TaoTeJared said:
If you are just shooting people in the house, I would reconsider the 35mm 1.8. I find that anything much wider is way to wide. Remember that you do not have to get everything in the frame, and usually it doesn't look that great either. I find for holiday parties my 85mm f/1.8 or my 50mm 1.4 stays on my camera most of the time and I get the best shots out of them. With the ISOs becoming cleaner you can shoot up to 1600 and have great 4x6 and web photos.

Wides I use if I need to: Tokina 17mm f/3.5 - I have the ATX (crackle finish) and absolutely love it. Wide open is great. I also have the 24mm 2.8 which is good as well. I have heard the Sigma 20mm 1.8 is good but a mixed bag out of the 24 and 28.

I would disagree. As hearty said 30mm is probably just right in the house. I found myself having to climb up the stairs and stuff to get 2 full people in the picture last weekend. You don't always need the full person in the shot, but if you have a wider lens it is easier to move closer then it is to try and be at an angle in the room to get full people pictures when you want it. As I said before you can always get closer, but you can't always back up...plus you trip over things trying to move back. I am done being a broken record though. If you get the camera and the 18-200 just walk around with the lens on the different mms you are thinking about getting a prime in and see what looks like it will work the best.

I heard the same about the 24 and 28 sigmas.. ie not as good as hoped for.. Thats why I recommended the 30mm f1.4 sigma. Its a bit wider than the 35 which I find to be a touch long for an indoor lens on dx. Sigma 20mm 1.8 would be nice on DX. but its an FX lens. (so its a bit big)
I have not seen the 20 but the reviews are good. The 30 is physically smaller. I must say though for indo0r use that 20mm F1.8 sure sounds good.

Just to stimulate thought: what about staying with your 18-200 and buying a flash and using a softbox? Main drawback would be loss of very shallow DoF but you wouldn't have to worry about lens speed?

You are actually asking that on a forum that exclusively recommends the 35mm 1.4? :P

If you are just shooting people in the house, I would reconsider the 35mm 1.8. I find that anything much wider is way to wide. Remember that you do not have to get everything in the frame, and usually it doesn't look that great either. I find for holiday parties my 85mm f/1.8 or my 50mm 1.4 stays on my camera most of the time and I get the best shots out of them. With the ISOs becoming cleaner you can shoot up to 1600 and have great 4x6 and web photos.

Wides I use if I need to: Tokina 17mm f/3.5 - I have the ATX (crackle finish) and absolutely love it. Wide open is great. I also have the 24mm 2.8 which is good as well. I have heard the Sigma 20mm 1.8 is good but a mixed bag out of the 24 and 28.

Alastair said:
Gareth - Thanks. I am a newbie. I'm leaning towards the sigma 20 or 24mm both f/1.8 or the Nikkor 35mm 1.8. I guess my belief was that a 1.8 stopped down to 2.8 will still give better photos than a 2.8 lens and that one of these primes will give better IQ (at the same focal length) than the 18-200 that I'll buy with the camera. Would you agree?

with the lenses you mentioned you are probably right (as stated).

you seem sensible and are making a good decision. it IS really nice to be able to shoot wider, thats why i have the 50 1.4G and will soon buy the 35 1.4G (if my wife will let me after i buy the 300 2.8) but i miss many shots at 1.4 because kids doon't sit still. if i like the composition (ie. i dont delete the pic straight away) then probably 1 in 10 shots is keepable from a sharp on at least one eye perspective.

have fun with your new toys (when you get them)

Alastair said:
Gareth - Thanks. I am a newbie. I'm leaning towards the sigma 20 or 24mm both f/1.8 or the Nikkor 35mm 1.8. I guess my belief was that a 1.8 stopped down to 2.8 will still give better photos than a 2.8 lens and that one of these primes will give better IQ (at the same focal length) than the 18-200 that I'll buy with the camera. Would you agree?

You are probably right in most cases. A f2.8 @ f2.8 is wide open and in most cases has to be stopped down a little to get optimal shots. As you say if you stop the 1.8 down to 2.8 then you are out of the wide open range and probably will get better results. I wouldn't worry about the DOF thing. It will take a little practice, but it is a very usable feature then. I wouldn't take it to a wedding without ever shooting it and expect to get awesome pictures using it at 1.8, but like I said...practice makes perfect...or better at least.

The biggest advantage is the lenses being primes and having great picture quality. If you never use it at the limits of f1.8 or 1.4 whatever the case you will still get super sharp pictures out of it and I haven't heard of any prime giving bad results.

