Hi,

As mentioned, it depends...

I tend to shoot with a lot of prime lenses, but then it's likely habit and wanting to use a fast-ish lens.

Sharpness is really relative. I think all Nikon lenses are going to be sharp, DOF control and the quality of bokeh is something a bit different with wider apertures and with differing lenses.

Quite frankly, IMHO, all the f1.8 lenses are going to offer pretty good bokeh and and in the right hands good DOF control, too, for normal and moderate telephoto focus views.

So it depends upon whether you want the additional standoff of the 50mm or 85mm would give you in working with people, or the viewpoint the 35mm would give. I have all three and use them a lot.

My best,

Mike

Thanks everyone, all this advice has been incredibly helpful! This community is wonderful, I'm excited to be making the move to Nikon and learning from you all. Thank you!

FWIW I have the 50/1.4 and the 35/1.8 and I am loving the 35. For every post here there is an opposite view and so I would say get the 35 'cos it is huge bang for the buck and see what YOU think.

I forgot about the 40mm macro - if you like doing some macro that would be a very good option and of course the closer you are, the more bokeh you have.

35mm has Bad bokeh? If you are comparing 35mm 1.8's bokeh with a $1,800 1.4 lens or a Leica, sure it doesn't look as good - but if you like the classical 50mm look, the 35mm 1.8 is as good as it gets - and the getting is quite good.

I have a 17mm 3.5, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, 50mm (3 1.4s 2 1.8s), 60 2.8, 85mm 1.8 (afd), 105vr, 180mm, 300 2.8. Bokeh is different on each. That does not mean one is particularly better or worse than another for 99% of shooting. Get what you think you will use most and don't worry about it. Enjoy it and let the pixel peepers continue to think it is the lens that is the failure of their image.

I think this is one of those great momednts in life when there really is no wrong answer. If you can try-before-you-buy, try whatever you can and make an informed decision that suits you. If not, take a guess and know that the primes are all good glass, honestly, and if, in the very worst case, it really doesn't suit your needs, you can probably re-sell what you bought at 70%.

You're in a great position. I hope you enjoy it.

Another vote for 35 1.8. Plastic fantastic!

roombarobot said:
What do you all think is the "must have" inexpensive prime lens for a DX camera?

I love the Samyang 8mm AE fisheye. Just wonderful for the money. Extremely sharp and flare resistant, excellent colour rendition, tiny, metal body w/rubberized grip.
Worth every penny. Does things no normal lens can do. Tons cheaper than any AF fisheye (who needs AF at this focal length anyway?) and beats the Peleng/Zenitar fisheye lenses out there.
---
Sigma 20mm/1.8 is also nice when stopped down to 2.2 or so, extremely sharp from 2.8 on DX. Used u can pick these up really cheap. Very good value for the money.

I have a D200 with two zoom lenses (10-20, 18-200), but the lenses I use most are my three old primes:

- AF-D 20mm f/2.8
- AF-D 35mm f/2
- AF-D 50mm f/1.4

Yoan said:
Recently I was also considering getting a prime lens because I only have the kit 18-105mm which came with my D90 and I wanted to be able to produce good bokeh. But then I saw that I've taken least number of pictures in the 35-50mm range since I bought the camera. Having in mind I love landscapes I decided I should save up some more money and go for an ultra-wide lens. I don't think it's worth it buying something just because there are other people who like it and think it's a must-have for everyone. Well, at lease I am not like everyone :P

Good advice. I think we try to stress that with every new person. We can recommend every lens that Nikon makes, but unless you know what you shoot or what you really want then we aren't going to help you much. I think we generally come to the consensus of trying a zoom lens for a while and deciding on what you need after that (which is what you have done Yoan). Then if there is a specific need such as good bokeh or lenses in a certain range then we might can help...because really the only difference in the 35 vs 50 is the focal length.

Recently I was also considering getting a prime lens because I only have the kit 18-105mm which came with my D90 and I wanted to be able to produce good bokeh. But then I saw that I've taken least number of pictures in the 35-50mm range since I bought the camera. Having in mind I love landscapes I decided I should save up some more money and go for an ultra-wide lens. I don't think it's worth it buying something just because there are other people who like it and think it's a must-have for everyone. Well, at lease I am not like everyone :P

@roombarobot : Its really good that you have a good range. After a while you will see what focal lengths you use most often.

However if you are still keen on the 30 vs 35 vs 50. then it will depend on what you are intending for that lense

1) general purpose lens to replace your Zooms when the light is very low.
2) Good bokeh cos you feel the zooms just don't give you good enough bokeh.
3) Depth of field is too high on the zooms and you want narrower DOF for your subjects.

Also what function and subjects do you think you will be using the prime lenses for?

a) Macro flowers or macro insects. As mentioned the 40mm F2.8 is also an alternative esp because it adds a macro into the mix.
b) portraits.
c) general - anything that comes in low light! :-)
d) dont know { dont care .. just recommend a lense already ! }

If you are only considering the 30 vs the 35. then the differences are fairly minor. including the cost. choice on price = 35mm, depending on your style and subject? .. could be 30 or 35. if you have not seen it Digital rev has a comparative review that seems good.. http://youtu.be/p-eLPEPw4Vk

Also you can do a search on the forum here. All these lenses have been discussed including the bokeh of the 35 F1.8. There was also a blog post on the 50 mm lenses not too long ago that compared lots of them.

