Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

mehulnaik · Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Posts: 199

Hi All,

I am trying to get a new lens. I have got 18-55 kit lens which is just not sharp and fast enough. I am planning to use that lens for portrait and family shots and landscapes as well. My budget is not more than $250. I am using Nikon D3100. I have looked at 50-35and 80mm prime lenses. please let me know which one is better?

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:05 am

The 50mm is nice for the price.

rudyumans · Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:19 am

The 50 is good for portraits and some family shots. The 35 would be better for some family shots and landscapes

Maybe you can get both used to stay within your budget.

Best would be all 3.

rinder99 · Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:26 am

If your staying with a DX camera [And you probably won't] I would get the remarkable 17-55 2.8. save your money and get the best why? other than Image quality, resell value. next in Line for a 100 bucks is the 50 1.8 D.Get a hood as it doesn't come with one and do not put a UV filter on it regardless of what the salesman tells you.

dambuster · Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:06 am

The 50mm 1.8 is fabulous you NEED that in your bag, its a no brainer for the price. I have also just bought the 35mm 1.8, and whilst it is very sharp it does have Chromatic Aberrations, even around f5.6 - f8 nothing drastic but when you are used to the 50 it's a bit frustrating, however, for the cheap price its a great buy.

semmickphoto · Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:06 pm

Going to by the 50 1.8 at Calumet in Chicago for 119 dollars. If anyone knows where to get it cheaper, let me know.

I heard about the CA of the 50mm, but we will just have to clean it up in LR.

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2896 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

You probably want to get the new 50/1.8 G rather than the D version. I think it's $200 and comes with a hood. The older D version sells for $100 less but won't autofocus on the D3100.

Also, I use the older version. It's cheap, but I don't get sharp images below f4, so it's not as useful as you'd hope it would be.

Another lens possibility is the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I used that for a long time, and just sold it for $300. Most of my images on shutterstock were with that lens.

rinder99 · Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:48 pm

I use a 1963 AI Manual One. Razor sharp. but all manual.Dying to see what It will do on my new D800 i picked up this morning.

jeffbanke · Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:03 pm

I have around 15 or so lenses, many of the older variety, like 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, 50mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 55mm Macro, 105mm f2.8, all older manual lenses, but still use them, although since I got my 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses, I find that I use them less.

mehulnaik · Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Posts: 199

mehulnaik · Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Posts: 199

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2896 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

I think it works fine for stock. I just avoid using it at 2.8, and don't drop it. It's not as solidly built as the nikon.

jeffbanke · Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:09 pm

rinder99 · Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:09 pm

All I can tell you after owning them all is....Invest in glass for image quality and resell value.Cameras your gonna lost half what you paid for it unless you keep it to long then It's not worth anything.Good glass holds it's value. No Brainer for me. I come from the day when we used takumars,Soligors and vivatars.On Nikon But one lense that has made the test of time is the Nifty 50. In the early days you had a choice get the body with a 1.8D or a 1.4 or 1.2 I prefer the 1.8.with photoshop you can get all the Bokeh you want.But it right once frind. Thats the best advice I can give ya from someone that bought them all.Look for spend if you use AF.I look for edge to edge sharpness and contrast. Im a manual Guy.

mehulnaik · Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Posts: 199