Reddit Reddit reviews Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

We found 191 Reddit comments about Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Digital Camera Lenses
Camera Lenses
Camcorder & Camera Lenses
Camera & Photo
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras
F mount lens/DX format. Picture angle with Nikon DX format 44 degree52.5 millimeter (35-millimeter equivalent). Rear focusing; Manual focus overrideAperture range: F/1.8 to 22; Dimensions(approx.) 70 x 52.5 millimeterSilent wave motor AF system. Accepts filter type is screw on. Lens construction: 8 elements in 6 groupsCompatible formats is dx and fx in dx crop mode. Maximum reproduction ratio: 0.16xLens not zoomable
Check price on Amazon

191 Reddit comments about Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras:

u/EpistemicFaithCrisis · 38 pointsr/photography

You're thinking exactly correctly. That's one of the reasons why Nikon has a (relatively) cheap 35mm f/1.8 prime for DX.

u/odd_affilliate_link · 17 pointsr/photography

I would say you can't go wrong with a D7000 body paired with a 35mm 1.8. That's exactly your budget and the D7000 allows you to use pretty much any old Nikon lens you can find. If you want more lenses, scout Craigslist (I've found some extremely good deals there). Kit 18-55s can be had for dirt cheap, as well as the ubiquitous 50mm. Depending on what you want to shoot, your lens preference my vary, though the 35mm is pretty much all-around fantastic especially for the price.

Others might say to use more of the budget on the lenses and less on the body but I find the handling of the D7000 to be so far superior to the 'lesser' models that it would be worth it (to me). I like having 2 dials and an LCD on the top of the camera. In addition, a D7000 + 35mm 1.8 is not a large kit as DSLRs go, so if you don't want to carry around a huge chunk of gear, that is a factor.

Edit: D90 is another decent choice, but I feel that sensor tech (particularly high ISO quality) has advanced enough between the D90 and D7000 that the D7000 is a much better (though more expensive) choice.

u/odd_affiliate_link · 15 pointsr/photography

I suggest the D7000 - I really like mine. The ergonomics (aside from the ISO button placement) are fantastic, and it feels very well made. I had some lenses already, but if you nave no lenses, I would go with the kit w/18-105mm lens and add the excellent 35mm 1.8. Also keep a sharp eye out for used lenses on Craigslist - The D7000 can use pretty much any old Nikon lens.

I was given an old Quantaray Vivitar 70-210mm 3.5 that would not meter on a friend's D50 but works great on the D7000. It isn't the best lens, but it is very fun to play with and has a macro mode.

Regarding lenses, some people will tell you to skip the kit lens and just go with primes. I disagree. Primes are great, but for someone who is just starting out and getting a feel for a 'real' camera, a decent zoom is great. 18-105mm is a huge range, so it should give you an idea of what focal lengths you like after using it a bit.

Edit: Fixed lens manufacturer mentioned above.

u/burning1rr · 8 pointsr/Nikon

The D3300 can absolutely take great depth of field (DOF) photographs, but it does help to have the right lens.

Here's something I happened to shoot on a hike. This was shot with a d5300, which has the same sensor and crop factor as your D3300. I used the Nikkor 35mm F1.8 prime lens, which is excellent for DOF work.

Here are some hints:

  • Use Aperture Priority mode (A). The wider your aperture, the shorter your depth of field.
  • Use the widest aperture possible^1. With the kit lenses this usually means f3.5-f5.5, depending on focal length.
  • Move closer to your subject (closer subject means shorter DOF)
  • Put more distance between your subject and the background (background will be more out of focus.)
  • If you want to shoot portraits at 55mm, use the 55-200 lens not the 18-55. The 55-200 is faster than the 18-55 at 55mm^2.

    A longer focal length will tend to reduce DOF, but with the kit lens zoom will reduce aperture. Longer focal length also means that you'll need to stand further away from the subject to get the framing correct. Distance increases DOF.

    Try using the kit 18-55mm lens at about 35mm and open the aperture wide. Move the subject away from the background. Chose a background with some texture that contrasts against your subject. Make sure the background is far behind the subject.

    If you want to take DOF shots, a faster lens helps immensely. For landscape and group photography, the Nikkor DX 35mm f1.8 lens is a great bet. For shooting portraits, consider the Nikkor FX 50mm f1.8 prime. Both cost $200, and are absolutely worth the price.

    I recommend the 50mm for portrait photos because the zoom helps move you away from your subject. A face/shoulder shot with the 35mm will tend to distort the subjects features. 80-100mm is generally considered a good distance for portrait photography, but the fast 100mm lenses are much more expensive than the 50mm prime.

    One other hint... Consider enabling Auto-ISO on your camera. Getting Auto-ISO right takes patience, but it makes shooting much easier once it's set correctly. Mine is tuned so that ISO stays at 100 normally, but increases to keep the shutter speed at a minimum of 1/50.

    ^1 This doesn't always apply to extremely fast lenses. The 35mm f1.8 has a razor thin depth of field wide open. I have taken many shots where there isn't enough DOF to capture the entire subject at that aperture.

    ^2 This advise has a major caveat: While the 55-200 is wider at 55, the minimum focus distance is much longer. You'll get a shorter depth of field and better bokah using the 18-55 at 1' and f5.6 than you will using the 55-200 at 3' and f4.
u/dutchbag · 7 pointsr/photography

I cannot recommend the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 enough. It's pretty much permanently mated to my most used body (the older bro of the D3k, the D40x).

u/Vpr99 · 7 pointsr/buildapc

I've got a Nikon D3100. It's not crazy nice, but then again I don't make enough money off my photography (or use it enough) to merit a better one. I do have two other lenses, though. I've got a Nikon 18-200 f/3.5 - 5.6 which just sits in my camera bag about 90% of the time and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 that I used to take these photos. I got it as a vacation and low-light lens and I've absolutely fallen in love with it. I chose it cause it's a bit wider than the 50mm f/1.8 which was my other choice. I've honestly been considering selling the 18-200 since it was expensive and barely gets used. The 35 is the deal of the century as far as I'm concerned with lenses.

u/frostickle · 7 pointsr/photography

And you have no other lenses besides your kit lens?

