[BlackbeardBen]

Trysaeder, I'm assuming you don't do (or follow) photojournalism work?  There's a reason that it is taking Nikon a few decades to bring its wide primes up to date - no one hardly buys them any more...  Especially when you have zooms that outperform every prime you ever produced...
 
Funny that you say the you want the weight and build quality of the primes when the zooms are built exactly the same way...  Sure, the Tamron 17-50 is no tank, but it's a Tamron...  The Nikon 17-55 is built just like the new 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4...  It's about the same size too.  Unlike those lenses, it's perfectly fine to use wide open.
 
Don't get me wrong, I really want an 85/1.4.  I had a 105/1.8 for a while and liked it a lot, but the difficulty of focusing combined with the minimal increase over the 105/2.5 resulted in me selling it.  Same thing about the 180/2.8.  It's just that the 70/80-200mm f/2.8 zooms have the versatility to do nearly everything with prime-like performance but incredibly consistent results that primes can't always provide.  Now, if I could afford to carry around half a dozen bodies with all the different primes I'd want...
 
Honestly, it's the small size along with a modest speed and performance increase that attracts me more... look at the tiny 35/1.8 DX.  I think the problem is that Nikon thinks additional prime DX lenses won't sell that well.  Perhaps a 24/2 DX would considering the success of the 35/1.8 DX, but it would have to be more expensive as well.  And then, why not f/2 primes at all the other focal lengths?  Do they make them all DX, eliminating the FX market?  FX, so that they price out much of the DX market?  Both, and incur high development/production/marketing/distribution costs and confusion among consumers as a result?  I don't think there's any good answer, but at the same time I doubt they're sitting on their asses and not doing anything.
 
At the same time, I've been shooting more and more with a Sigma DP1s - a fixed 28mm equivalent lens.  That's perhaps my favorite all-around focal length; if I could only have one that would be it.  The camera is so tiny - for the first time ever I feel comfortable taking a tiny pocket camera as my only camera.
 
Anyway, speaking of wanting a prime 35mm equivalent lens, why don't you get a Fuji X100?  Use that for your wide stuff and leave the 85mm glued on your Nikon.  I think the X100 or its successor is going to be my next camera, and an interchangeable lens version might replace all my SLR equipment except for telephoto and macro work.  I'd love a Foveon sensor, but given my customer service experience with Sigma and the build quality issues I've had with the DP1s, I'll never be buying a Sigma product again.

 

[Trysaeder]

I'd love to get an x100 like. The idea of a small, retro looking thing sounds great for the stuff I like to do (street, but not very good right now ). The reason I want a 24 is because I used to use a 35 on fullframe and it feels natural for me.
 
Right now I'm most likely to get a 16-85 and use the 24/4 VR on it. It seems similar or better than the 16-35/4 VR for the same focal lengths at half the price.

 

[Szadzik]

 
Quote:

Anyway, speaking of wanting a prime 35mm equivalent lens, why don't you get a Fuji X100?  Use that for your wide stuff and leave the 85mm glued on your Nikon. 

You just gave me the best reason to spend money! I have been thinking about getting a compact/ semi-compac camera for casual use, but now that you mentioned it, maybe it would be a good idea to have my D90+70-200 on and a smaller camera with something wide on. My wallet is screaming noooooooo!
 

 

[Redcarmoose]

I just wanted to post this amazing story which has taken place. I'm using a 50mm 1:2  ais on a DX body and really enjoying seeing things with a fixed perspective. At a Head-Fi meet I was talking about using a fixed lens as working for myself. Instead of zooming or changing lens, I seem to see everything I want to photograph in this tele perspective. I know it seems weird but that's what I'm into. My fellow Head-Fi friends all using zoom lens looked at me with faces and smerks and ended up laughing knowing how strange I am at times.
 
 I was looking at my RAWs really close up and I noticed a lens distortion always in the same place. The distortion was right at the middle of the left edge. It was not on the right.
 
This issue was really small but could be noted upon close inspection. I used the lens for maybe 3 months this way. Yesterday I started looking really close at the rear element and noticed a small dark red smudge. The smudge was on the middle right where the distortion was as the image is upside down on the sensor!
 
