Best prime for nature? - Honda-Tech

KOREAN · 08-25-2008, 11:55 PM

I have a Nikon D40 and carrying around the 18-200 gets heavy after 6 hour hikes

I already switched back my 18-55 and it's a lot easier... but now I'm just wondering what prime lens would be optimal for long walks/hikes/climbs.

O3DigitalBath · 08-26-2008, 02:03 AM

I'm not so sure the weight savings of a prime out weighs the versatility of the 18-55.

StorminMatt · 08-26-2008, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O3DigitalBath

I'm not so sure the weight savings of a prime out weighs the versatility of the 18-55.

But then again, there is always image quality to consider. And when it comes to mage quality, primes almost always beat zooms. With this said, I feel like something around a 28mm to a 35mm prime is best for an APS-C camera when it comes to versatility. This range works out to approximately a 'standard view' of 50mm on a full frame DSLR or 35mm film SLR. But you might also try getting a couple of other primes, like maybe a 50mm or 20mm. These may end up working better for your tastes. And even if only one lens proves ideal, it is ALWAYS good to have primes. As I said before, zooms seldom produce the same image quality as a prime. And prime lenses are almost always faster than zooms. This is better for low light photography. AND, the larger maximum aperture means that when you are at the same aperture as the maximum aperture as a typical zoom, you are at a stop (or more) smaller than maximum aperture for the prime. This means MUCH better quality than using the zoom wide open.

JakeB. · 08-26-2008, 03:10 AM

Go back through your pics and see what the most common focal length was, then you'll have an idea of which prime will work best for you.

KOREAN · 08-26-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StorminMatt

But then again, there is always image quality to consider.

Exactly!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JakeB.

Go back through your pics and see what the most common focal length was, then you'll have an idea of which prime will work best for you.

I'm a noob and for some reason I love to shoot at the two ends of my lenses. So that's either 18, 55 or 200

I do shoot in between, but not as often as I like.

Back when I had my XTi I had a 50mm which I really enjoyed because of its simple nature and super quick and sharp photos. But I wanted wider.

JakeB. · 08-26-2008, 08:03 AM

I was the same way when I had zooms, nearly always shooting at the two extremes.
So, I recommend getting something in the 17-24mm range...
There are a lot of options, especially if you're willing to shoot manual focus.

There are some particularly good options if you're willing to spend money or use adapters.

Reasonable options:
Nikon 20mm f/2.8 (light = about a half pound)
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 (about a half pound)

Pricey options:
Zeiss 18mm (about 1 pound)

Look at this thread for more that can be used with adapters.

Neebs · 08-26-2008, 11:12 PM

I know the Sigma 10-20 isn't a prime, but it does it job in landscape/nature.

O3DigitalBath · 08-27-2008, 12:57 AM

I dunno, I'm not sure how you guys could give up that abilty to shoot more things that you might encounter.

I'd say if you had to pick a prime to go wider (like 30mm or less on crop body) but then if you saw an animal in the distance, good luck getting closer...at the same if you went with a longer like 50 or 85 you might not be able to get everything in the frame.

to me this is a perfect example why we don't commonly call primes walk-around lens, don't me wrong, I love primes, just can't imagine wanting to give up the ability to shoot a wider range of things I might encounter if I have to choose a single lens all to save that small amount of weight.

Modified by O3DigitalBath at 4:24 AM 8/27/2008

CRX_VTEC · 08-27-2008, 06:35 PM

Sigma 30mm will AF and is a good all around lens.
If you dont mind manual focus, the Zeiss 18mm is f0cking schweeeeeeeeeeeet.

JakeB. · 08-28-2008, 05:33 AM

Yeah, the Sigma 30mm is an awesome lens. It's got great build, focus, and IQ.

However, it might not be wide enough for nature shots, especially since the op shoots mostly at 18mm.
And, it's not a very light lens... definately heavier than the 18-55, and probably closer to the 18-200.

08-25-2008, 11:55 PM	#1
KOREAN is hella epic Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,847	Best prime for nature? I have a Nikon D40 and carrying around the 18-200 gets heavy after 6 hour hikes I already switched back my 18-55 and it's a lot easier... but now I'm just wondering what prime lens would be optimal for long walks/hikes/climbs. __________________ flickr

08-26-2008, 02:03 AM	#2
O3DigitalBath Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: orlando, fl, usa Posts: 783	I'm not so sure the weight savings of a prime out weighs the versatility of the 18-55. __________________ 94 civic dx 89 240sx

08-26-2008, 03:10 AM	#4
JakeB. Photography Pundit Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bradenton, FL Posts: 4,265	Go back through your pics and see what the most common focal length was, then you'll have an idea of which prime will work best for you. __________________ JD Fine Art Phototgraphy My Flickr

08-26-2008, 08:03 AM	#6
JakeB. Photography Pundit Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bradenton, FL Posts: 4,265	I was the same way when I had zooms, nearly always shooting at the two extremes. So, I recommend getting something in the 17-24mm range... There are a lot of options, especially if you're willing to shoot manual focus. There are some particularly good options if you're willing to spend money or use adapters. Reasonable options: Nikon 20mm f/2.8 (light = about a half pound) Nikon 24mm f/2.8 (about a half pound) Pricey options: Zeiss 18mm (about 1 pound) Look at this thread for more that can be used with adapters. __________________ JD Fine Art Phototgraphy My Flickr

08-26-2008, 11:12 PM	#7
Neebs Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Tucson, Az Posts: 1,161	I know the Sigma 10-20 isn't a prime, but it does it job in landscape/nature. __________________ <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">'98 MR Ej8 Squad #226 retired. Thieves http://images.honda-tech.com/set1/smile/emthdown.gif</FONT> Nikon D80 \| 18-55mm \| 18-200mm VR \| 85mm f/ 1.8 <FONT COLOR="#15317E">Honda, The Power of Dreams</FONT>

08-27-2008, 12:57 AM	#8
O3DigitalBath Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: orlando, fl, usa Posts: 783	I dunno, I'm not sure how you guys could give up that abilty to shoot more things that you might encounter. I'd say if you had to pick a prime to go wider (like 30mm or less on crop body) but then if you saw an animal in the distance, good luck getting closer...at the same if you went with a longer like 50 or 85 you might not be able to get everything in the frame. to me this is a perfect example why we don't commonly call primes walk-around lens, don't me wrong, I love primes, just can't imagine wanting to give up the ability to shoot a wider range of things I might encounter if I have to choose a single lens all to save that small amount of weight. Modified by O3DigitalBath at 4:24 AM 8/27/2008 __________________ 94 civic dx 89 240sx

08-27-2008, 06:35 PM	#9
CRX_VTEC Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: rice, farm Posts: 3,277	Re: (O3DigitalBath) Sigma 30mm will AF and is a good all around lens. If you dont mind manual focus, the Zeiss 18mm is f0cking schweeeeeeeeeeeet.

08-28-2008, 05:33 AM	#10
JakeB. Photography Pundit Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bradenton, FL Posts: 4,265	Yeah, the Sigma 30mm is an awesome lens. It's got great build, focus, and IQ. However, it might not be wide enough for nature shots, especially since the op shoots mostly at 18mm. And, it's not a very light lens... definately heavier than the 18-55, and probably closer to the 18-200. __________________ JD Fine Art Phototgraphy My Flickr

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search