Do I really need these primes?

I've just baught myself D200, nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8. I will get nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.4 within this year.

I mostly use the camara for family events, kids, and holidays. After reading so many positive reviews on this forum, I am wondering whether I should buy a nikon 35mm f/2 or sigma 30mm f/1.4

My 17-55mm is a great lens, but my 50mm is sharper from f2.8. This fact makes me thinking about the 35 f/2 or sigma 30/1.4 all the time. I like fast, sharp and contrasty lens, and I cannot use flash since my kids are only 7 months old.

But do I really need the 35 f/2 or 30 f/1.4 as my 17-55 covers those ranges well. Are there any abviouse advantages to the primes (sharpness, color, contrast and etc)? If yes, which one?

Thanks for your help.

wxr said:

But do I really need the 35 f/2 or 30 f/1.4 as my 17-55 covers
those ranges well. Are there any abviouse advantages to the primes
(sharpness, color, contrast and etc)? If yes, which one?

Click to expand...

The advantage of 35mm f/2 is that it is small light and relatively fast. Image quality is good too.
This is why I'd prefer it over a bigger zoom.

wxr said:

My 17-55mm is a great lens, but my 50mm is sharper from f2.8. This
fact makes me thinking about the 35 f/2 or sigma 30/1.4 all the
time. I like fast, sharp and contrasty lens, and I cannot use flash
since my kids are only 7 months old.

But do I really need the 35 f/2 or 30 f/1.4 as my 17-55 covers
those ranges well. Are there any abviouse advantages to the primes
(sharpness, color, contrast and etc)? If yes, which one?

Click to expand...

If nothing else, their smaller size and weight compared to a good zoom within the same focal length range can be a plus.

I'm curious, while I can understand not wanting to use a flash, why do you feel that the fact that the kids are only 7 months old should preclude the use of a flash?

--
'Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!'

Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

tyoung said:

I'm curious, while I can understand not wanting to use a flash, why
do you feel that the fact that the kids are only 7 months old
should preclude the use of a flash?

Click to expand...

I'm curious, too. I was photographing two parents with their 3-week old baby last weekend, using two off-camera SB-800s and direct flash from a D200, the baby wasn't bothered at all - asleep, mostly. Lenses were 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. I can't post the pictures without consent of the parents, but all three lenses produced great results.

wxr said:

I've just baught myself D200, nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8. I
will get nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.4 within this year.
I mostly use the camara for family events, kids, and holidays.
After reading so many positive reviews on this forum, I am
wondering whether I should buy a nikon 35mm f/2 or sigma 30mm f/1.4

Click to expand...

You certainly don't need anything else. Between the 17-55, 50/1.8, 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.4, you'll have one of the finest collections of glass known to man, covering everything from wide angle scapes to portrait, to sports and wildlife. Consider adding an sb800, or even a pair of them, to round out your kit.

The lure of the primes is their ability to gather light more efficiently than the finest zoom. You already have a good specimen with the 50/1.8, and you'll have one of the very finest when you acquire the 85/1.4. A 35/2 or a Sigma 30/1.4 would be a very nice addition to your kit, too, but there's no need to rush. Shoot with your 17-55 and 50/1.8 for a while and get used to the gear. It would be best if you understood the capabilities and limitations of your current lenses before deciding on addimg any more.

Jmho.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

I did a whole series of tests when I first got my D200 and 17-55 to try to figure out when I should use a prime for best focus. Used tripod, self-timer, flat subject (wooden door) sidelit. I tested first at f8 with my 17-55, 35 2.8, 24 2.8 and 20 2.8, and all were equally sharp, except the 35 which was noticeably worse. Then I tested them all at 2.8, and the 17-55 was just as sharp as anything at f8, but all the primes were noticeably worse. 17-55, at least on my copy and my primes, is a superior lens.
Why bother with the primes? Just extra weight in your bag.

i hear that flash is bad for babie's and their developing eyes, sounds like a precaution to me and very likely not a very valid one but there is no better a case for playing it safe.

i got the 35/2 to avoid buying the 17-55 expensive, inconsistently built, and flare prone zoom. have not used it much but i think it fills the gap for me.

