[Emil]

Hi

Current camera is a D5100 with the the supplied  18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens.
Im looking for a lens thats shorter in length and lighter for casual shooting and have come across these two:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005LEN4/kenrockwellcom

Could someone please look at the specs and tell me what Im missing going with the less expensive lens?
Should I also be considering lenses from Tamron and Sigma?
Would I be better off with a 35mm fixed lens instead?
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-1-8G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0

Are fixed lenses better than zoom lenses ( in general)

Thanks in advance

[thunderbrick]

Looks like the more expensive lens has updated optics, but the 50mm 1.8 lens has always been a great performer since way back in the MF days.  The earlier version is commonly available on CL for $90-100.

On the other hand, a 50mm lens on your camera is a slight telephoto lens, so I'd suggest a 35mm or 28 for a walk-around lens.  More versatile.

Edit:  Can you borrow a manual focus lens to play with?  That'll give you an idea what focal length might appeal to you, and there are tons of old MF lenses floating around, but a fast 28 would be VERY pricey.

Not sure on the Tamron.

[thunderbrick]

Edit, Part Deux......

Does the more expensive lens have the AF motor in it?  Does your camera require a lens with a motor in it?  That could be the final determinant.

[sfox7076]

You have asked a lot of questions that don't have specific answers.  I would say that the most important aspect of the lens isn't really whether it is a zoom or not, it is its appeture.  I own both lenses that you are looking at.  The simple answer for you is that you cannot use the cheaper 50mm on the 5100 if you want it to autofocus because it is not an AF-S lens.  I would go with a 35mm lens because I prefer wider angle (35mm on a 5100 is closer to a 50mm on a non-medium format film camera).  A 50mm on a 5100 is closer to a 75mm on an older film camera.  That's great for portraits and the like, but I am not a huge fan and find I use my 35mm more than the 55mm.

Shawn

[thunderbrick]

You have asked a lot of questions that don't have specific answers.  I would say that the most important aspect of the lens isn't really whether it is a zoom or not, it is its appeture.  I own both lenses that you are looking at.  The simple answer for you is that you cannot use the cheaper 50mm on the 5100 if you want it to autofocus because it is not an AF-S lens.  I would go with a 35mm lens because I prefer wider angle (35mm on a 5100 is closer to a 50mm on a non-medium format film camera).  A 50mm on a 5100 is closer to a 75mm on an older film camera.  That's great for portraits and the like, but I am not a huge fan and find I use my 35mm more than the 55mm.

Shawn

+1!   

[Devil Doc]

Yes, fixed focal length are better than zoom lenses. Most novices buy the longest lens they can afford. It's a Freudian thing. It's encouraging to see you're looking at wide-angle lenses. It's my opinion, that you'd be better off with a 28mm lens than a 35mm. It's much more versatile, especially if you normally shoot interiors. Nikon, Cannon and Leica make the best lenses in the world. Everything else is crap. Relatively speaking of course.

Doc

[sfox7076]

I disagree. A Nikkor 70-200 2.8 fixed aperture zoom is a lot of lens and better than 90% of the prime lenses I've owned. It is a lot of lens. I also own and love my Tokina 11-16 2.8 zoom.  It is great and better than nikon's ultrawide zoom. YMMV.

Shawn

[vanderstephen]

In this price range, a fixed focal length will be sharper and faster (wider aperature) than a zoom lens. I use my 50mm 1.8 on my D700 all the time. It's just as sharp as my 80-200 AF-S (predecessor to the lens that sfox referenced). I think you should do the 35mm 1.8 that you linked to. That will be about an equivalent focal length to my set up since my body is full frame. You would likely find a 50mm to have too much telephoto effect for general use. A 28mm fixed would be nice, but they are $699 list for the AF-S version. I think your body requires AF-S. The older 28's aren't that sharp. The 35mm is reported to be extremely sharp. The 50mm should be as well- my pre-AFS generation is.

[thunderbrick]

I disagree. A Nikkor 70-200 2.8 fixed aperture zoom is a lot of lens and better than 90% of the prime lenses I've owned. It is a lot of lens. I also own and love my Tokina 11-16 2.8 zoom.  It is great and better than nikon's ultrawide zoom. YMMV.

Shawn

There will always be the exception.  Some lenses (70-200 2. included are amazingly sharp, and my 17-55 2.8 is the equal of many primes.  But the 70-200 2.8 does not do well when shooting in to the late afternoon sun.  Contrast goes down more than I would expect.

And the issue here is a smaller lens for the novice that's lighter than the 18-55.

[Early B.]

Don't bother with getting another lens yet until you outgrow the 18-55mm and get more experience in photography. Even though the 18-55mm is inexpensive, it takes great pics. The 50mm f/1.8 is a legendary lens, but mostly useful in very low light situations. Zooming with your feet is no picnic.

