Please tell me if this 1 more expensive lens could be used to garner the same or better quality images than 3 less expensive lenses that I am looking at - 35mm prime f/2.4, 50mm prime f/1.8, the kit 18-55mm lens. I am on a budget and new to...
450058
To be honest, you should get the 50mm 1.8 lens first. You can take absolutely stunning photos with that lens that don't come close to the lenses you mentioned. The 18-55mm kit lens would be my last choice.
916596
I attached my macro lens to my Nikon kit 18-55mm lens. Just be sure to remove any filters you have on the lens first, otherwise the macro won't be able to attach. I think this is why the lenses are so cheap. You're getting the heavy duty lens functions (like autofocus, etc) from your primary lens, then the macro is just a fun add-on. If you only want a macro without having to attach it to another lens, you have to pay a lot more. I'm sure you also get more quality out of it, but given the price of this lens, you can still get some amazing pictures out of it.
36984
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses. UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
269557
Wow -- you are looking at two completely different focal ranges -- what do you plan to shoot?..If you want distance shots (i.e. nature, landscapes, walk-around shots in the city, being able to zoom in on, well, basically anything, then you really DO need a longer focal range lens like the 55-200 in addition to your kit lens. If you plan on shooting things in "normal mode" -- i.e. the 35mm lens will replicate pretty much exactly what the human eye is looking at, then it is far faster than your kit lens, and it's a great walk-around lens. But if you are a first time dSLR buyer, you have to think about what you are going to shoot. If you are coming from the world of point-and-shoots that start at a standard 3-5X zoom, you will right off the bat see that the 18-55 kit lens is very limiting in zoom. Your typical point and shoot goes from 28 - 210 or so. There is software available that lets you see what focal range you shoot most of your photos in - just google for that. It basically looks at your photo folders and determines what the focal ranges of your photos are. I find that I take about 40 percent of my photos at 35mm and below -- and about 40% of my photos at 200 or above....and the rest sort of scattered. I would not be able to survive with only a kit lens and a 35mm lens (which is the same as a normal 50mm lens on a DX camera like the D5000)...With that setup, you would have a range of 27-80 with duplication of the 35mm smack dab in the middle). That is about 1/3 the normal zoom range of a point and shoot. My take -- get the D5000 with the standard kit lens, and add the 55-200 option. Down the road, you will know if you need a 35mm lens as well. The only reason you would need it with that setup is if you find yourself taking a lot of low-light photos where you need a faster lens (the 1.8)...otherwise you might not need it for your purposes at all.
464450
The quality of a prime lens is always much better than the quality of a kit zoom lens. And since the kit zoom lens has a variable aperture you cant throw the background out of focus since the max aperture is 5.6 or 6.3 or a very wide depth of field. With a f1.4 lens (like this one) you can shoot in shade, or nighttime or darker areas that would be impossible to shoot in with the zoom unless you increase the ISO way up which will result in less noise. Dont rely on a zoom. Use your feet to get the shot and use a prime lens and it will make you a much better photographer. The pros all use prime lenses like this 35mm equivalent lens on their cameras for street shots. The quality of a prime lens is always much better than the quality of a kit zoom lens. And since the kit zoom lens has a variable aperture you cant throw the background out of focus since the max aperture is 5.6 or 6.3 or a very wide depth of field. With a f1.4 lens (like this one) you can shoot in shade, or nighttime or darker areas that would be impossible to shoot in with the zoom unless you increase the ISO way up which will result in less noise. Dont rely on a zoom. Use your feet to get the shot and use a prime lens and it will make you a much better photographer. The pros all use... » Read More The quality of a prime lens is always much better than the quality of a kit zoom lens. And since the kit zoom lens has a variable aperture you cant throw the background out of focus since the max aperture is 5.6 or 6.3 or a very wide depth of field. With a f1.4 lens (like this one) you can shoot in shade, or nighttime or darker areas that would be impossible to shoot in with the zoom unless you increase the ISO way up which will result in less noise. Dont rely on a zoom. Use your feet to get the shot and use a prime lens and it will make you a much better photographer. The pros all use prime lenses like this 35mm equivalent lens on their cameras for street shots. « Show Less
582699
Okay, thanks a lot, new at this and I wasn't sure if the lens quality is the same. I appreciate everyone's help!
108096
Honestly unless you are making good money off of it go with the 28mm 1.8 it is fantastic. The 24mm is exceptional but 9 times out of ten you will have the same image for 3x the price and twice the weight/size.
2193893
I don't possess a 35mm nor have I received this lens as yet, the recipient hasn't given me lens. I have an 18-55mm. From the comments I've read prior to purchasing it, it seems of great performance but I guess lighting (whether frm natural lighting or a speedlight) will also determine ur photo outcome. Speedlite helps alot! I tuk evn a few shots yesterday with mine n they're of great quality. Go browse some reviews from evn Youtube, like I did. Am planning to buy a 35mm prime lens later also.
1183760
For me, a big selling point was the 16-50mm f/2.8 (weather resistant) lens and weather resistant body. I knew I would be out when photographing nature stuff and it might start raining. Plus the f/2.8 lens is spectacular and you get a $200 discount when buying is as a kit.
1856383
It is a hell of a great lens for its price. If you have extra money you can consider other lenses such as: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-17-35mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOS) again, if you have extra money. I have used both but I was happier with this 18-35mm lens because it's so light weight. Unless you have an old camera with not-so-great ISO performance or you like to do astrophotography, I think this lens can make many people happy.
1849073
A fantastic prime lens. Super crisp even in the corners. Depends upon how big of a group and what the perspective is. I would typically use a longer lens for most wedding group shots. Something like 35mm prime or the 16-35mm L2.8. I think the 14mm is a killer lens, but probably not the lens that i would use for group shots usually.
1041291
I've never been a fan of zooms on DSLRs (the nice ones were always too expensive for me), so I went with the 35mm f/1.4 and the 18mm f/2. Fuji has been discounting their lenses recently, which makes these primes a bargain, and having access to both a moderate wide angle that I can throw in my jacket and a normal lens is fantastic.
622728
The kit zoom lens is f 3.5-5.6 depending on the focal length it is set at. It's a good snapshot lens. No kit lens is as good as prime lenses in my opinion.
36986
I have most of the primes along with many of the zooms. This lens is the lens I use the most. With the $1,000 budget I would just get this lens for sure. Those primes are great but this would be the best if you have that limitation. Then later add a prime if you have more budget. Unless you have a very specific purpose for the 12 and 45 prime this is the way to go but if you are asking this question I would assume the specific primes are not necessary in comparison to the versatility you will get with the 12-40.
1907929
I did not buy the kit lens. I already have a full range of L lenses by Canon and did not need it. In general I find I prefer not to use kit lenses as they are of lower quality and do not suit my needs. For someone just starting in SLR photography, the kit may make sense, but if possible I think it's better to spend more and get a really good general purpose lens such as the 24-70 or 24-105.
543828
The lens is good, but prime lenses are not flexible in terms of what picture you are trying to capture. Both lenses are very good and are similar but not, obviously, the focal length. Really it depends on the photographer, but I say go to a camera store such as samy's camera or calumet to demo both lenses and for sure that is where you make your decision of which is better.
759248
We thank everyone for there suggestions. We went to the 50 1.4 for a fast lens. Having not used our 17-40 that often, no need to spend mucho money on the 16-35.