I recommend the 35mm f1.8 :)

Or the 50mm f1.8 if you want something longer (Personally, I prefer shorter lenses, because they have a wider angle. To tell what the angles are, use your kit lens, and turn it to 35 or 50)

P.s. That is a reddit amazon affiliate link, but please do not feel compelled to buy with it. Go shop around (ebay, keh, adorama, local shops, etc.) and get the cheapest deal you can find!

u/TheSummerTriangle · 7 pointsr/Nikon

You definitely want this 35mm 1.8 DX. It's a steal of a lens, and often the only lens I bring with me on my DX bodies.

Sports is the hardest thing to shoot cheaply, especially if it's indoors/at night. VR won't help you there -- it doesn't un-blur moving objects, it only prevents blurring from the camera shaking in your hands. Your best bet is most likely the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.

As for bags, I generally shoot out of a random backpack or shoulder bag. You can get a specialized camera bag if you want to, but I've found them to be overkill for me.

u/[deleted] · 6 pointsr/photography

Keep in mind that the D5000 has a DX Format sensor with a 1.5 crop factor (I think). That 50mm lens will actually be closer to a 75mm lens.

Also, as suddenly_spiders commented, that lens will NOT work with autofocus on the D5000: only AF-S or AF-I lenses will work with the autofocus. Check out the Nikon website for a list of compatible lenses.

A compatible 50mm lens will cost you closer to $500...

EDIT: here's a good 35mm lens.

u/geekandwife · 6 pointsr/photography

For a D3300, I would not want a 85mm at my "do everything" lens. I would have gone with a 35mm. If you are reading guides that talk about portrait shooting with and 85mm prime, they are talking about on a full frame camera. A 50mm will be the equivalent of a 85mm on your D3300. If that is what you are really looking for I would get the , And I would keep the 35mm as your equivalent to a "nifty" fifty. It will be your general walk around lens. However, you could always return what you got wrong, and get the cheaper 35mm 1.8 - . I would much rather have a 50mm and a 35mm prime than one 85mm prime, especially since I could get both cheaper than the one lens.

u/Fracturedlens · 6 pointsr/photography

I have been shooting on Nikon for a while now. The D7000 is a solid camera. Going from my old D80 to the D7000 it was like stepping into the future. The full RGB meter and the 6400 ISO range make for some amazing shots.

Now as for lens that largely depends on your budget.

  • The standard starter 50mm f/1.8 $219.00

    The 50mm will give you razor sharp images work in low light and is a great lens to learn on. If you ever move to a FX (full frame) camera is will work on there as well. On your crop camera it will be 50mm x 1.5 (crop factor) = 75mm lens. This is a little long for some folks which leads to our next lens.

  • Great starter just for DX Cameras 35mm f/1.8 $196.95

    The 35 is a DX lens (build just for your crop camera so it won't work well on a FX camera) but its a great place to start. This lens is a "normal" lens. Meaning it is close to what your eye sees. Its cheap and has many of the qualities of the 50mm.

  • If you have some money to burn the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 $594.00

    I just picked up this Sigma a few days ago from Amazon and I can confirm its sharp as a tack. I honestly like this lens better than the 17-55 Nikon which is 1500 ish dollars. It has optical stabilization and is lighter than the hulking Nikon lens.

    I have stayed away from lenses with, in my opinion, crappy f-stops. You can find cheaper lens out there but you will suffer from high f stops like 5.6 which will kill your ability to shoot in low light, and to isolate your subject and have real control over your depth of field. These lenses are great place to start and they will stay in your camera bag for years to come. There are more lenses out there from zooms to telephoto to macro if you give us some idea of what you want to shoot then we can help recommend a more specialized lens. Happy shooting.
u/Hitokiri_Ace · 5 pointsr/AnimeFigures

Nikon d3200 body, and a 1.8 35mm nikkor lens.

Probably the best bang for your buck you can get. (imo) ~$350-ish total

-good platform to start learning on
-great picture quality-good all purpose focal length 35mm (50mm equivelent on the aps-c sensor)
-good low light performance with that fast prime lens

Feel free to ask any questions.

u/wanakoworks · 5 pointsr/AskPhotography

If you want a general purpose prime on an APSC camera, 35mm is the sweet spot. I run Canon gear, but on my old 80D, I had the most satisfaction using a 35mm f/2. My brother uses a D7100 and I recommended him a 35mm. He got a 35mm f/1.8G and has been extremely happy with it and never takes it off. It's cheap and gives great image quality for the price. That will equal about 52mm on your body which is a generally wide enough FOV for environmental shots but also narrow enough for portraits, with blown out background. The most recent maybe 15-20 pics are with the 35mm, just to give you an idea.

He has a 50mm, as well, but was very unhappy with it because it was not wide enough for general use. Someone recommended him that one without taking into account the crop factor of his camera. Those "nifty fifties" are great for Full-frame/FX cameras for general use, but are actually closer to portrait lenses on APSC.

I would suggest you go to a camera store or something and try it out real quick and see if you like it before buying.

u/nal1200 · 5 pointsr/photography

The lens is easy - get a new/used Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

The body will be somewhat subjective. This is the first one I had, and I'd recommend it. Used is around $250-300. Nikon D5100

Edit: Instead of the 35mm lens, you can get the FX 50mm 1.8g, which is about $50 more, which will be better for portraits. The 35mm will give you more versatility. Neither will be all that great for landscape. I recommend the 35mm since it's the equivalent focal length of 53mm, which is pretty close to the 'standard' focal length.

u/HybridCamRev · 5 pointsr/videography

/u/BRADLEYTANK2 - sadly, the videography business changes so quickly that it is hard to keep guides and tutorials up to date.

As of late 2016, you can get a decent starter camera for under $2000, depending on what kind of videography business you want to pursue. Here are a few options:

Option One

If you plan to shoot events, corporate promos, local commercials, etc. - I recommend a small sensor, 4K pro camcorder such as the [$1295 JVC HM170 with the free top handle and pro XLR mic inputs] (

The HM170 has a 12x power zoom, professional XLR mic inputs, built-in NDs, a full sized HDMI out, 1080/120p slow motion and dual card slots with unlimited recording time.

Here is the image quality you can expect from this camcorder:


u/thatlonelyasianguy · 5 pointsr/Nikon

Before I jump in to try and provide you with an answer, I want to verify the information that you gave in your posting to make sure that we're on the same page. Some quick google-fu tells me that you have the following already, which I'm hoping you can confirm.