since you have the zoom already and your application sounds like it will be perfect, i think you should hold off on buying the 35/2 untill you find something you need it for. if you need it but dont have it, your zoom will cover for it while you are in the process of buying one.

johngumbo said:

I did a whole series of tests when I first got my D200 and 17-55 to
try to figure out when I should use a prime for best focus. Used
tripod, self-timer, flat subject (wooden door) sidelit. I tested
first at f8 with my 17-55, 35 2.8, 24 2.8 and 20 2.8, and all were
equally sharp, except the 35 which was noticeably worse. Then I
tested them all at 2.8, and the 17-55 was just as sharp as anything
at f8, but all the primes were noticeably worse. 17-55, at least
on my copy and my primes, is a superior lens.
Why bother with the primes? Just extra weight in your bag.

Click to expand...

You must have gotten all the lemons.
--
dgjean

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgjean/

I read your posting and all the responses so far. I agree that the 17-55 is really a great lens. I have one along with a bunch of zooms and only a few primes. In the digital world I use mainly zooms, and the primes, except for one zinger, are rarely used.

If you are not doing commercial and professional stuff, you might consider dumping the 17-55. I use it primarily for paying jobs, and other situations where a nice fast lens pays off. In digital you try to minimize lens changes to prevent sensor contamination. I also think zooms have gotten much better.

The direction you should think in is wide angle and fisheye. Instead of getting more primes, particularly in the range already covered, consider a wide zoom like the 12 -24, and certainly don't skip the 10.5 fisheye. That 10.5 is the most fun lens I have ever owned, and I can travel light with that fisheye and a medium zoom.

For many event and even commecial jobs, that 12-24 gets lots of use. Just the other day I did a yacht interior job, and the 12-14 and 10.5 were all I used. As to medium zooms, you might prefer the 18-70, 18-135, or 28-200. The latter is a real sleeper - not an expensive fancy lens, but capable of some great pictures.

No, 17-55 is very good lens. My 35 is clearly a bad lens, the others are good for film but the D200 has way more resolution than even Agfa APX100 that I can see things wrong with primes that I never knew were a problem. I always knew my Contax was sharper than my Nikon, but I just thought that was a difference between SLR and rangefinder. Turns out it's the difference between good and tolerable lens design.
Try the same test yourself.

I rarely shoot wider than 35mm because of this and the very small difference between 35 and 55, for me my 35mm f/2 does everything I would do with a 17-55. so in my case the coffee can size and weight of the 17-55 would be substantially more weight in my bag. Also, I believe that you must have had an inferior copy of the 35 when you did your testing. My non-"d" copy of the 35 is very sharp, even at f/2. here is a sample at f/2 & 1/60th straight from the camera shot hand held in a casino gift shop.

I probably wouldn't have even been able to get this shot with the 17-55 because of the slower shutter speed that would have been required.



That is why I bother with primes

johngumbo said:

Why bother with the primes? Just extra weight in your bag.

Click to expand...

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

Hre's a discussion on that. I never used flash for my own pictures of my daughter, but I just prefer the result.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006L4a&tag=

josephho said:

i hear that flash is bad for babie's and their developing eyes,
sounds like a precaution to me and very likely not a very valid one
but there is no better a case for playing it safe.

i got the 35/2 to avoid buying the 17-55 expensive, inconsistently
built, and flare prone zoom. have not used it much but i think it
fills the gap for me.

since you have the zoom already and your application sounds like it
will be perfect, i think you should hold off on buying the 35/2
untill you find something you need it for. if you need it but dont
have it, your zoom will cover for it while you are in the process
of buying one.

Click to expand...

Last October when my new granddaughter was born I there in the delivery room with my D70 and SB600. not only did the doctor and nurses have no problem with it they actually posed holding the baby for me to take pics.

I sure don't think the delivering doctor would allow this if it could it any way hurt the babies eyes, after all they can be taken to court and are responsible for any thing done wrong in that room until the child reaches the age of 18 (USA law)

I call this one "Put me back!!!"

josephho said:

i hear that flash is bad for babie's and their developing eyes,
sounds like a precaution to me and very likely not a very valid one
but there is no better a case for playing it safe.

i got the 35/2 to avoid buying the 17-55 expensive, inconsistently
built, and flare prone zoom. have not used it much but i think it
fills the gap for me.

since you have the zoom already and your application sounds like it
will be perfect, i think you should hold off on buying the 35/2
untill you find something you need it for. if you need it but dont
have it, your zoom will cover for it while you are in the process
of buying one.

