0

With my budget and as it is my first lens and DSLR camera ever, I am looking at these two:

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G ED AF-S FX NIKKOR Lens

and

Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S

for my D-610 camera.

I like landscape and street photography and also for portraits I like shallow depth of field . Now between those two, which one do you recommend? And around that price range is there any thing else you can suggest?

Improve this question
9
  • 1
    Wow, that's quite a first camera!
    – clabacchio
    Nov 27, 2014 at 8:03
  • Product recommendations are off-topic. If you re-word your question to ask what the specific differences are between those lenses that might help, but be aware that this sort of question will probably already have been answered to it would be worth doing a search.
    – connersz
    Nov 27, 2014 at 12:19
  • @clabacchio well it can be a first and last camera too :D
    – user1899082
    Nov 27, 2014 at 14:37
  • This is a big improvement over the first version of the question, but it's still really hard to answer, since the difference really comes to your usage and preferences, and we don't know those. And it sounds like you don't either — which isn't a bad thing, really. It just means you'll need to figure it out.
    – mattdm
    Nov 27, 2014 at 16:01
  • 1
    I lied about that being the last comment. :) It occurs to me that you would enjoy Mike Johnston's "Letter to George", because it fits with your idea of buying high-end and not worrying for years. Mike' advice fits with that, but but he does recommend two lenses to start.
    – mattdm
    Nov 27, 2014 at 16:21

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

This is the typical tradeoff between a zoom lens and a prime.

The zoom gives you more flexibility, and is appropriate for both landscapes and portraits, with the whole range in between.

The prime gives you a lot of quality for a small price, more light and shallower depth of field for the same focal length (and for some longer ones), it's lighter and forces you to compose with a single possible field of view. You can argue whether this is an advantage, in that it can be stimulating for developing technique and style.

The 35 mm on FX qualifies (I think) as wide-normal, thus it's really appropriate for street photography. It's not the typical portrait lens, although you can of course take portraits too.

Improve this answer
6
  • what is a "prime" lens? I see this word everywhere.
    – user1899082
    Nov 27, 2014 at 14:34
  • 2
    "Prime" == "Not zoom". See.
    – user31502
    Nov 27, 2014 at 14:41
  • with Any of those lenses, Can I take a shot like this image? wvs.topleftpixel.com/13/06/30 ? What kind of lens is needed for this?
    – user1899082
    Nov 27, 2014 at 14:42
  • 2
    @user1899082 that image was taken with a 12mm (ultra-ultra-wide) lens and then cropped to prevent converging verticals, you wont quite be able to get that dramatic a perspective using a 24mm, nor will you be able to have the building's edges parallel to the edge of the image. See: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1100/…
    – Matt Grum
    Nov 27, 2014 at 15:20
  • 1
    @user1899082 you can achieve that with nearlt any lens, but unless you have an ultra-wide one, you'll need to take multiple shots and stitch them using a panorama tool like Hugin
    – clabacchio
    Nov 27, 2014 at 15:27
1

You have a full frame camera, you wont have crop effect that means you get actual frame according to the focal length(35mm or 24mm).

As your interest in landscape, its better to go for 24mm of focal length, but again as you also said you need shallow depth of field and you like portraits, 35 mm is what i recommend for that purpose that has 1.8 aperture. 35 mm falls under 24-85mm but you then compromise its lowlight capability and Dof.

so i would recommend you to get 35mm for its versatile capability for detail shots on street and portraits and 24-85 for landscape and for situations you cant move close for shots.

For your interest you need both the lenses. If budget is a constraint i would say to go for 35mm lens first as it gives so much for that price and later 24-85mm which is almost $300 expensive to 35mm.(also see Sigma 12-24mm F/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM II which is much wider but expensive too).

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    The sigma you mention is designed for crop sensor cameras (DC is sigma's equivalent of EF-S or DX). Also, please separate out your answer into paragraphs to make it more readable.
    – damned truths
    Nov 27, 2014 at 8:33
  • I think the first part of this post is confusing. There's nothing magical about 24×36 in terms of "actual" field of view, even though many lenses and are designed for that format. I know we call it "full-frame", but still, it's confusing. All lenses produce a field of view according to the focal length and sensor size combined, whether on full-featured, APS-C, 1",or smaller or larger. The crop isn't an effect — it's a conversion factor between formats.
    – mattdm
    Nov 27, 2014 at 16:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.