>DX 0.2m

I'm assuming that this is the Nikon 40mm f/2.8

>DX 1.1m

I'm also assuming that this is the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6

I'm also guessing that he has a D3300 and not a D330 (I don't think there is one, other redditors correct me if I'm wrong please) because his current kit of lenses is comprised of DX lenses. I'd like to make a couple lenses recommendations (lenses that I think are great for any kit) based on the above information.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (Manual focus only on the D3300 since it doesn't have an internal focus motor)

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

Both of those lenses will be alright for event and outdoor photography (although having to juggle primes all the time can be a bit of a pain and the 55-200 he already has is probably better for wildlife) but each will clock in under $200, giving you some extra cash to spare if you decide to pick up a UV filter for both of those lenses - they both use 52mm threaded filters. The only thing I can see is that both of those lenses fall somewhat within the same focal distance as the 40mm f/2.8, so the only other thing I can think of is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G if one didn't come with the camera body when he bought it. That can be had for under $200 and would be helpful as an everyday walk-around lens instead of having to lug around different primes.

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

I hope this is helpful!

*Edited for formatting.

u/SPOOFE · 5 pointsr/Nikon

D3200 and 35mm f/1.8 DX. The camera is lightweight and simple, with excellent technical image quality. Controls and build quality aren't as robust as pricier cameras, and the step-up model, the D5200, has a flip-out screen. The lens performs very well for the money, and other options start getting pricy really fast in some cases.

u/whiskeysnowcone · 5 pointsr/photography

That's a shame. I did find some 10mm and 18mm lenses for the D5500 but the prices are just outrageous. Looks like my kit lens will have to do for wide angles. I still might invest in the 35mm prime. seems to be a good price for a great lens.

Thanks for the input!

u/meatatarian · 5 pointsr/photography

Nikon actually makes a fantastic 35 mm 1.8 that I would recommend over the 50 mm 1.8 on the crop sensored d5100. 35mm on a crop is very close to the normal zoom and range of vision you get with your eyes, so it's more intuitive to use. Plus, it's only $200.

Check it out on Amazon. Note: It only works on DX Nikons, not FX.

u/megluesta · 4 pointsr/Cameras

Only the lens of a (D)SLR camera will affect the aperture in any way. If the largest aperture you are achieving is 3.5, I am guessing that you are currently using the kit lens (the lens that came with the camera). To achieve a larger aperture I suggest a prime lens (a lens that only has one focal length = cannot zoom) because the tend to have much bigger maximum aperture. for the d3000 i suggest the 35mm 1:1.8G DX as it is specifically designed for dx cameras like your own, it is about at normal view, and best yet it has a great large aperture.

u/TonyDarko · 4 pointsr/photography

That was an excellent and thoughtful gift, kudos to you. Aside from the lenses, there are a few other things that help a lot when starting out in photography (I'm just figuring this out as I'm pretty new):

  • A tripod can help if he wants to take low-light pictures and set up really long shutter times (it basically makes it so that no shaking messes up his pictures) and it can help to take pictures of you guys. I'm planning on bringing one for a trip with my girlfriend and I so we can take cool pictures where there may not be other people to help out.

  • A good bag or backpack would be great, increasingly so as the amount of gear that he has goes up. It's tough to carry around all that crap, and these bags make it pretty easy to fit.

  • a strap, pretty self explanatory. carrying around a DSLR in one hand sucks.

  • Extra memory cards and possibly an external hard drive are nice because RAW camera files take up a toooon of storage and having backups is always nice in the case that a really important picture gets corrupted.

    As for lenses:

    Nikon 35mm prime (basically allows him to take pretty nice, wide open landscape pictures at great quality)

    50mm prime widely regarded as the best starting lens (another no zoom lens that is an all-around all-star that is pretty versatile. good for portraits, landscapes, etc)
u/tchirman · 4 pointsr/photography

I highly recommend this lens It is sharper overall, and is a great focal length on a D5200. Also, Nikon DOES NOT accept Canon Lenses, even with an adaptor.

u/finaleclipse · 4 pointsr/photography

> How much would that set me back? How many lenses would be sufficient?

Depends on what you're buying, if you're going crazy then some lenses can set you back a lot, others not so much. And the number of sufficient lenses depends on what you're shooting. I use my 24-105 for general purpose, my 70-200 for events/getting closer to stuff, my 85mm for portraits, my 35mm for lower light events/general purpose walk-around, my 14mm for real estate, and since I rarely use my 50mm anymore I'm attempting to sell it and replace it with a 100mm macro instead.

> If I knew where I was going and what I had in mind before hand would I just bring one or two lenses?

That's what I do, usually I'll have my general-purpose EF 24-105mm f4L IS with me, and then something else that's more specialized for what I'm doing. If I'm going hiking, I'll take my 70-200mm in case I see some wildlife. If I'm doing more street stuff, I'll bring my 35mm f2 IS instead. No need for me to lug stuff around that I don't plan on using.

> Need to research the difference in those more.

Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are effectively just DSLRs without the mirror. Here's a simple diagram of the differences. Mirrorless tend to be smaller in size and weight, and lenses designed for them can also be smaller. The trade-off is that they lose the optical viewfinder in favor of an electronic one (if they have a viewfinder at all), and tend to have lower battery life than their DSLR counterparts so having a spare or two isn't a bad idea.

$500 can get you a good start with pretty much any system you want to start building. Also don't be afraid of buying used, especially from reputable dealers like It can save you a good chunk of money in the long run.

u/ForwardTwo · 4 pointsr/ReviewThis

I wrote a huge thread about buying Nikon as I am studying photography and am one of the biggest Nikon fanboys on the planet. I'll paste it all here. The D3100 and the D5100 are EXCELLENT cameras, and will blow your mind as an entry level DSLR. Do not fall into the D7000 trap, it's not worth it due to it's AF problems. I own a D300, D80, and GF1. Here's everything I had to say... It's lengthy. All about which lenses you should go for with your D3100/D5100

The 35mm f1.8: The lens is fixed at 35mm, so no zooming. However, the fact that it is f1.8 means it has AWESOME low light capabilities. I always recommend wide angles to new DSLR owners because it really introduces you to what the camera is capable of. You'll get a grip of aperture values and creative bokeh use; it is wonderful. Plus it seems like everyone loves that 'large sensor' look with beautiful background blur (bokeh) and very sharp foreground details, and wide angle lenses at very low apertures will definitely give you that. Just mind you that 35mm is kind of a short length, but you can live with it. (My GF1 only has a 20mm lens attached to it, and it is still one of my favorite lenses to date from Panasonic.) The price is to DIE FOR.

