Which lens? Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or Nikon 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED?

MikeHunt79 · 29 Oct 2009 at 00:49

Right now my setup consists of a Nikon D60 and the 18-55mm VR kit lens, which I'm really happy with and seems really sharp, I love the VR feature also. I also have a tripod, and a few filters, I've got quite a basic setup.

Now, I've got around £200 to spend, and I'm torn between the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and Nikon 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED... Various reviews say that the are good lenses for the money. My main gripe with the 55-200mm is the fact it has a plastic bayonet fitting, I wish it was £30 more expensive and had a metal one, even if it's just for piece of mind.

The 35mm lens which is much lighter and smaller yet has a metal bayonet fitting, but I'm thinking while it would be nice to have a lens with a low f value for narrow DOF photo's, I can't help but think that I'd end up using the 55-200mm more as I often find that I run out of zoom with my trusty 18-55mm.

If you guys had nothing but an 18-55mm lens, what would be your next lens purchase?

86JR · 29 Oct 2009 at 01:12

50mm f1.8D (or 1.4 but they £230)

MikeHunt79 · 29 Oct 2009 at 01:23

twoblacklines said:
50mm f1.8D (or 1.4 but they £230)

I have considered this lens, but am I right in saying that the autofocus will not work on a D60?

Mud · 29 Oct 2009 at 08:36

MikeHunt79 said:
Now, I've got around £200 to spend, and I'm torn between the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and Nikon 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED... Various reviews say that the are good lenses for the money. My main gripe with the 55-200mm is the fact it has a plastic bayonet fitting, I wish it was £30 more expensive and had a metal one, even if it's just for piece of mind.

The 35mm lens which is much lighter and smaller yet has a metal bayonet fitting, but I'm thinking while it would be nice to have a lens with a low f value for narrow DOF photo's, I can't help but think that I'd end up using the 55-200mm more as I often find that I run out of zoom with my trusty 18-55mm.

They are both decent lenses (I've owned both). The plastic mount on the 55-200 isn't a big deal as it weighs next to nothing. Do you realise that DOF drops off with focal length (for a given aperture)? The aperture might not be as wide on the 55-200 as on the 35 f/1.8, but plug the numbers into a DOF calculator and see what kind of DOF you're looking at.

MikeHunt79 said:
I have considered this lens, but am I right in saying that the autofocus will not work on a D60?

You are correct, you need AF-S lenses to retain autofocus.

D.P. · 29 Oct 2009 at 08:53

MikeHunt79 said:
Right now my setup consists of a Nikon D60 and the 18-55mm VR kit lens, which I'm really happy with and seems really sharp, I love the VR feature also. I also have a tripod, and a few filters, I've got quite a basic setup.

Now, I've got around £200 to spend, and I'm torn between the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and Nikon 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED... Various reviews say that the are good lenses for the money. My main gripe with the 55-200mm is the fact it has a plastic bayonet fitting, I wish it was £30 more expensive and had a metal one, even if it's just for piece of mind.

The 35mm lens which is much lighter and smaller yet has a metal bayonet fitting, but I'm thinking while it would be nice to have a lens with a low f value for narrow DOF photo's, I can't help but think that I'd end up using the 55-200mm more as I often find that I run out of zoom with my trusty 18-55mm.

If you guys had nothing but an 18-55mm lens, what would be your next lens purchase?

What do you want to shoot. They are very different lenses.

The 35mm is an excellent portrait lens, and would reccomend it over the 50 1.8. On a crop body the 35mm focal length makes a good normal lens, and has AF to boost.

martinturner · 29 Oct 2009 at 09:37

Out of the two go for the zoom. Your D60 will not autofocus the 35mm (as far as I am aware) which I think would be a poor purchase. The thing with primes such as the 35mm or 50mm is the shallow DOF, because no matter how much you think you have manually focussed correctly, you get home get the shots off the camera and realise you were out by a tiny amount. I used to own a 50mm for D40. It drove me potty. I would take a portrait, it looked great on the camera ... upload to PC, only to find focus is on tip of nose and note on the eyes. Seriously frustrating!

Personally, with what I shoot I have never needed a telephoto lens, but given you have already stated that you find you don't have enough reach ... well that tells you already that is where you are restricted. I would satisfy the restriction over the luxury.

Unless you are going to change your camera body I would either hold out on buying a 35mm or 50mm prime unless you can stretch to an AF-S one.

I was tempted by the 50mm '1.4' AF-S myself, although given I have a D40, the monies would actually be better spent on upgrading the body ... as a 50mm 1.8 would only be a cheeky £80 at a later date (for a body which includes a motor).

