Lens for D5100

[randomrogue]

The great thing about the 18-105 is that you can test out the different focal lengths we're talking about. Everyone should have some kind of zoom that they start out with to get a feel for things.

Spend a couple days at 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm. Then take note of which focal lengths are most useful. Then consider the AF-S 1.8 G primes. The 28mm and the 50mm are FX lenses while the 35mm is a DX lens. If you think you're going FX then skipping the 35mm might be a good idea. You might also want to look at the 35mm Sigma since although it might be a drop too tight on DX that's a sweet lens on FX.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The great thing about the 18-105 is that you can test out the different focal lengths we're talking about. Everyone should have some kind of zoom that they start out with to get a feel for things.

Spend a couple days at 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm. Then take note of which focal lengths are most useful. Then consider the AF-S 1.8 G primes. The 28mm and the 50mm are FX lenses while the 35mm is a DX lens. If you think you're going FX then skipping the 35mm might be a good idea. You might also want to look at the 35mm Sigma since although it might be a drop too tight on DX that's a sweet lens on FX.

I have a D7000 with the 18-105, and I bought the 50mm 1.8. I love the prime lens, but I often feel it's a little too zoomy. When using it indoors you don't always have the space to back away from your subject. I may trade it in for a 35mm or a 28mm.

The 18-105 is a great all-around lens for daylight shooting. With the D7000 high ISO capabilities and the lens's VR, it does ok indoors as well.

 

[biostud]

So I went and did the exact opposite...

Since I already have some experience using the 18-105 lens on d5000/d5100, I started to wonder of I was actually happy with the results it produced. And I realized was never really blown away, and the major problem for me was that pictures often seemed to be shaken or a little out of focus.

And then I thought why is that? Well, I mostly takes indoor pictures and pictures at night.

Then I looked at sample pictures where I compared the 18-105 with the 35 f/1.8, and I decided to order the d5100 + the 35 f/1.8 as my only lens. And now I'm really excited to see what I can do with it.

 

[Syborg1211]

Good move. The 35 f/1.8 was my very first lens purchase after buying a d5100 with 18-55 kit lens. I didn't use the kit lens or camera a whole lot before getting the 35, and I used the 35 pretty exclusively after buying it. The thing is razor sharp.

 

[randomrogue]

Yeah in that case that was a good move. On my old DX camera I pretty much kept the 35mm on it 90% of the time. It's so small and light that it makes a good walk around.

I had the kit lens before that (18-55) but it's honestly shit compared to a prime or high end glass.

 

[Silenus]

So I went and did the exact opposite...

Since I already have some experience using the 18-105 lens on d5000/d5100, I started to wonder of I was actually happy with the results it produced. And I realized was never really blown away, and the major problem for me was that pictures often seemed to be shaken or a little out of focus.

And then I thought why is that? Well, I mostly takes indoor pictures and pictures at night.

Then I looked at sample pictures where I compared the 18-105 with the 35 f/1.8, and I decided to order the d5100 + the 35 f/1.8 as my only lens. And now I'm really excited to see what I can do with it.

Fantastic move I say! Forgetting all the zooms and going single prime is perfectly valid. In fact it will force you to move around more which can be of benefit to your photography.

My 38/1.8 is by far my most used lens of the 3 I have. That said if the new (DX) Sigma 30/1.4 is anything like the (FX) Sigma 35/1.4 the full frame guys are raving about....I might switch to that as my fast 'normalish' prime. I used to have the older Sigma 30/1.4 and really liked it's output but just couldn't get consistent focus with it compared to the Nikon 35. I am willing to give the new Sigma a shot though!

 

[AkumaX]

And then I thought why is that? Well, I mostly takes indoor pictures and pictures at night.

Then I looked at sample pictures where I compared the 18-105 with the 35 f/1.8, and I decided to order the d5100 + the 35 f/1.8 as my only lens. And now I'm really excited to see what I can do with it.

This is how all people should start. They can see how a fast lens operates, a simulated experience of how it would compare to say, a 18-105mm @ 35mm (@ f/3.5?), and find out what type of focal length they prefer. Do you find yourself stepping back more with the 35mm? You probably want something wider... stepping forward? More zoom!

 

[biostud]

Should I buy a filter for the lens?

 

[randomrogue]

I'm too lazy to dig out my 35mm but I'm pretty sure the optics are recessed. That makes cleaning it much easier with a filter. You'll never notice a difference in image quality so I would say it's a good solution for keeping it clean and if you drop it hopefully it breaks the filter and not the lens. I keep a filter on all my lenses minus my Tokina 16-28 since it has the bulbous front end.

 

[Anteaus]

Should I buy a filter for the lens?

It's not always necessary but I use NC filters on everything. No matter how careful you are at some point or another finger prints and other dirt will make their way to the glass making cleaning necessary. Many lenses have special coatings to help image quality and in my view I'd rather have a $30 filter take the abuse rather than expensive lenses.

If you're using a cheap lens I don't think it matters as much but if you pony up for some expensive glass then I wouldn't take chances.

 

[Silenus]

And I'm on other side of the fence when it comes to filters. Early on when I had my first DSLR I got clear filters for everything just because that is what everyone seemed to do. But then I stopped worrying about it. I don't run filters on anything now...including the expensive 70-200/2.8 VR. HOWEVER....I do always use my lens hood! (this is key). For me the lens hood covers my protection needs, plus has image quality benefits.

The wear and tear argument doesn't work for me as in my experience modern lenses and costings are simply not as fragile as many think. Sure they get dirty and fingerprinted...and then I clean the glass. It would take a LOT of abuse of the optics to really start damaging it...and even then it takes a pretty drastic amount of damage before you start seeing any impact on image quality. All my glass looks perfect and they get dirt, prints, water drops, ect on them regularly. Clean it and it's fine.

It comes down to this for me:
Realistically, what are the chances that a filter ACTUALLY will protect the lens in a given incident? IF your lens gets dropped or otherwise banged the filter will only (maybe) help if it the gets hit RIGHT ON THE FRONT of the lens. What if lens lands on it's side, or back end? The filter did nothing then. Now add in use of lens hood which will generally protect the front of the glass and the chances a filter actually saves my lens from something is so minuscule that I can forget about it. I'd rather save that money.

Everyone is different of course. And someone else's needs may not be the same as mine. So it's up to you what you want to do. Just thought I'd share my experience and the thinking that lead me from being a filter user to a non-filter user.

 

[randomrogue]

The issues is simple to me. 99.99% of people will not notice any image quality degradation due to a clear or UV filter but in those rare cases where you bang the lens in the front it provides some protection.

The big upside is I think it's easier to clean a filter than the lens.

 

[biostud]

So I got my camera and here's my first sample shots. Unfortunately the weather was a bit cloudy.

It was really fun not being able to zoom and move around until I got the right motive. Definitely a new beginning, and I think I will actually learn more about composing a foto, when I have to move around.