55-300mm f4.5-f5.6: While I don't exactly like variable aperture zooms, they are are fantastically priced. Don't expect ridiculous zoom levels though, but it'll still zoom pretty well; 300mm is a fairly good zoom. The reason why I don't really like variable apertures is that sometimes you completely forget about them, and if you are shooting in manual that will absolutely kill your shot if you weren't shooting in RAW.

So I'll be zoomed at 100mm, probably at f4.9, and then zoom to 280mm. Suddenly, I'm at f5.5 without changing it myself because the lens doesn't support f4.9 at that zoom. Kind of a downside, but you just have to keep it in mind and shoot in RAW.

There is another option if you don't want variable apertures however.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: This is the beast lens. If you want to save up money for a lens, I promise this is the one you want to do that for.

My 70-200mm VR is a lens I refuse to leave at home when going on a trip, it is simply my favorite lens EVER. This is the next version of it, but it is cheaper because of demand.

But now you see the downside to low aperture telephoto: price. $2,400 isn't exactly the most affordable lens on the planet, but that's why it is worth it to buy this a while after you have had your DSLR and have saved up some money for that killer lens. This, paired with the 35mm f1.8 I put above there, would be a killer kit. It would be fantastic for low light conditions, even with the telephoto.

I'm a loyal Nikon shooter for a reason: They are quality. While I'm a bit disappointed with how long it took them to jump into DSLR video, the quality of their cameras have always pleasantly surprised me ( Not counting the D7000 of course ;) ). The D3100 was one of those cameras that I just loved, the price is fantastic and the quality of the camera itself is mind blowing for the price.

My first camera was a D80, and I fell in love with it. That was a while ago though, and once I picked up my D300... Magic. I had never used such a powerful camera before, and it blew my mind what the D300 was capable of. While it is getting a bit old (Older Sensor, still an old 12MP with lesser low light capabilities than the newer cameras), the auto-focus points are fantastic and the overall speed and RAW processing power of the camera have never failed to make me smile.

I have a nice little savings account for a D3x or the D4 line once it is released. ;D

The D3100 is a camera that you'll probably keep for a long time. It is a quality camera, like all Nikons. It is powerful, and is considered to be one of the 'new age' DSLRs: lower price, greater power. Hopefully this camera will turn you into a life long Nikon fan. ;) Have fun with it, that's the one major rule. Don't pay attention to any of the shooting rules if you feel like you have a better idea; follow your eyes, not some other person's laws (Rule of thirds, etc.).
Good Luck! And Have Fun! :D

u/fivethirdstwo · 4 pointsr/AskPhotography

You should seriously consider picking up a 35mm DX F/1.8 instead. Thats what I did for my d3200 and it is amazing what it did for me in terms of flexibility for exposure. I recently got a hand me down 18-105mm and it just feels restrictive in comparison.

u/DVDJunky · 3 pointsr/dvdcollection

Yeah, I've already got the lens I want... just need to save up for it.

u/SnowHawkMike · 3 pointsr/photography

Thank you, I am glad that it's useful. I am the first to admit to people, although I learned and grew up using Nikon, my experience with their glass is limited since I no longer use their system. That's my longwinded way of saying take what I say with a grain of salt.

Having said that I find the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G to be one beautiful piece of glass. As good as the famed nifty fifty that Canon users love. Yes, you will get some light fall off with this lens, but stopped down that disappears. However who really cares, since you are most likely using it to focus in the center and not around the edges. And on a crop sensor I am guessing you are mostly using this for portraits, or similar centre focused shots.

The 35mm is just as good, if not better, seeing as how it's $50 less (MSRP), and on a crop sensor like in the D7000 it works beautifully as an all purpose lens. If you have the [cash for it]) I would say keep both in your bag, and use the 35mm for those times when you need a lens to do anything on the fly, and 50mm for more specific situations.

Another contender worth tossing into the mix, and this is what I use, is the Leica Summicron-R 50mm. It's the most used lens in my kit, and whether I am shooting film or digital I never leave the house without it. If you decide to pick one up look for the newer 3 cam version, and if you want to save some money do not buy the ROM version. Simply buy the cheapest good condition non-rom version you can, and send it to Leica to be upgraded to ROM for $325 if you really need that extra data.

If it's helpful here are links to the flickr groups for the three lenses I just talked about:

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8g

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g

Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2

u/VIJoe · 3 pointsr/photography

Quasi-newbie myself with a similar rig (d5100):

  • One of the problems you will have the stock (kit) lens is the amount of light that you are going to be able to get indoors. I think the 35 mm 1.8 is a very fun lens for some inside experimentation.

  • My favorite books are Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure; Michael Freeman's The Photographer's Eye; and his The Photographer's Mind. I think the latter two are great introductions to the ideas around composition.
u/themadthinker · 3 pointsr/IAmA

A quick note on that lens: Nikon just put out a 35mm f/1.8 for $200 bucks, which has the nice addition of a built in AF motor. Great if you have a lower end Nikon SLR (D40, D60, D3000)

u/code_and_coffee · 3 pointsr/photography

Didn't see the filming part sorry! I'd go for a lens with whatever focal length you want that is ideally wider than f/2.8. Check this one out the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Wider aperture means more light and you'll get the bokeh affect when shooting. It's also relatively affordable at $220.

There's also the 35mm f/1.8 for a bit wider angle. similarly priced.

u/arachnophilia · 3 pointsr/photography

the modern nikon 50mm f/1.8g and 35mm f/1.8g DX are about the same price.

the addition of the focus motor seems to have doubled the price.

u/GenericStatement · 3 pointsr/Nikon

Under $350, you really can't do much in the way of upgrading to a better telephoto lens, so I'd stick with the 70-300.

The 18-55 is good for landscapes. What you really need is a tripod for it. You can get a great one for about $150 these days, and the monopod part would help with sports, probably. But the real trick to landscape photography is actually not about the camera or the lens, since you're usually stopping down the lens to f/8 or f/11 and so even a mediocre lens will give you good images. The trick is that it takes a lot of discipline, mainly in getting up early or staying out late, because the few hours after sunrise and the few hours before sunset give you the best light, that is, the "golden hours". There are also the "blue hours" immediately before sunrise and after sunset. The second part of the discipline, besides the timing, is the repetition. You may have an awesome shot, but then it's cloudy, or the light isn't right, or whatever. Some of the great landscape photographers visit a spot dozens of times before they get "the shot". A lens, a camera, and a tripod, and lots of discipline.