Inquisitor · 29 Oct 2009 at 09:50

martinturner said:
Out of the two go for the zoom. Your D60 will not autofocus the 35mm (as far as I am aware) which I think would be a poor purchase. The thing with primes such as the 35mm or 50mm is the shallow DOF, because no matter how much you think you have manually focussed correctly, you get home get the shots off the camera and realise you were out by a tiny amount. I used to own a 50mm for D40. It drove me potty. I would take a portrait, it looked great on the camera ... upload to PC, only to find focus is on tip of nose and note on the eyes. Seriously frustrating!

Wrong: the 35mm 1.8 has AF-S, so it'll focus like a charm on the D60. I have one and it's excellent.

martinturner · 29 Oct 2009 at 09:51

Inquisitor said:
Wrong: the 35mm 1.8 has AF-S, so it'll focus like a charm on the D60. I have one and it's excellent.

I stand corrected. I did not realise it was an AF-S lens.

bigsharn · 29 Oct 2009 at 11:15

I'd go for the 35mm... I went for the 50mm when I bought my camera and I regret it

If you're after a zoom lens have a look at the Tamron 55-200, it's not amazing but the lens quality is good enough

this_is_gav · 29 Oct 2009 at 11:53

I'd leave the 55-200 and go for the Sigma 70-300 APO if you go for the length.

As D.P. says though, they're completely different lenses and it depends entirely on what you want to shoot. If it's a mix, then you'll probably want both (or equivalents) at some point, so pick what you want the most, or need sooner.

DB_SamX · 29 Oct 2009 at 12:09

I don't know how much the 35mm lens is but you could get a 2nd hand 55-200 for £125- £150 on ebay if you are patient and grab a bargain. Leaves enough to save mroe to get both.

D.P. · 29 Oct 2009 at 12:34

MikeHunt79 · 29 Oct 2009 at 16:03

Ok, I think I've pretty much decided on the 55-200mm lens for now, as for the kind of photography I do, I do a bit of everything, I've mainly run out of zoom whole at sports type events like trackdays, so I think I'll get more use of the the zoom as opposed to prime.

The 35mm does seem like an awesome lens tho, so I think I may end up getting that one as well, as soon as funds allow...

DB_SamX said:
I don't know how much the 35mm lens is but you could get a 2nd hand 55-200 for £125- £150 on ebay if you are patient and grab a bargain. Leaves enough to save mroe to get both.

I've had a look, and there are a few... Is there anything I should know about getting a 2nd hand lens, is it possible for the lens to become damaged in the post?

this_is_gav said:
I'd leave the 55-200 and go for the Sigma 70-300 APO if you go for the length.

As D.P. says though, they're completely different lenses and it depends entirely on what you want to shoot. If it's a mix, then you'll probably want both (or equivalents) at some point, so pick what you want the most, or need sooner.

I have not looked at the Sigma lens, I must admit...

Does it have something similar to Nikon's VR feature, as I'll probably be doing 90% of my shots handheld, and I find the VR really helps with handheld shots.

syke · 29 Oct 2009 at 17:01

The 35mm is an awesome lens, if i were you, even for the manual focus, i'd grab a 55-200VR, and a 50 f1.8D second hand

. Should be within budget, quite happily.

DB_SamX · 29 Oct 2009 at 19:30

MikeHunt79 said:
I've had a look, and there are a few... Is there anything I should know about getting a 2nd hand lens, is it possible for the lens to become damaged in the post?

I have not looked at the Sigma lens, I must admit...

Well, millions of lenses are posted everyday, it just depends how well they pack it. Original box/manual/cap/pouch/hood are bonuses. If you can get the original receipt, it was bought within the year and was never registered, even better - you could register it with Nikon for the remaining months. The latter situation would be rare though.

I see no reason not to avoid 2nd hand. Just make sure you ask them to clarify specs and condition. Some complete noobs advertising on there who list the wrong spec (whom I've had to email to let them know) e.g. VR version vs non VR version; wrong lowest f-stop, etc, esp. if there were updated models.

this_is_gav · 30 Oct 2009 at 09:47

MikeHunt79 said:
I have not looked at the Sigma lens, I must admit...

Does it have something similar to Nikon's VR feature, as I'll probably be doing 90% of my shots handheld, and I find the VR really helps with handheld shots.

Nope, but I've used both. I have the 55-200mm (a leftover from my D40x, and it hasn't been used for about 2 years - I prefer to use my 150mm prime where possible, that's how much I dislike that plasticy thing!). A mate bought the 70-300mm APO last spring, and I was very impressed, especially for the money. It's far better built than the Nikon. The Nikon is nice and light and relatively small, and other than cost, I think that's about all it has going for it. I wish I'd saved up more for the Nikon 70-300 VR personally - a far better lens.

You say you're constantly running out of reach. The 100mm more will give you yet more scope. The VR is is very limited in use for daytime motorsports. You'll have quite a short exposure (you'll need to to escape over-exposure in the majority of situations) and that will freeze the action already*. You'll be constantly panning and I'm sure the VR would just fall over confused from it all.

* and most of the time you don't want to freeze the action - you want to capture the movement with background and wheel blur.