I'm Loving the Nikkor 50mm Prime F1.8 Lens

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14105' target='_blank'>http://www.nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14105</a><br /><br /></div>Two weekends ago I took my Nikon D200 and my 50mm prime lens, the <a href="http://www.nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14105">inexpensive F1.8 one</a> (MSRP $179 CAD), out for a spin. I was a bit intimidated using it because I’ve had poor (blurry) results from this lens in the past because I think I had adapted my shooting style leaning on the image stabilization in the 18-200mm lens as a crutch. That's a very bad thing. The 50mm prime lens has no image stabilization, so if I’m not steady, the photos are blurry. I focused more on stability, and the photos came out fantastic - the early evening summer lighting was soft and glorious, making every shot look superb. Here's my favourite shot from the set.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.jasondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/173411121-s.jpg" /><br /><br />I quite liked shooting with a prime, forcing myself to move to compose the shot rather than just zooming in and out - it was a different shooting experience. What about the rest of you D-SLR shooters out there? Are you prime shooters, strictly zoom, or do you use both? If you haven't tried a prime lens, you should!

[Don Tolson]

Hi Jason... great shot...(that's not your son, is it?)

I tend to use both, but I, like you, have come to use the zoom more and more, especially when at sports and outdoors- related activities with my family. You just need more flexibility to catch those moments and don't have the time to set up the shots.

None of my lenses have image stablization though, so I am having to throw out a significant number of blurry images. I also have to find a better flash than the one built into my D70, since most of the indoor shots are coming out way too dark on the Auto settings on the camera.

[Kris Kumar]

Awesome shot, Jason.

I am in the zoom lens camp. I wish I had bought 18mm to 200mm lens (instead of the 18-55mm and 28-200mm I currently have), so that I do not have to change lens often. I am lazy. :-) :oops: I have to overcome this laziness.

[Jason Dunn]

Hi Jason... great shot...(that's not your son, is it?)

Hehe. No. My wife got a chuckle out of that! That's our friend Desiree, and she's holding Mattea, the daughter of our other friend, Crystal.

I tend to use both, but I, like you, have come to use the zoom more and more

Well, I'm actually using my zoom lens less and less. If I was shooting sports though (actually, I shot my first sporting event recently, a slow-pitch baseball game) I'd use my zoom lens.

None of my lenses have image stablization though, so I am having to throw out a significant number of blurry images.

If you're willing to spend the money, the 18-200mm Nikon lens is AWESOME - very flexible range, and has image stabilization. It's a great lens.

I also have to find a better flash than the one built into my D70, since most of the indoor shots are coming out way too dark on the Auto settings on the camera.

The SB-600 with a Gary Phong Lightsphere is a great combination, though I'm still learning to master them...

[Jason Dunn]

I am in the zoom lens camp. I wish I had bought 18mm to 200mm lens (instead of the 18-55mm and 28-200mm I currently have), so that I do not have to change lens often. I am lazy. :-) :oops: I have to overcome this laziness.

Put those two lenses up on eBay and buy the 18-200mm....it's a fantastic lens, you won't regret it! :D

[Neil Enns]

I shoot a mix of prime and zoom lenses. I'm fortunate that my mid-range zoom is fast (2.8) so I can get by a lot with it in low light conditions. I will whip out the 50mm 1.4 ever so often though when I know I'll be in rough conditions. I've also been using it a TON on my film body lately, to make a light package I can take anywhere.

As for camera shake, don't be shy about bumping the ISO on your camera. Apps like Noise Ninja can do wonders, and I'd rather have a slightly noisy image than no image at all due to shake.

Neil

[marlof]

I use a wideangle zoom (22-44mm equiv FOV), a wideangle-normal-short tele zoom (28-108 equiv FOV), a telezoom (100-400 equiv FOV) (all starting at 2.8 ) and a prime macro/portrait lens (100 euiqv FOV) ( 2.0 ). My next light might well be a normal prime (50 equiv) ( 1.4 ). But I have to say my zooms are good enough not to actually want to replace too much with primes.

[GadgetDave]

I'm a Canon shooter, so not here with some of the Nikon folks. However, Jason - welcome to the fun world. I love my 30D (I lust after the 5D, but figure until I make money with my photos ...), however, one of the best purchases I've ever made was the Canon 50mm 1.8 - because it's the fastest lens I own. And it's been a blessing in some areas where my other lenses weren't fast enough. And it's cheap as snot, and a huge value for the money. Some of my best pictures with that. Only thing I'd do different with an APS sized DSLR is maybe a 35mm instead.

Now if only Canon had an 18-200 ... but I've heard the Tamron is a good lens ... but for now I'm stuck with 2 to get that range. but my 70-200 2.8 IS is the best lens ever ...

[Mark from Canada]

Now if only Canon had an 18-200 ... but I've heard the Tamron is a good lens ... but for now I'm stuck with 2 to get that range. but my 70-200 2.8 IS is the best lens ever ...

We have a Digital Rebel on which we tried my old 28-200 Tamron (film) on, but that wasn't quite delivering sharp images.
The included 18-55 was just so much better.
So, a long while ago we bought a Tamron 28-300 for it; which was better, but not that crisp either, as we found out later.
We just got our new Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 OS DC (had to wait a few weeks to get it), and that's the lens which we will be using from now on.
It is similar in sharpness to the 18-55, has similar lightfastness (slowness?) than it and starts at the 18 as well.
It is significant sharper than our two Tamron lenses. Granted, they are older lenses and I had them never checked out if they are as they should be or if they need adjustments done (which may make them better), but we were missing the 18 with them anyway.
And the optical stabilizer will save a lot of pictures from now on :)
The only two things - it has a 72mm filter (expensive) and it is heavy.
But we love it and look forward to using it more.
Sigma brought it out to compete against the Nikon 18-200, so they had to come up with something good - and in this case it's good for Canon owners :)