The 35/1.8 AF-S DX is a good lens to start with and you can pick one up used for around $120. You can also get a 50/1.8 AF-S for about $150 used, or $220 new, which is a great portrait lens on your camera. These lenses let in much more light (about 8x as much as your 18-55 does at 35 and 50mm) and also allow you to create more blurred backgrounds. I like the 50 much better than the 35 for portraits; for me the 35 is too wide to be flattering unless you're doing an environmental portrait and including a good deal of the room/environment around the person (and if that's the case, just use your 18-55, since you'll want more depth of field (less background blur) to include the details of the environment.)

So yeah, if it were me, I'd get a good tripod/monopod like the link above for landscapes, and the 50/1.8 AF-S for portraits. That's about $300 right there if you get the lens used; there's tons of them on eBay or if eBay scares you, KEH has them in EX+ condition for $150 too. Buying lenses new is one of the biggest wastes of money you can do in photography (and it was a lesson I didn't really learn until I'd spent thousands!)

u/MrMeursault · 3 pointsr/photography

I've been lusting over the A7s, it is the low light king. Not at all in your budget though. The D3200 probably isn't the best as it has troubles focusing in low light. The kit lens is a definite no no as it doesn't do well in low light. If you go DSLR go at least d5200 for $500 paired with the 35mm f/1.8 lens for $200. A refurbished d5300 can be found for $600 and would also be a great choice paired with that 35mm.

The Sony a6000 ($450 for body $600 for kit) is making a lot of noise in the mirrorless format at that pricepoint and can be paired with the 35mm f/1.8 at $400 for a total of $850, just above your budget.

u/griploner · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I own a D5300 with a prime 35mm lens and can honestly say it's a great camera for the price.

A sample shot located in Wales...

u/Words_Of_Prey · 3 pointsr/travel

I like the ones with people in them because it's something I want to get better at. My issue with shooting people is that I'm not good with focusing, so I have to stage people instead of capturing the natural moment. The variable focus on my Nikon is a bit clumsy for my liking, so I find it easier to have a fixed center focus then reframe it so that the object in focus is framed better (like this one). However, this is doesn't work very well if people move because then they're out of focus.

A lot of the evening shots in this collection would be tough to do on an old D70, though getting a better lens helped quite a bit. I now use this one and I was able to get pictures like this one. However, for every one shot like that one, I have a few that are blurry because even the motion of me pressing the shutter blurs the photo. I have to be very careful when it's darker.

u/cmtrinks · 3 pointsr/photography

After wanting a DSLR for several years, I recently decided to bite the bullet and finally buy one. I picked up the D7000, and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. While this lens is perfect for me so far and does everything that I want while I continue to learn, eventually I'll be looking to acquire more lenses. Heres where I'm confused on what would actually be the best lenses to purchase down the road. I'm not constantly shooting portraits, or fast paced sports games; I usually just shoot whatever I want, whenever.

I'm looking to grab either a 35mm, 50mm, or a wide angle. These are what I've found so far that have my interest: 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G. I'm not exactly sure which would be better since I have a 28-75. I've read a ton of articles of 35mm vs 50mm, and even wide angle but I'm still confused on which to buy. I would like to take city landscape, food, and possibly portraits with whatever lens I get. Any wide angle recommendations would be appreciated.

Secondly, I want to purchase a telephoto but I'm not sure which one would suit my lifestyle more. Right now I wouldn't mind spending $5-700 for this. I was looking at this model: 70-200mm f/2.8 I would eventually upgrade to a better telephoto, but for the time being I don't necessarily want to spend $1,000+. Any suggestions on what would be a better lens to buy instead of the one I linked, and what would be a good lens to upgrade to in a few years?

I've taken a few longer exposure night time shots that have turned out very nice, but I wasn't sure about how to do daytime bright light exposures until recently learning about neutral density filters. I've heard multiple pros and cons about adjustable ND filters, so I'm unsure if I should be buying an adjustable or regular filters.

u/parzivalsanorak · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

I've heard good things about the D7200. Personally, I still use a D3300 and while it has its drawbacks, those mostly concern comfort functionalities (burst speed, autofocus points, button layout, fixed screen). With regard to image quality, any halfway recent camera from one of the well-known manufacturers will do.

With a budget of 800€, what will you be able to get? Where I live, the D7200 body alone costs that much new, so no lenses, no accessories. I think it might be worthwhile to think about buying a D3xxx or a D5xxx Nikon or to consider buying used. Do note that those two series don't have an autofocus motor, so you'll only be able to autofocus with lenses that bring one (AF-S and AF-P lenses, but not AF and AI).

For street photography, the 35/1.8 DX is a popular lens. I can't recommend a specific lens for landscapes since I rarely do them, but generally, you'll want a wide-angle lens and probably a tripod. However, I'd suggest getting the camera with a kit lens first. There are few cheaper ways to get a general all-purpose lens to experiment. Maybe the new camera opens up new possibilities and you suddenly find yourself drawn to portraits or macros. You can always upgrade once you feel you can't comfortably work around the limitations of your current gear.

u/newdingodog · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

If you can afford both the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 I would buy them both. They both go down to 1.8 which means the aperture is open very with and will let a ton of light in. These are both prime lenses so they don't zoom but that is not as important as you probably think.

I am assuming here that you don't want to spend 1500+ on a fast professional zoom lens, that would also be okay.

The 35 mm is 200 and I just bought it myself:

The 50mm can be had for 131:

You can also just go with what you have, but you will probably need to crank the ISO up pretty high.

Suggested settings:

  1. Put the camera in aperture priority (A on the dial) and set it to the lowest number it will go. (1.8 on the suggested lenses, 3.5-5.6 on the kit lenses).

  2. Take pictures of the subject, look at the shutter speed the camera is choosing.

  3. Increase the ISO until the shutter speed is around 1/200 at minimum (if the subject is moving)

  4. Take some pictures with a higher ISO to get shutter speed at 1/400 just in case 1/200 was not fast enough. (1/200 should be plenty fast if they are not running and jumping all over)

    The reason for the suggested lenses is at 1.8, your ISO can be much lower than 3.5 and this will result in less noise. One last time: shoot raw if you can since it is a tricky situation. GOOD LUCK!
u/gh5046 · 3 pointsr/photography

Do you mean the 35mm f/1.8? I am not seeing a 30mm f/1.8 Nikon lens. It might exist, I'm just not familiar with Nikon lenses. Just curious.

