How is this different from the 10-30mm 1 lens? They both do 10mm focal length. (Beginner here)
1972458
It's a faster length than the 10-30 mm , so it's better to use for low light photography .
1972459
This is a "prime lens"- there is no zoom. In general primes are single focal lengths (no zooms) but they are generally better than using a "kit lens" zoom at the same focal length. They are also usually smaller and faster.
1557865
I have both the E=M 10 as well as the E-M 5ii and the lens is great with either. Its a worthwhile purchase for the price. I find it sharp, exellent color and a good all around lens for eveeyday use.
1941236
Because a 10mm focal length lens is different from an 18mm focal length lens. Aperture, while important, is simply how much light the lens can let in (it affects depth of field as well); it has nothing to do with the angle and field of view of the lens. This lens and your lens should look very similar when they are both zoomed to the same focal lengths (18-24mm, the only focal lengths where they overlap). If you buy this lens and only use it from 18-24mm you are wasting your money. The reason people buy this lens for its extremely wide focal lengths (10-14mm). They give a perspective that cannot be gained in any other way, especially on DX. Few lenses get this wide and even less get this wide on DX. This is the only lens from Nikon that gets this wide on DX. That's why it's so expensive. Despite what someone else said, this is not a pro lens. I'm not sure any of the DX lenses are pro lenses. It is very much consumer grade quality; it has cheaper construction and more distortion. The Nikon 12-24mm is semi-pro (better, more durable construction) and is accordingly more expensive. But this one has a wider angle of view (shorter focal length), and that's what will be key to most folks. Just be careful with it and the distortion can be corrected with software.
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
1234809
I prefer the 19mm lens because I wanted a WA lens and the 19 translates to a 27 mm in the A6000 body. The 30 is the equivalent of a 45 mm lens, too long for WA work. Both come with hood and pouch
709667
Hi!I did some shots with both lenses to compare, and I noticed that the 50mm has more beautiful background with a better "bokeh", but in a crop sensor camera like D3000, the angle of view is very narrow. The 35mm also has a great background too, with nice "bokeh", just a little bit less then the 50mm, but the 35mm as more angle of view, thus you eventually don't need to stay too far from the subject to take a full body shot. I think both of them are great, image quality and sharpness. I think that if you don't have none of them, try to start with the traditional 50mm, then go for the 35mm. Or buy both of them. It's your choice!Hope I made myself clear.Higor Hi!I did some shots with both lenses to compare, and I noticed that the 50mm has more beautiful background with a better "bokeh", but in a crop sensor camera like D3000, the angle of view is very narrow. The 35mm also has a great background too, with nice "bokeh", just a little bit less then the 50mm, but the 35mm as more angle of view, thus you eventually don't need to stay too far from the subject to take a full body shot. I think both of them are great, image quality and sharpness. I think that if you don't have none of them, try to start with the traditional... » Read More Hi!I did some shots with both lenses to compare, and I noticed that the 50mm has more beautiful background with a better "bokeh", but in a crop sensor camera like D3000, the angle of view is very narrow. The 35mm also has a great background too, with nice "bokeh", just a little bit less then the 50mm, but the 35mm as more angle of view, thus you eventually don't need to stay too far from the subject to take a full body shot. I think both of them are great, image quality and sharpness. I think that if you don't have none of them, try to start with the traditional 50mm, then go for the 35mm. Or buy both of them. It's your choice!Hope I made myself clear.Higor « Show Less
464456
No comparison. Ability to go to F1.4 makes the depth of field control so much better. These two lens are in completely different class.
241543
Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this... » Read More Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. « Show Less
754196
Speaking from my experience with the Rokinon 8mm, which is a little wider than your 10-22, it is noticeably less wide. At lower focal ranges the difference between a few mm's is more significant than when higher. This lens has very little to no distortion which is the reason i finally made the switch form the much wider 8mm, and honestly you get more detail when zoomed in a little more.
2170939
I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my lenses around $650!!! I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my... » Read More I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my lenses around $650!!! « Show Less
1427426
No, this is a manual lens and I bought it knowing that, I have a D3100, too. My recent experience with autofocus 300mm lenses is their focus is spotty and they don't hold up well or for long. I think it has something to do with the size and weight of the lens, but that is my opinion. I decided it was better to go back to a two ring manual focus lens because they are reliable.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
1574138
I have both the 20mm and 50mm lenses and I think my 20mm better for portraits, but that is because I like getting close to my subject. You can't go wrong with this lense it hands down my favorite.