Gareth - Thanks. I am a newbie. I'm leaning towards the sigma 20 or 24mm both f/1.8 or the Nikkor 35mm 1.8. I guess my belief was that a 1.8 stopped down to 2.8 will still give better photos than a 2.8 lens and that one of these primes will give better IQ (at the same focal length) than the 18-200 that I'll buy with the camera. Would you agree?

don't assume that you will get better pics with a faster lens. if you are a beginner a 2.8 should be fast enough. it's a very nice DOF. the d7000 has great high ISO so you will be fine.

1.4 is extremely shallow DOF and you will have almost no shots in focus until you learn to use it. with my 50 1.4G on FF i almost never have both eyes in focus at 1.4. i don't usually shoot straight into faces though.

even on DX a reasonably close face pic at 1.4. the ears will not be in focus.

are you sure this is what you want?

Thanks for all the advice. Now, I can't wait for the announcement of the D7000. Hopefully it will be available soon after the announcement.

Ive used the 35 1.8 on my D90. For 200 dollars, you get IQ of a 2k lens IMO. I find it slightly better than my 70-200 2.8 in some situations.

Get the 18-55mm VR kit lens, gaff tape it at 24mm (f/4) and you'd be good to go. It is an awesome f/3.5 prime lens at 20mm or so too. Stopped down to f/8 nothing can beat it.

Adamz, I thought about a wide zoom like the 10-20 but I was thinking that a 35mm equivalent prime would be faster and therefore I'd get better photos of the kids etc indoors. The 10-20 seems to be "relatively" slow and therefore I might be as well off with the 18-200 at the wide end. Hmmmm

For me 50mm is not even closer to wide, but 35/1.8 is a nice lens with a great price tag, although in Your case I wouldn't go for prime but for another zoom - sigma 10-20, it's priced moderately and it will allow You to go wide. As for 18-200, hmmm... I wouldn't call it heavy and big, it's a small portable lens IMHO (but I guess I'm used to 2.8 zooms :) )

I have the nikkor 35 as well as the 18-200. I use the 35 quite a lot in the house, but it probably won't do for group shots or whole room shots, unless you have a big room. Your idea to try different focal lengths with the 18-200 is the best way to determine what focal length you need. As noted above, if you get too wide, you'll start getting distortion. Good luck and let us know what you end up doing.

Thanks for the thoughts. Maybe the best thing for me to do is to make some shots once I get the camera at the 35mm focal length and see if its an ok focal length. That should help me better choose between the 20/24mm sigma and the 35mm Nikkor.

Something else to consider when going wider than 35mm will be distortion. I don't know how each lens does, because I haven't researched them. I recently bought a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, and I'm extremely happy with the IQ. It's much sharper at 1.8 than my 50mm f/1.4 at 1.8. I haven't had the 35 long enough to give an educated opinion on whether it would be good for indoors, but my guess is that unless you need to see a lot of the room, 35 is good enough.

I have the 35 1.8 and IMO it is not wide enough inside. You can get full body pictures with it inside, but you have to back way up and it might not be possible in a smaller room. It takes great pictures though. I personally would prefer one that was a little wider indoors. It is easier in most cases to get closer then farther away when taking indoor people pictures.

Consider the sigma 30mm F1.4

I love the Sigma 20mm F1.8 is just amazing. Using it on FX, sharp center and soft corner. Stop down and it is amazing by F4. Since you are using on DX it should be good across the frame.

Good choice to switch to primes! I only use those myself. Currently I own 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, plus the heavy 18-200 which I never use any more. It's just so heavy and big (high-profile) plus the image quality is just not as good as that of a prime. 35mm is fairly wide enough, even on DX, but that's just for me, I mainly shoot outdoors. You should just get it regardless, at its price it's really a must-have.

I have an other suggestion for you though: get the Samyang 14mm f2.8. I don't on it myself but it was recommended to me by someone on Flickr. Once I have some money set aside I will get it. Read the review at: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff
Now this one was analyzed at Full Frame Canon and it's got some issues (read the review for those) but at $420 or so it seems like a good buy.

I will be buying the new D90 (D7000) in the next month along with the 18-200mm. I would like to get a prime lens for shooting in the house. I'd like something faster than the zoom for photos of the kids (Christmas, birthdays etc). Seems that the only Nikkor options are the 24mm f/1.4 which is way too much money (~$2400) or the 35mm f/1.8 (~190). My concern is that the 35 is a ~50mm equivalent which is probably not wide enough. The sigma 20mm and 24mm are reasonably priced, seem wide enough but get mixed reviews. Any suggestions for a fast prime for around the house; is 50mm equivalent going to be not wide enough AND is the advantage of a prime really worthwhile for a newbie vs just shoooting the 18-200mm?