If you want to retain the mood of the environment get a fast (large aperture) lens. If you don't care about the available lighting get a good speedlite that can overpower it and just use your current lens.

In these scenarios I have found I prefer a balance of available lighting and flash.

You can buy or make your own diffuser for an external flash. I made one couple years ago and have been very happy with the results.

u/wearenottheborg · 3 pointsr/amazonreviews

This was a "question" about a Nikon lens

u/bobbybottombracket · 3 pointsr/Nikon

Ask him for the serial number..

Bro, the lens is $200 bucks, get a new one. Don't pay $175 for this...

u/KallistiEngel · 3 pointsr/photography

I'm considering the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 myself since supposedly it's closer to being the equivalent of a 50mm focal length lens for a film SLR, any idea how it stacks up?

I've read some good reviews of it, but it's hard for me to comparison shop for lenses unless the reviewer is doing a side-by-side comparison.

u/pierceham · 3 pointsr/EDC

In the box:

u/ItsToka · 3 pointsr/photography

I went with the 35mm 1.8 lens as my first after the kit lens. $166 on amazon currently.

u/Hynjia · 3 pointsr/photography

This is easily one of the best lenses you can get in my opinion. The 35mm prime is great for low light with that low f-stop like your buddy mentioned. It'll mean you have to move around and be active in composing shots since you don't have the zoom, but hey, you'll be at a concert.

For the record, I shot with only that lens on a d5000 for 5-6 months before I finally got a zoom lens. It's as versatile as you are.

u/AtticusDrake58 · 3 pointsr/DSLR

First, thank you so much for the clarification on the camera body, but are you referring to something like this?

u/Bester2001 · 2 pointsr/Cameras

One word Awesom. A great deal thr Nikon D7000 is one of the best DSLRs on the market even with the 7100 just out now there are benefits to the 7100 and the newer Canon 70D (most notably being improved HD Video capabilities and improved auto focus) but for a first time DSLR purchase at that price it's hard to beat. If you can afford another lenses get this a $200 35mm 1.8 apature lense : it is a Fast wide angle lens perfect for portraits and general purpose shooting esp if you want that cool blurry background look and great low light pictures. And build up from there with a good 600-800$ with VR also known as image stabilization.

u/scienceblowsmymind · 2 pointsr/photography

Newbie here! I'm ready to get into photography and am probably going to get the Nikon D5300 with the standard 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I'd like a second lens and my budget is 200ish - I'm okay with used ones and I'm okay waiting to save more money to up my budget.

I want to be able to photograph the night sky and the northern lights and I've read that there are slightly different recommendations for each. (I'll also like to use the camera for travel and landscapes and whatnot.) [This page] ( has a nice table toward the bottom for night sky photography and made me consider this 35mm f/1.8 lens. And I read on Dave Morrow's site that a wide angle f/2.4-4 is preferable for the northern lights. My understanding is that the standard lens fits this suggestion. I couldn't find a prime lens within my budget that fits that range.

Should I get the lens I linked above? Should I wait until I actually get the camera and have a better sense of what things are?


u/phooton · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

The wife did not want me to buy this camera, so it is still in hiding. I have not been able to use it that much as a result, but the pictures I have taken so far have mostly been with this lens:

Regardless of the lens, my advice is read up / google your way to being knowledgeable with photography. Stuff like depth of field, exposure & the exposure triangle, and composition are probably the most important, but keep in mind I am not a professional by any means.

I remember reading that you should not buy another lens until you have mastered the ones you currently own, so that is good advice too I think.

u/UndeadCaesar · 2 pointsr/photography

I have a Nikon D5200 with the kit lens, and a 50mm manual focus prime. I have ~$750 to spend on lenses that I've saved up, and am wondering how /r/photography would spend it.

Currently, I have my eye on the Sigma 18-250mm telephoto and a Nikon 35mm AF prime, as the 50mm feels a bit too cropped for me and I've missed so many shots with that damn manual focus. That would get me in around $575, but wondering if there are better options?


u/bastiano-precioso · 2 pointsr/photography

This is an equipment question:

I'm planning on buying my second lens (I only have the kit 18-55) for my Canon t3i.
M budget is around $160 since it was a present (gift card on Amazon).

I am a film student, so buying a lens that will also be good for video would be definitely a plus but not limitative.

I've been looking at the nifty fifty 1.8, of course, but also the 24mm 2.8 and the 40mm 2.8.

The Sigma 70-300 also falls in the price range, I know it is a different kind of lens, but I'm still unsure on what to get.

I checked the 35mm but apparently the difference in price from the Nikon to the Canon one is overwhelming, no clue why...even when the Nikon one is f/1.8 and the Canon f/2.

TL;DR: I want a $150 lens from Amazon and why the fuck is Canon's 35mm way more expensive than Nikon's?

u/Maydo87 · 2 pointsr/photography

Well if it is NOT a full frame lens then you don't apply the crop factor.. in other words, if it says "DX" on it, then it IS a 35mm on your camera not a "50-55" (52.5 actually)

The (x 1.5) crop factor would only be applied if you were using a full frame lens (nikon brand full frame lenses are marked "FX")

Some quick notes each type of lens in relation to your camera:

DX lenses: fit your camera with no crop factor involved, are lighter and less expensive

FX lenses: are designed for cameras with full frame sensors therefor a crop factor of x 1.5 is applied making the effective focal length longer, generally higher quality lenses, they are also usually heavier and larger, better coatings on lenses more likely to have better weather sealing, can be used with new camera if you decide to upgrade to a full frame body.