I have had a habit of not cleaning my rear elements much and doing a visual inspection. Due to the dark dull red color of this smudge I never noticed it. I just wondered what the lens distortion was but never thought to give a close inspection to the rear element. WOW!

 

[Butler]

Quote:

I just wanted to post this amazing story which has taken place. I'm using a 50mm 1:2  ais on a DX body and really enjoying seeing things with a fixed perspective. At a Head-Fi meet I was talking about using a fixed lens as working for myself. Instead of zooming or changing lens, I seem to see everything I want to photograph in this tele perspective. I know it seems weird but that's what I'm into. My fellow Head-Fi friends all using zoom lens looked at me with faces and smerks and ended up laughing knowing how strange I am at times.
 
 I was looking at my RAWs really close up and I noticed a lens distortion always in the same place. The distortion was right at the middle of the left edge. It was not on the right.
 
This issue was really small but could be noted upon close inspection. I used the lens for maybe 3 months this way. Yesterday I started looking really close at the rear element and noticed a small dark red smudge. The smudge was on the middle right where the distortion was as the image is upside down on the sensor!
 
I have had a habit of not cleaning my rear elements much and doing a visual inspection. Due to the dark dull red color of this smudge I never noticed it. I just wondered what the lens distortion was but never thought to give a close inspection to the rear element. WOW!

Primes are very special lenses. They may be smirking at you because you're not standing in the same place and letting the zoom do all the work, but you're going to have better pictures than they will. Varied angles and such.
 
College level photography courses generally discourage use of zoom lens and try to refine your actual skill with prime lenses and appropriately framing that way- without cropping or zooming doing all the work.
 
It's a lot more involved and active process. 
 
 

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Primes are very special lenses. They may be smirking at you because you're not standing in the same place and letting the zoom do all the work, but you're going to have better pictures than they will. Varied angles and such.
 
College level photography courses generally discourage use of zoom lens and try to refine your actual skill with prime lenses and appropriately framing that way- without cropping or zooming doing all the work.
 
It's a lot more involved and active process. 
 
 

Right on.  Zoom lenses also make previsualization very difficult, because the focal length is always changing, so you can't get to know exactly where your camera's frame will fall, thus you can't previsualize the frame- look at a scene and see an image- you tend to have to frame looking through the viewfinder, zooming in and out.  This cuts off a lot of imagination. 

 

[bigshot]

Creativity has nothing to do with whether you use a zoom or a prime. Having to step a few steps forward or back doesnt make better pictures. Its just as possible to previsualize with a zoom as it is a prime. Any lens you use enough to become second nature to you will serve you.

Primes are good for shooting in low light. They also can help create narrow slivers of focus for portraits. They're generally a little lighter and more compact than zooms. That is their advantage. Most photographers would be well served at having both zooms and primes. It isn't an either/or thing.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Right on.  Zoom lenses also make previsualization very difficult, because the focal length is always changing, so you can't get to know exactly where your camera's frame will fall, thus you can't previsualize the frame- look at a scene and see an image- you tend to have to frame looking through the viewfinder, zooming in and out.  This cuts off a lot of imagination. 

 
There's no "can't" or "have to" about zoom lenses - they're an enabler.  You don't have to frame zooming in and out - you can.  Pre-visualization is up to you, not the lens.  Discipline and understanding what you can and can't do and the composition you want is all up to you.
 
It doesn't matter for zoom or prime - they're tools to be used when appropriate.  Certain primes can do things zooms can't do - speed, macro, etc. - and vice versa.  Use whatever is appropriate for the job.
 
If one can't get past the false "zooms cull imagination" hypothesis, perhaps it is time to reconsider one's thought processes that occur before pressing the shutter button, because that is what is at fault, not the lens.

 

[bigshot]

If one can't get past the false "zooms cull imagination" hypothesis, perhaps it is time to reconsider one's thought processes that occur before pressing the shutter button, because that is what is at fault, not the lens.

This sort of thinking leads to people piling up with bags full of primes to cover all focal lengths. Which is going to be most conducive to getting great pictures, using one or two zooms or slugging arond a fifty pound camera bag full of primes?