[thunderbrick]

Don't bother with getting another lens yet until you outgrow the 18-55mm and get more experience in photography. Even though the 18-55mm is inexpensive, it takes great pics.  Zooming with your feet is no picnic.

+1!

[goskers]

I have a D7000 and was really intent on shooting indoors without using a flash.  As such I went ahead and ordered the 35mm fixed.  I have been extremely happy with this lens.  The kit lens is a great lens as well but I only pull this out when lighting conditions are proper.

My .02

[SET Man]

Don't bother with getting another lens yet until you outgrow the 18-55mm and get more experience in photography. Even though the 18-55mm is inexpensive, it takes great pics. The 50mm f/1.8 is a legendary lens, but mostly useful in very low light situations. Zooming with your feet is no picnic.

Hey!

  +2 Good point there.

Hi

Current camera is a D5100 with the the supplied  18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens.
Im looking for a lens thats shorter in length and lighter for casual shooting and have come across these two:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005LEN4/kenrockwellcom

Could someone please look at the specs and tell me what Im missing going with the less expensive lens?
Should I also be considering lenses from Tamron and Sigma?
Would I be better off with a 35mm fixed lens instead?
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-1-8G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0

Are fixed lenses better than zoom lenses ( in general)

Thanks in advance

  Emil, you want to something smaller than the zoom you have now? Well, I don't think you can find any zoom smaller than the zoom you have right now.

  Yes, prime lenses usually have better image quality. But I have to say newer upper level zooms can be very nearly as good, of course they are pricey, big and heavy.

   As for getting a prime lens for you 5100, for general use 50mm or 35mm would be a good choice. But if your DSLR is not a full-frame than your 50mm will be 75mm and the 35mm will be 52mm. And I don't think the combo will much smaller than what you have right now. For casual user I think the only big advantage with these primes are the wider aperture.

   I have to admit that I do have a few primes but I mostly use zooms with my DSLR

Take care,
Buddy

[Chromisdesigns]

I've always liked a short, reasonably fast macro lens for general purpose use.  I always did a lot of people, floral, and close-in nature photography, for which an 80 or 100 mm macro is great.  Then I also found it was pretty nice for general use as well, as long as I wasn't trying to reach out too far with it.

I had them on 35mm film cameras, and since on my digitals as well.  Traveling, I used to carry that one and something like a 200-250 mm zoom as my only two lenses.  Worked out well.

On a partial-frame DSLR, I think an 80 mm macro would make a great fixed lens that would get a lot of use.

[Chromisdesigns]

I've always liked a short, reasonably fast macro lens for general purpose use.  I always did a lot of people, floral, and close-in nature photography, for which an 80 or 100 mm macro is great.  Then I also found it was pretty nice for general use as well, as long as I wasn't trying to reach out too far with it.

The make terrific portrait lenses.

I had them on 35mm film cameras, and since on my digitals as well.  Traveling, I used to carry that one and something like a 200-250 mm zoom as my only two lenses.  Worked out well.

On a partial-frame DSLR, I think an 80 mm macro would make a great fixed lens that would get a lot of use.

[stevenkelby]

Yes, fixed focal length are better than zoom lenses. Most novices buy the longest lens they can afford. It's a Freudian thing. It's encouraging to see you're looking at wide-angle lenses. It's my opinion, that you'd be better off with a 28mm lens than a 35mm. It's much more versatile, especially if you normally shoot interiors.

True.

Yes, fixed focal length are better than zoom lenses. Most novices buy the longest lens they can afford. It's a Freudian thing. It's encouraging to see you're looking at wide-angle lenses. It's my opinion, that you'd be better off with a 28mm lens than a 35mm. It's much more versatile, especially if you normally shoot interiors. Nikon, Cannon and Leica make the best lenses in the world. Everything else is crap. Relatively speaking of course.

Doc

Nonsense, Tamron and especially Sigma currently make several lenses that outperform the equivalent Canon or Nikon lenses.

[thunderbrick]

Got examples of which you speak?   

[stevenkelby]

The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 50mm 1.4. I've read plenty of examples but that one is off the top of my head and pretty well known. Don't spend much time on the photo forums anymore and my memory was never great but the info is out there if one was to get googling I guess:)

[NIGHTFALL1970]

"Should I also be considering lenses from Tamron and Sigma?"
I went from a Sigma to a Nikon lens of  the same type and found the Nikon was night/day better in picture quality.  Don't buy cheap lenses.  You will regret it later.

[Early B.]

"Should I also be considering lenses from Tamron and Sigma?"
I went from a Sigma to a Nikon lens of  the same type and found the Nikon was night/day better in picture quality.  Don't buy cheap lenses.  You will regret it later.

Agreed. Sure, there are some exceptions, but I only use Nikon glass for Nikon cameras. In this case, you get what you pay for.