For what you're talking about landscape and nature without switching lenses I'd say 35mm is a pretty good focal length.. you may find yourself wishing you had something just a little wider for the landscapes.. 24mm or lower would be more ideal for that in my opinion.. you could also look into getting a zoom lens if you really didn't want to switch lenses at all.

u/anonymoooooooose · 2 pointsr/photography
u/GeoffPortnoy · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

Would getting a Nikon lens/adapter be a good idea as apposed to settling for a wider focus? This is what I'm looking at:



u/skeeterou · 2 pointsr/photography

I would go with the 35mm 1.8, the 50mm 1.8 or the 85mm 1.8 , and the 105mm 2.8 to get a nice range of semi-wide to telephoto.

u/Sluisifer · 2 pointsr/Cameras

Get an intro-level DSLR from Nikon (D3200) or Canon (T3) and you'll be fine. The 18-55mm kit lenses are good; you can spend more money to get a longer zoom range, but 1) most people don't need it all and 2) they're bigger and heavier. The 18-55 is perfect for general use. Seriously, these intro cameras are fantastic and you'll love them for family shooting.

I'd also recommend you get one prime (fixed focal length, i.e. not a zoom) lens for low light. For Nikon, get the 35mm f/1.8, or Canon 35mm f/2. These are small, light lenses with a focal length that's perfect for general use. Best of all, they have much faster maximum apertures (they let more light in) for use in low-light conditions. You'll really appreciate this for indoor shooting. In fact, you could use these and completely forgo the kit zoom lens if you like, though most people like the zoom.

Most importantly, you'll need to know a little about how to use them. Just google "how to use dslr" and you'll see loads of articles on that. Modern cameras are great for 'set it and forget it' exposure, so you really don't even need to know how shutter speed, aperture, and ISO work (though it really helps if you do for some shooting). Just set the camera to "P" and go to town. It's probably more important to learn how to use the autofocus system. Namely, learn how to half-depress the shutter so the camera focuses, and then fully depress it to take the shot. If you do this, there will be no 'shutter lag' and you'll have great control over your shots. Most people know this from using a point-and-shoot, but not everyone.

u/constipated_HELP · 2 pointsr/photography

I don't know if this link will work:

If not, search d70, go to used. There's one for $136 that's fulfilled by amazon (meaning you can use your card and it will come in 2 days for free).

That and this and you're in business.

u/bigdaveyj · 2 pointsr/photography

That's really good, but you don't even need that! All you need is curtains, a reflector (Could just use aluminum foil) and a camera with the kit 18-55 lens. Then you can buy a reversal ring and it can turn the kit lens into a macro lens. You can get a Nikon D40 (cheap) and get the reversal ring (this) and it should do the trick for you.

Lots of food photography is done with a macro lens and natural lighting. If you google it, you can find a lot more information for it. If you want to go a step further, you can also get this: for even more DoF

u/badjoke33 · 2 pointsr/photography

The 35mm 1.8G + 18-200mm VR will pretty much cover 90% of most people's needs. That's my plan, at least.

u/rhcpxc · 2 pointsr/photography

Nikon D5000... here is a comparison between the D3000 and D5000 in terms of technical performance:

(Note: Copy/paste the link, I don't know HTML tags to make it work in the comments)

I have the D3000 because I didn't have much money at the time, but now I wish I had gone with a camera with better ISO performance. It really doesn't take much time to read up on aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, exposure, white balance, etc. You'll be glad you got a better camera once you expand your knowledge of photography, and you won't feel like you want to upgrade so soon.

After that, I got the 35mm 1.8 lens:
It is a great walk-around lens, very sharp/fast, and can cover a variety of situations. It augments your kit lens well, and enables you to photograph in dim/poor lighting conditions.

u/thelryan · 2 pointsr/Photography101

I'd recommend you this body with this lens. Nikon D3100 is a great starter camera, I used it for years and it's where I developed myself in portraits, landscape, and video like you were hoping to.

This lens is an excellent, versatile lens that'll give you crisp focus with a shallow depth of field for nice portraits and video footage.

u/moker · 2 pointsr/photography

The 1.4 apeture lens will let in 60% more light. Having said that, I bought the nikkor 35MM 1,8G lens and have been having a lot of fun with it. I have not found myself (yet) in the position of thinking "man, I wish my DOF was narrower". It's pretty narrow at close ranges - nose in focus, ears out of focus.

I am planning to buy the nikkor 50mm 1.8D kit next. At the 1.5x crop factor for my D7000, it gives me an effective focal length of ~72.5mm.

I don't plan on buying the 85mm for two reasons - 1) it's expensive and 2) the focal length on a DX camera makes it about 127mm effective, and that is just an odd focal length.

After that, I will be buying the sigma 70-200mm f2.8. The only debate I have is whether to go for the version with optical stabilization or without OS.

u/waterlooalex · 2 pointsr/photography

Buy a fast lens like the 35mm f/1.8 lens, and shoot at f/1.8 instead f/5.3, thats a difference of 3 stops, which means you could have achieved the same shutter speed at ISO 400 instead of using ISO 3200.

u/TThor · 2 pointsr/photography

Personally the obvious entry-level lens after the kit 18-55mm lens is to pair it with something like a 55-200mm lens. That way you will have most of your necessary range covered, all the way from 18mm ultra-wide to 200mm telephoto. These basic lenses aren't anything too special, but they are surprisingly solid for their cheap price.

-Here is a basic 55-200mm; if you want something with more reach such as for wildlife photography, here is a basic 55-300mm. If you believe that you might someday upgrade to a fullframe camera^([>$1500 at the cheapest]), and want a lens that can upgrade with you, here is an FX 70-300mm. All three of these lenses have vibration reduction, which reduces shake from say your hands.-

After a wide-angle zoom lens and a telephoto zoom lens, the next obvious choice for a budding photographer on a budget I would say is either a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. as I said previously, both of these lenses are close to the focal range of the human eye, making them good choices for general purpose photography. And when compared to say your 18-55mm kit lens, both of these primes will be far faster and sharper at their given focal length, with a small depth of field that is very fun to play with (here is an example of what a small depth of field can look like).

-Here is a 35mm f1.8 [DX]; here is a 50mm f1.8 [FX]. Both are roughly the same price, both are roughly similar focal lengths; choose the 35mm if you prefer to get closer to your subject, choose the 50mm if you prefer to have a little more reach. (also, the 50mm is an FX and cheap, so if upgrading in the future was something you wanted, it would be the better choice. There is an FX 35mm nikon lens also, but it costs over double the price.)-

So to summarize, a solid starter set of lenses would be an 18-55mm, a 55-200mm(or something similar), and a good general purpose prime lens such as either the 35mm or the 50mm. Any lenses after that will depend widely on your given needs and desires.

u/NJDestino · 2 pointsr/photography

Hello! First of all I wanna say that english is not my first language so apologize if I make grammar mistakes!