KR is right, the 35mm f1.8 doesn't have a good bokeh. There is lots of green outlining that can ruin your shots, or require a lot of post processing to get red of, but it's manageable and there are no real alternatives anyway. For 200$ it's a great lens, very sharp at every field relevant aperture, with a decent color rendition ability. It's especially great for B&W photos, because then u don't have to worry much about outlining and color fringing. The new afs 50mm 1,8g is a fantastic lens. I had the luck to compare it to the old 50mm and the 50mm 1.4g afs and it's the best of the lot, there is no reason to pick any other nikon 50mm over it, regardless of the price. The bokeh is decent too, focusing is fairly quick...

If you want to keep using a kit zoom, I'd just pick up the 50mm 1.8g and be done with it. I only use prime lenses at the moment, I own the 35 and 50mm lenses mentioned here and a 14mm f2.8 Samyang wide angle, for the type of shooting I enjoy to do they are great.

They both have 7 rounded diaphragm blades...ie they should have very similar bokeh. My guess is that they 50 produces better bokeh because it is a longer lens and takes less effort to create the bokeh and is most likely able to blur the background better. The more telephoto a lens is the easier it is to produce bokeh with it. The sample KR has with his kid pushing the shopping cart is horrible and I haven't been able to produce such bad bokeh...it almost looks like camera shake to me and not "bad" bokeh. I have heard others complain neither create a perfectly round bokehed circles. I think you have to get the F1.4 lenses (not inexpensive) if you want better bokeh...they have more blades (9) and produce a little more regular looking circles and "better" bokeh to some.

I am just getting my D5100 with a 18-55mm and a 55-300mm, so I have the range covered by zooms, but a fast prime is always nice to have, particularly since the zooms are not fast at all.

I had a 50mm prime for my older Canon and liked that, but have never tried the 35mm. I was wondering about the quality of the two, if there were any real differences. I was almost leaning towards the 35mm, as one can always crop a bit, but you can't go wider. ;) but then Rockwell said the bokeh is bad on the 35mm and why would you want a large aperture if not for good bokeh? Is there a difference in the bokeh between these two lenses?

Tcole +1 for the 40mm Micro , reasonably fast, good quality lens, and more versatile than the 35 or 50mm because of close foccusing possibilities

Only drawback ; AF is a bit slower, but that's the nature of a Macro lens..

Although I take KR with a grain of salt...this is mostly true. I would throw the 40 F2.8 micro into the mix. Out of all my lenses I use my 35 F1.8 the least. I use my 105 F2.8 the most, but that is my shooting style I guess. I have thought about on numerous occasions selling my 35 F1.8 to get the 50 F1.8 and now possibly the 85 F1.8. Not that the 35 F1.8 is bad, but the focal length just isn't one I use that often. Others on here use it all the time...I don't think anyone has ever not liked the lens, but it is what it is...a $200 prime that is fast and sharp but has a couple of quirks. I don't find the bokeh to be bad on it...the couple of pictures that I do have on flickr that represent the bokeh on it I think look fine and it is mostly up to each person to judge what they like and don't like and it can be worse or better depending on the bokehed background pattern and or colors.

heartyfisher said:
Also gaps in your focal lenght doesn't mean you need to fill them with a prime :-) find out what focal length/function you use most often then get a prime for that so that you know you will use it and get the best lense technically for that. its pointless getting an inexpensive prime that you will never use....

This is true... though it isn't the same focal length, I don't use my 50mm nearly as often as my 70-200mm because the view at 75mm EFL is close to 105mm EFL. I am bringing my 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 with me to Iceland because they don't take up much space, but I wonder how much I will use those lenses instead of my 16-35 and 70-200.

"What lenses do you already have? The focal lengths you might already have covered might help you decide what prime you'd get the most use out of..."

Great advice.. it REALLY does depend on YOU. after mucking around for quite awhile I got my prime lense .. it was MY "must have" prime lense.. the 150 F2.8 macro from sigma.

Also gaps in your focal lenght doesn't mean you need to fill them with a prime :-) find out what focal length/function you use most often then get a prime for that so that you know you will use it and get the best lense technically for that. its pointless getting an inexpensive prime that you will never use....

They are both good lenses but you can't say one is better than the other if they both do different things! I have the 35mm f/1.8G and 50mm f/1.8D for my D7000, and according to Lightroom I've taken 1588 photos with the 35mm f/1.8G versus 2908 photos with the 50mm f/1.8D. (Versus 2469 photos with the 20mm f/2.8D and 3159 photos with the 24mm f/1.4G, for what it's worth.) Your mileage may vary.

Depending on how you define inexpensive the 85mm f/1.8G seems like it could be a fun lens. @msmoto seems to be enjoying it for sure.

What lenses do you already have? The focal lengths you might already have covered might help you decide what prime you'd get the most use out of...

Rockwell is full of it.

You really have only 2 choices the 35mm & 50mm - for as cheap as they are - I would pick them both up. I think they are both must haves.

What would be your advice for the best inexpensive prime lens for DX cameras, particularly the D5100? I am looking at the 50mm and the 35mm f/1.8 G lenses. The 35mm is close to a 50mm full frame equivalent, but it is a DX lens and Ken Rockwell says the Bokeh is not great. The 50mm is newer, closer to a 75mm full frame, it is an FX-compatible lens, and Ken Rockwell says the bokeh is good.

What do you all think is the "must have" inexpensive prime lens for a DX camera? Thank you very much for your advice!