Primes... Its all about the background...

[VTEC_EATER]

Hey all,

Im typically a big fan of zoom lenses, mostly because Im lazy. I really dont feel like moving around and changing the composition by actually moving MY body instead of adjusting the zoom on the lens. A part of me feels that this is a down fall to my "progression" in composition and, thus, in photography.

So, I am thinking about purchasing a prime lens,but Im not sure which one. I know this has been brought up probably a million times. Fortunately, I have photos to try and add to the topic.

I tried to frame the photos the same for each one and see exactly what changes happen at the different focal lengths. They arent perfect, but you get the idea about what is seen/omitted in the backgrounds at the different focal lengths.

So here we are with the 3 basic primes: 30mm, 50mm, & 85mm (respectively).

Nikon D50 w/ Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 @ 31 mm (close enough), F11

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/454937614_e3291d20a6_o.jpg

Nikon D50 w/ Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 @ 50 mm, F11

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/239/454937650_0052d392f8_o.jpg

Nikon D50 w/ Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 @ 82mm (close enough), F11

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/454937652_202c1273aa_o.jpg

I guess my question stems from the fact that I have 3 weddings coming up this summer. No, I am not the photographer at these weddings, however, I would like to take a few shots of my own, merely for entertainment value and possible growth in this hobby of mine. So a nice low light prime lens sounds like a nice addition to the bag.

Personally, I kind of like the 30mm shot. While it does show an unsightley water bottle, it could offer more of the surroundings and add better context/location to the image.

The 85mm seems like a great portrait/headshot lens. Tight crop, very shallow depth of field (maybe this is just the $1600 lens talking), and really makes the subject stand out over all else in the photograph.

The 50mm, I felt, was a nice in-between-er. It can take out some of the distracting background, but still put a location to the photograph, where the 85 can not.

My question is, what do you like to see in the backgound?

[Rooz]

the 50mm f1.8 is a no brainer to start with. it's cheap, light, tack sharp and has great bokeh. you really cannot go wrong. given you have the 70-200 f2.8 i think an 85mm prime would be wasted. you already have a great lens that covers that range and more so why double up ? and your sigma will comfortabley cover 30mm at f2.8 aswell, again with more range and flexbility so a 30mm is a waste aswell.

on a side note that 3rd photo shows spectacular colour, detail, light and sharpness. goodness me that is a kick ass lens. incredible.

[VTEC_EATER]

on a side note that 3rd photo shows spectacular colour, detail, light and sharpness. goodness me that is a kick ass lens. incredible.

Really? I thought it came out a bit overexposed. However, the sharpness and detail of the zoom ring, neck strap, ect... and the bokeh, is really nothing short of amazing, if you ask me.

As for the 50 1.8... Mmmmm... I have a feeling that is just wont perform as well at F/1.4 as the 50 F/1.4 would...;)

Basically, Im looking at something in the F/1.4 range, ie. Sigma 30mm F/1.4, Nikon 50 F/1.4, Nikon 85 F/1.4 (Eeeekkkk!!!). The Sigma has an HSM motor which the Nikons REALLY lack. I wonder if Nikon is thinking of adding an AF-S motor to the standard/short-telephoto primes so the D40/D40x can take advantage of them. Seems like a logical thing to do, but only Nikon can make that decision.

The Nikons are capable of full frame, which one day Im sure Nikon will get into (hello D3X (not that I could afford one)), and the Sigma is not. Hmm... I know I could always go for the AI/AI-S lenses and shoot manual focus/exposure, but my camera, and subsequent cameras, have autofocus motors in them. Why lose that capability? I can always switch to manual mode.

Dilemas...

[Rooz]

i have used the f1.4 alot and it is fast as all hell. not sure how much faster you want it to focus ! keep in mind that no internal motor also makes em super light and super small. i prefer then NOT being motorised cos it keeps the weight and size more compact. the sigma is almost half a kilo...thats pretty heavy for a prime to carry around imo. hey, if you can afford the 1.4 more power to ya, but i think for that kinda money and when there is a very comparable alternative, you are better off hitting a 1.8 and say the 30mm sigma prime aswell. then bang, you got 2 high quality primes.

as for the VR, sure it blew out a little in that photo but thats nothing to do with the lens. look at the detail in the top of the tripod, the beautiful background, the lens barrel, the contrast and sharpness...

i want one.:o

[sbnr]

Nikor 50mm 1.4 is a great lens.

Check out the bokeh [spelling] on this shot.

I didn't sharpen or touch-up this shot other than re-sample the size so I can up-load it here.

[wh0128]

Primes are extra special in wedding situations because most of the time they have at least a 2.8 or bigger aperture, which is helpful in the chapel with low light.

But if its outside during the day, then a zoom would do just fine. I've yet to get the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, but probably will be getting it because of a trip to Europe.

The 3rd picture is a little bit overexposed, probably because you were metering on the black camera. But I love the sharpness and bokeh as well.

[Daubs]

Love my 50mm f/1.4

It's probably on my D80 most of the time, unless I'm outside shooting sports, etc. My subjects move a lot (kids and dog), so I'm always cranking her open and trying to get more shutter speed. Great background blur (not even going to try to spell bokeh).

Can't wait until I get the 18-200mm VR and the 70-200mm f/2.8 (father's day and aniv...crossing fingers!). Should help with those low light situations.

[tcadwall]

Daubs.

A bit confused... Why would you want both the 18-200VR and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR?

I would skip the 18-200 if you are getting the 70-200.... And I love my 18-200! With the 18-135, 50, and 70-200, the only thing I would consider is replacing the 18-135 with the 17-55 f/2.8

Dang, that would be a good setup...:D

[Daubs]

Daubs.

A bit confused... Why would you want both the 18-200VR and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR?

I would skip the 18-200 if you are getting the 70-200.... And I love my 18-200! With the 18-135, 50, and 70-200, the only thing I would consider is replacing the 18-135 with the 17-55 f/2.8

Dang, that would be a good setup...:D

Good question. The idea is to get lenses that meet my needs, then sell the ones that I won't use much. The 18-200 VR seems to be a great all-around lens. And gives me the wide angle that the 70-200 can't get.

Would keep the 50mm f/1.4 for those really low light situations around the house. The 70-200 2.8 would be my sports lens -- for shooting indoor basketball games and getting nice bokeh @ outdoor sporting events. Thought about the 70-200mm VR, but if I'm shooting sports, the VR won't help much. And the non-VR version costs about half as much.

If (and hopefully when) I get those lenses, the 18-135 and 70-210mm AF-D would be sold.

Make sense?