 

[Redcarmoose]

Many folks here on this thread are taking great photographs with zooms. I think that the improvement of the zoom may be one of the biggest changes besides the introduction of digital to photography in the last 25 years. The zooms in the mid 80s were really bad. There may have been a couple of good ones but the over all view of them was bad. You had light fall off, you had slow f stops and you had chromatic errors. They were giant and long and heavy.

I always thought of the zoom as the great helper for the wedding photographer. No invention is better as a gift to him!



Now we have a level of sharpness (that as far as I can tell is) at the level of primes. I have a large collection of Nikon ais glass and am just having fun with photography as a hobby. With that in mind I guess I can walk around with 2 prime lens. If a professional in the field had a major goal in mind it is easy to see how a zoom or collection of lens would be essential. The crazy part of my story listed above is I was using one lens only and it had a smudge on the rear element. LOL


I have known friends who started to travel with expensive Lecia gear and due to it's price would only own one or two lens. They took great pictures but again they may have only been into a certain type of photography. I guess what I'm getting at is that even if you have many lens choices that it could be a normal thing to slowly get into one or two primes, depending on the style of photography your into. I really see it often now as many photographers post photographs using only a couple of lens choices when walking around taking photographs on the street.

The other thing I have learned this year is that it's OK to use telephotos for landscape photography. What is really amazing is I was using an 18mm for some landscapes but when I put it away I found that I could also get great landscapes with an 80mm. I have been using Nikons for 35 years and I have just learned this one. Using one lens I feel can help bring about a new style and a new understanding of photography. Ok, so you feel your forced to use the lens for the first 5 hours but then a whole new world opens up after you start to see everything with a new eye.

The old habits that give us the same photographs that we have always taken is using the zoom a specific way and zooming at the subject the same way. Getting a 35mm, a 18mm for landscapes because our old way of thinking was that that was the right lens to use. Len perspective is really stranger than I have ever thought about.

You can take a photograph of a large object like a giant boat with a 500mm telephoto and because it is big many viewers including photographers will think you used a wide angle lens.

We are taught what is right or wrong but in photography there is no right or wrong it is all in our mind in relationship to our past styles of the art.

I was never fond of folks using wide angles for portrait work. We all see this documentary style where they go around with a 35mm and shoot everything. To some people the style is great. I may never get used to how peoples faces are distorted. You look at the prints and some are cool and passable when they are farther away from their subject but then they get one foot away and the persons nose is half the photograph and the other photographer just thinks it's the coolest effect. LOL I will not judge anyones work different than mine as that is there way of doing things. Heck I shoot landscapes with an 80mm, who am I to talk.

So there is no rules on lens use. That may be the key to finding interesting shots. Maybe we could get a small roulette wheel with 18-35-50-80-200-300-500 and take the picture with what ever lens the small roulette wheel told us to. Talk about a learning experience.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

There may have been a couple of good ones but the over all view of them was bad. You had light fall off,

As an aside:
A lot of people see light fall off as a bad thing.  Maybe I'm just odd, but I usually like a small amount of it, especially if the subject it smack dab in the middle of the frame.

I can't tell you how many times I've used modern lenses and gone into software to purposefully add light fall off effects (vignetting).
 
I got an old AIS 80-200mm F4.5n just to see firsthand what a true vignetting looks like.  I love the natural effect it gives!
 
 

 

[Redcarmoose]

OK maybe I'm going out soon with my 1985 Fedco Nikon mount zoom! I guess if you wait long enough everything comes back around! Where are my flash bulbs?

 

[Redcarmoose]

 
 
 
 
Yes, that effect would have been cool here. The amazing thing is many crappy ais oldschool lens work because they were full frame. With a Nikon DX body your only using the center part of the lens. It is the lens edge refraction distortion that is an issue, the center not as problematic.  

 

[WhiteCrow]

I got the D3100 a week or two ago, Killer deal on it as well. The best sub $1000 camera I have seen and the interchangeable lenses make it an even better deal. HD video is just the icing on the cake.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

 
 
 
 
Yes, that effect would have been cool here. The amazing thing is many crappy ais oldschool lens work because they were full frame. With a Nikon DX body your only using the center part of the lens. It is the lens edge refraction distortion that is an issue, the center not as problematic.  

Yes, that has been in the back of my mind.  If I am getting noticeable vignetting on a DX frame, what would it be like on 35mm / FX!  I can't even imagine how bad.