528654
I ended up with the 20mm and love it. I used it for 2 weeks before getting the additional 14-45mm lens. Why did I get the 14-45mm? Well, as Gary D. Wright stated above, the 20mm is great for family photos and photos that get you interacting with what you're taking pictures of. However, a major family event was coming up where I needed to get the zoom. the 14-45mm, although much bulkier, fit the bill to get photos (in this case I was taking pictures from a pew of family members on the alter). As for image stabilization, I haven't noticed a difference between the two since the 20mm isn't being used in 'zoom' as I would be for the 14-45mm. I used the camera much more when I have the 20mm on it. I ended up with the 20mm and love it. I used it for 2 weeks before getting the additional 14-45mm lens. Why did I get the 14-45mm? Well, as Gary D. Wright stated above, the 20mm is great for family photos and photos that get you interacting with what you're taking pictures of. However, a major family event was coming up where I needed to get the zoom. the 14-45mm, although much bulkier, fit the bill to get photos (in this case I was taking pictures from a pew of family members on the alter). As for image stabilization, I haven't noticed a difference between the two since the 20mm isn't... » Read More I ended up with the 20mm and love it. I used it for 2 weeks before getting the additional 14-45mm lens. Why did I get the 14-45mm? Well, as Gary D. Wright stated above, the 20mm is great for family photos and photos that get you interacting with what you're taking pictures of. However, a major family event was coming up where I needed to get the zoom. the 14-45mm, although much bulkier, fit the bill to get photos (in this case I was taking pictures from a pew of family members on the alter). As for image stabilization, I haven't noticed a difference between the two since the 20mm isn't being used in 'zoom' as I would be for the 14-45mm. I used the camera much more when I have the 20mm on it. « Show Less
483786
Hi Charles I purchased this lens in addition to standard kit lens that comes with Sony nex3 or nex5. Reason to buy this lens is are: 1. its sharp 2. It has 2.8 aperture , which is about a stop better than the kit lens at this focal length of 30mm.this one better stop let's you give two things 1 . Better blurred backgrounds in portraits. 2. You can keep your iso low, that means less noise and grains in your pictures To answer your question if telephoto is better, ask yourself or your wife which focal length you take your pictures, if more of them are at telephoto then you have the answer. Hope this helps.
709663
Well, there really isn't a BIG difference. I prefer the 35mm for the wider field of view. It's also less expensive than the 50mm. With the cropped sensor on your D3000 the 35mm will perform a lot like the 50mm would on a full frame camera. Speaking of which, if you plan to move to a full frame camera the 35mm likely wont be going with you as it's a DX only lens. The 50mm is a DX/FX lens so you can keep using it on full frame cameras.I think in general for your camera a 35mm would serve you better, but you wouldn't go wrong with the 50mm either. Try a rental shop or borrowlenses.com. Grab both lenses for a weekend trip and see which you use more. Shouldn't cost much for a three day rental. Well, there really isn't a BIG difference. I prefer the 35mm for the wider field of view. It's also less expensive than the 50mm. With the cropped sensor on your D3000 the 35mm will perform a lot like the 50mm would on a full frame camera. Speaking of which, if you plan to move to a full frame camera the 35mm likely wont be going with you as it's a DX only lens. The 50mm is a DX/FX lens so you can keep using it on full frame cameras.I think in general for your camera a 35mm would serve you better, but you wouldn't go wrong with the 50mm either. Try a rental shop or... » Read More Well, there really isn't a BIG difference. I prefer the 35mm for the wider field of view. It's also less expensive than the 50mm. With the cropped sensor on your D3000 the 35mm will perform a lot like the 50mm would on a full frame camera. Speaking of which, if you plan to move to a full frame camera the 35mm likely wont be going with you as it's a DX only lens. The 50mm is a DX/FX lens so you can keep using it on full frame cameras.I think in general for your camera a 35mm would serve you better, but you wouldn't go wrong with the 50mm either. Try a rental shop or borrowlenses.com. Grab both lenses for a weekend trip and see which you use more. Shouldn't cost much for a three day rental. « Show Less
1014710
This lens works on Nikon 1 J1 ? My lens 10mm-30mm broked the focus 10mm...I would like to buy other lens. It works?