm F1.8 but find with the cropped sensor it's not as useful as the 35mm especially when indoors (which is when i find the F2 is useful) . Can't comment on a 24mm prime.

    Cheers,

    Dave.

  4. #4
    Perpetually Bewildered fillum's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not sure if you're saying you want to take a prime instead of the 18-200 or in addition to the 18-200? I wouldn't limit myself to a prime if I was traveling. I find the 18-200 to be a great travel lens - it does have weaknesses but the versatility makes up for these. I usually carry it in a snoot type shoulder bag when walking about so don't have a problem with zoom creep. I don't think it's a particularly large or heavy lens in the grand scheme of things.

    Like Zonda, I have a 35mm Nikkor f/2 and agree that it a great lens, quite sharp. However I hardly use it as I find the field-of-view not wide enough for me on a crop sensor. (The newer f/1.8 version is also well regarded and costs less).

    I also have an older manual focus (AI) 24mm f/2.8 which I quite like. I much prefer the FOV of the 24mm over the 35mm. I haven't used the AF version (which itself is quite an old model now) but based on my AI version I think it would be quite good.

    In the end it probably comes down to how/what you shoot. The 35mm f/1.8 is likely to be the cheapest option, but is 35mm wide enough for you? The wider lens (24mm) offers a bit more compositional scope as you can always crop, but is more expensive and not as fast as either of the 35mm's.

    Sigma make some fast (f/1.8) wide primes but I don't have much knowledge or any experience with them. Might be worth investigating.


    (Not sure I've helped much )



    Cheers.
    Phil.

    Some Nikon stuff. I shoot Mirrorless and Mirrorlessless.


  5. #5
    keen learner of new tricks.
    Join Date
    09 Feb 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    8,372
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if that`s all you want to take, then the 35f2. I have one and it`s a beauty. Just right for the cropped sensor. I`d take the 18-200 though as it`s not heavy. I`ve just done a 4 day trek with the 17-55 lens on a D80 and I was getting tired towards the end.
    Graeme
    "May the good Lord look down and smile upon your face"......Norman Gunston___________________________________________________
    Nikon: D7000, D80, 12-24 f4, 17-55 f2.8, 18-135, 70-300VR, 35f2, SB 400, SB 600, TC-201 2x converter. Tamron: 90 macro 2.8 Kenko ext. tubes. Photoshop CS2.


  6. #6
    I am older than I look. peterb666's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 Oct 2009
    Location
    Tura Beach, NSW
    Posts
    3,597
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 35mm f/1.8 is hard to beat. Fairly versatile and outstanding value for money and good quality as well. I wouldn't go for the 35mm f/2 unless you planned on going to full-frame sometime in the future. Costs more and not quite as good as the 35mm f/1.8.

    The 24mm f/2.8 would make a good walkabout lens in more crowded areas and still fairly compact.
    Cheers

    PeterB666


    Visit my 52/2011 My photos on Flickr. On Model Mayhem now (fortunately not as a model) My new blogsite!

    Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Metabones Speed Booster and Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 - almost as insanely wicked as sin itself.

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter
    snat56's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Sep 2010
    Location
    Ngunnawal
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    guys - so much great advice thanks heaps - I gather the 35/1.8 you mention Peterb666 id the dx 35mm 1.8G (seems like good value and I've read some good comments about it) and the 24 /2.8 is the 24 f2.8D? Trying to interpret the Nikonians lens compatibility chart it seems D lens will work on my D90

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    490
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got both the 35 f1.8 dx and the 24mm f2.8 afd and they they both work fine on the d90. The 35mm is a little cracker and very cheap for what you get. The 24 is also pretty good, but I wouldn't buy both again. I had the 24 for my film cameras so it got carried over.
    24 is a little easier to compose for outdoor or indoor shots with the wider angle but the 35 is better for portraits and is a lot faster.
    The second hand price for a 24mm is pretty reasonable but as it's only f2.8 you won't get those really narrow depth of field shots.
    Either are good, but look through your photos and see what focal length you use more on your existing zoom and make a decision.
    I'd still take the zoom lens and use the prime some of the time

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    CZeiss make a nice Distagon T* 2/28. Not sure what Nikon have in this range.

  10. #10
    Amor fati! ving's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i have the 35/1.8 af-s and highly recommend it

  11. #11
    Member Wingnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    same here, the 35/1.8 dx is light to carry and a good price. It is also a pretty sharp lens and goes good on my d90
    Often beaten, never scared.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •