# Looking for recommendations for Nikon prime lense.



## JuiceGoose (Oct 4, 2006)

I have a D90 with a kit lense 18-105 and also a tele 70-300. I was looking at picking up a prime lense to get a little crisper shots with. i hear a lot of good things about the 35mm f1.8 that nikon offers. Has anyone got any experience with this lense? Any recommendations on a lense around the same price range that'll get the same results?

Thanks for the input.


----------



## camowag (Aug 25, 2005)

Here are a couple of sites to check out, I shot a D7000 and own a 50mm, I's sure the 35mm would be a great addition, depending on what you shot.

http://www.pixtus.com/forum/ - lost of info and is local

http://www.bythom.com/index.htm- click the nikon tab for all kinds of info, thom is a pro, and does extensive reviews, as you will find.

Good Luck


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

If you shoot mostly landscapes and scenery the 35mm will be great. If you shoot mostly people I'd probably go to the 50mm. I have a full frame camera and use the 50mm f1.4d a lot. It's cheap but still a really sharp lens and the speed will let you get some shots in natural light you just couldn't get before.


----------



## JuiceGoose (Oct 4, 2006)

There in lies my dilemma. You see I'm just a recreational shooter, hense the lenses i have. Yet I always wanted to get better people style shots. the 18-105 just doesn't usually cut it. Now I know alot has to do with shooter and not lense but an f1.8 compared to a f3.5 has got to produce some better shots. Also because my d90 isn't full frame the 35mm should be around the equial to 50mm full frame. Lastly and this is the most important. My first child will be born next week and I want to be able to capture all the special moments with as best a lense(within price range reason) as I can get. for that task.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

I think in your case, I'd get the 35mm. With a baby, for some time you'll be wanting full body shots and probably a little background too as opposed to just face only portraits. For just faces, I'd definitely get the 50mm but for getting all of a baby and mom/relatives in the same frame, I think the 35mm would just be more versatile. The wider angle would make those around the house snap shots easier and still double for other chores. Get the 35mm then tell one of the grandparents you could get them better "portraits" of the baby if you had the 50mm too. Then you'll have both of them. (-:**


----------



## JuiceGoose (Oct 4, 2006)

Thanks for the advice. Let me ask you this as well.
So if i get this 35mm prime I'll essential have 18-300mm covered(by 3 lenses)with the 70-105mm range as an overlap on the two zooms. Would you recommend possibly selling both the kit 18-105 and the tele 70-200 and getting the nikon 18-200? I'm thinking that would be better in keeping the bag light.


----------



## cougar (Jun 15, 2004)

I just picked up the 50mm for candid party shots and find it's a bit too close. Would have preferred the 35mm instead.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

The 18-200 Nikon lens is a VERY good lens. It is the only lens my wife ever has on her camera. I got an off brand "super zoom" that isn't nearly as good as the Nikon. I have the 28-300mm Nikon VR for my FX camera and its a very good "do all" lens too (same as 18-200 on dx). I've always considered the 18-105 as one of Nikons worse lenses. At wide angles, the cheapest 18-55 is better. The 18-200 will replace those lenses with no problems.


----------



## JuiceGoose (Oct 4, 2006)

Thanks Arlen
I was able to pickup a used 35mm yesterday and man it was worth every penny already. The focus speed was almost instant!!


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Arlon said:


> The 18-200 Nikon lens is a VERY good lens. It is the only lens my wife ever has on her camera. I got an off brand "super zoom" that isn't nearly as good as the Nikon. I have the 28-300mm Nikon VR for my FX camera and its a very good "do all" lens too (same as 18-200 on dx). I've always considered the 18-105 as one of Nikons worse lenses. At wide angles, the cheapest 18-55 is better. The 18-200 will replace those lenses with no problems.


@JuiceGoose - You might have figured out by now that Arlon is a Nikon hoarder!  Ask him to show you his 600!

... and he is an excellent photog too boot.

Mike


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

Whatever Arlon says...


----------



## KevinT (Feb 21, 2006)

I'm by no means an expert, but I got the 60MM 2.8 for my d90 and use it for everything. The clarity is wonderful.


----------



## JuiceGoose (Oct 4, 2006)

I just ordered a 24-70 f2.8 used. Hoping it'll be a replacement for the 18-105


----------