Click to expand...

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

Thank you all for your advices. I will practice more with all the lenses I am having now while am waiting for more f1.4 primes from nikon pleasing her fans here.

Thanks again !

wxr said:

I've just baught myself D200, nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8. I
will get nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.4 within this year.
I mostly use the camara for family events, kids, and holidays.
After reading so many positive reviews on this forum, I am
wondering whether I should buy a nikon 35mm f/2 or sigma 30mm f/1.4

Click to expand...

Personally I like my Nikon 35mm f/2. The Sigma wasn't an option when I bought it though. If I were doing it now, I'd take a chance on the Sigma. There's certainly been enough samples posted on this forum that shows it a useable lens at f/1.4 and that would be my main consideration.

wxr said:

My 17-55mm is a great lens, but my 50mm is sharper from f2.8. This
fact makes me thinking about the 35 f/2 or sigma 30/1.4 all the
time. I like fast, sharp and contrasty lens, and I cannot use flash
since my kids are only 7 months old.

Click to expand...

I don't know if the Sigma will be sharper. I know my 35mm is sharper than my 17-55mm at f/2.8. You have to look pretty darn close to tell though.

wxr said:

But do I really need the 35 f/2 or 30 f/1.4 as my 17-55 covers
those ranges well. Are there any abviouse advantages to the primes
(sharpness, color, contrast and etc)? If yes, which one?

Thanks for your help.

Click to expand...

You don't need any of it. That's the truth. If you want to shoot in lower light without flash than you can with the 17-55mm though at 30mm or 35mm then they are what you should get. Has anyone mentioned any of the other obvious things?

1. There's also the Nikon 35mm 1.4AIS. Keep in mind I'll mention these since you've got a D200 so you will have metering. I also don't consider manual focus an actual hardship with the D200 vs. a D50, D70, ect. My personal copy isn't as sharp as my 35mm 2.0D until it's stopped down some. It's still useable at f/1.4.

2. Why the Nikon 50mm 1.8D? Personally I would have went with the 1.4D. If sharpness is the only concern the 50mm 2.0AI is better than either at f/2 IMO.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

wxr said:

I mostly use the camara for family events, kids, and holidays.

Click to expand...

If this is how you use the camera, then you don't need most of the lenses you already own, or plan on purchasing. Get yourself an 18-200VR (if you can) or the 18-70, an SB-600, keep the 50/1.8, sell everything else and go on a vacation with the extra money

My intent here is NOT to give a snotty reply. I just really think that what you have is vast overkill for "family events, kids, and holidays" (the 70-200 in particular). Then again, it is your money, go for it if you can afford it.

I have this lens and i love it! it is one of the special lenses that can give you ver good results at f1.4. the price is reasonable and it is on my d200 most of times.

after 1.5 years of 'farily' happy use.
I now have
20/2.8
35/2.0
85/1.8
and can't complain about lens quality.
--



D80 site(draft)
http://home.comcast.net/~nikon-d80/
D50 site
http://home.comcast.net/~nikon-d50/
Yellowstone-Teton Trip
http://home.comcast.net/~recentphotos/
Pentax istD Site
http://home.comcast.net/~pentax-istd/

wxr said:

My 17-55mm is a great lens, but my 50mm is sharper from f2.8. This
fact makes me thinking about the 35 f/2 or sigma 30/1.4 all the
time. I like fast, sharp and contrasty lens, and I cannot use flash
since my kids are only 7 months old.

Click to expand...

Why is the flash not allowed?

My 35mm f/2 has taken up about 75% of my shooting lately. My 17-55, 70-200, and 85mm the other 25%. It is a functional focal length and very light with fast aperture. I got rid of my 50mm 1.8 soon after I got the 35mm f/2. Just can't say enough good things about it.

I too would recommend a flash over the 35mm or 30mm if that's what you prefer. I have a three month old and most of the my shots of him are with a bounced flash. I have never pointed it straight at him or anyone for that matter. Not sure how dangerous, just don't prefer the look.