I'm planning a vacation trip to Japan soon and I need a camera. I'm learning that the nikon d3300 with the kit lens is great for beginners like me! The think is that I wanna take shots on the "blue hour", which means low natural light, playing with the cars light etc, that kind of thing. I was told that I need a lens with at least f1.8 for better light input, so the question is if this is a good one for starting since is not very expensive I think...

Thanks in advance guys!

u/FreackInAMagnum · 2 pointsr/photography

I am looking to get a fast prime lens for shooting indoors in low-ish lighting. Would I be better off getting the 35mm or the 50mm f/1.8 lens for my Nikon D3000? Also, do you think it is worthwhile to pay extra for the f/1.4? I'm thinking I will get This . What is your opinion?

u/voiceofid · 2 pointsr/photography

the Nikon 35 f1.8 is a great lens for the value

The prime will allow you to think on your feet and zoom with your feet

the f1.8 will offer better low light and dof, and the weight/size reduction of the overall camera mass is noticeable.

My friend bought my old D40 and picked up that lens, it's been on his camera 95% of the time now

Here's a shot he took with the Nikon 35mm

edit: before he committed to it, I told him to shoot on his kit lens with 35mm only and see can he live with it. Make sure you are willing to deal with a non-zoom before committing

u/Christmasham2 · 2 pointsr/photography

Some people are going way over the top with their responses, probably just because they enjoy boasting about dream gear that costs thousands and is completely irrelevant to you.

Look at either the 35mm or the 50mm, they are both obvious choices for new photographers because they're so cheap, yet pack a huge punch in image quality.

35mm 1.8G

50mm 1.8G

Both are priced very similarly, neither is particularly better than the other, I would personally recommend the 35mm as it's slightly more versatile.

yes there are a lot of other lenses out there, but you really don't need to think about them right now, as they'll either be far out of your budget, or designed for specialty uses, just get one of these, they'll do you well, trust me.

u/davidddavidson · 2 pointsr/photography

I would advise avoiding those accessory packs because the quality is likely to be poor and it is more gear than you need at this point. I would however look into getting the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 prime lens, a wireless shutter remote, and a spare battery.

u/EnclaveLeo · 2 pointsr/photography

Of course! It depends on your budget and what you want to photograph, but I highly recommend the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. You can find it used for even less than the price listed ($200) as well. The lens is really sharp and decent for landscape and portraits. You can set your 18-55mm to the 35mm focal length to see what it looks like.

If you want a higher focal length than your 18-55mm, look at the 55-200mm lens. It is a kit lens sometimes bundled with the 18-55mm. There's also a 70-300mm if you want the extra 100mm range. These are usually best for something you need to zoom in on, like sports and wildlife.

If you want something super wide, I recommend either a Tokina 11-20mm or the Tokina 11-16mm. The 11-20mm is the sharpest and fastest autofocus of the two, but it is slightly more expensive. They are both good lenses. These are great for astrophotography, landscapes, and indoor architecture shots.

Here is an example picture of what different focal lengths look like. I hope this was helpful! If you have any more questions or want me to clarify something, let me know.

u/brusifur · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX

2,200 reviews on Amazon and a 5 star rating. I love mine on my d5200.

u/theshriekingpines · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

It's a perfect starter. I use a d5500 for my hobby photography. I'm 99% sure it's the same sensor and everything as the d300--just has built-in wifi (which I hardly use) and a swivel screen (which I actually use a lot).

As far as lenses go, I have this lens here and 99% of my instagram photos were taken with that. I use my foot zoom a lot, and sometimes have to stitch together a grid of images if I need a wider angle, but the quality of picture over the 18-55mm kit makes it well worth it.

I would recommend getting a lens with a range (18-55mm or 70-200), just so you can play around with different framing...but I'm a firm believer that getting a solid fixed lens appropriate to your subject matter (landscape vs portrait vs wildlife etc) will make you become a better photographer.

u/psyduckduckgoose · 2 pointsr/photography

In my opinion, the most important thing to understand first is the exposure triangle - that’s the relation between ISO, shutter speed and aperture and it’s what determines how light or dark your photo will be (each setting of course changes other things about the photo, but this concept is crucial to understand).

I’d recommend learning how to use aperture priority mode and shutter priority mode. The former will let you take control of the aperture portion of the exposure triangle while the camera takes control of the shutter and the ISO. The latter will let you control the shutter speed while the camera takes control of the aperture and ISO. This lets you focus on the composition and will guarantee that you get proper exposure. This is perfect for any “in the moment” shots and of course for landscape photos as well.

If you have the time, though, and the moment isn’t fleeting, get your tripod and put it into manual mode. Experiment with the 3 parts of the exposure triangle and see how each affects the result. You will have so much more control than any phone will give you.

However, if it’s something important or you’re going to miss the shot if you’re not quick, don’t be afraid of auto mode! It’s fine to use that and it usually does a pretty good job. Perhaps use the auto “no flash” mode, though.. on-board flashes suck in most situations.

Yes your camera is good enough! As I’ve found from upgrading, the camera body is more about durability and ease of access to controls. Lenses are much more important. As you learn more about the exposure triangle you’ll start to understand why a wide aperture (low f-stop number) is so important.. and maybe you will even want to buy one of these.

Hope this helps! I’m not an expert or anything, just self taught, but I’m happy to help if you have any questions!

u/AsleepConstruction · 2 pointsr/Cameras

it sounds like it's not the camera you are growing out of, but you are demanding more out of your lenses and the 2 kit lenses are not doing what you want. You'd want to check out the 35mm f1.8 nikkor. it will provide better image fidelity, low light performance and just over all a better image and your camera will feel like an entirely new camera.

I was in your shoes 10 years ago with a nikon d60 and thought the camera was junk, until i got that lens.

u/W0NDERMUTT · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I think the first decision you have to make is does it make sense to stick with Canon or would it be better long term to switch to Nikon. The two biggest factors I would consider is price and availability. Do you have canon-mount lenses readily available to purchase? Or is it easier to get Nikon products?

If you decide to stick with Canon the first thing i would do is buy another lens or two - NOT a new body. I started out with a Nikon D5100 kit with two lenses (18-55 & 55-300) and replaced my 18-55 pretty quickly. The kit lens was fine, but the lenses I did end up purchasing really helped my images to step up a level (linked below for reference).

  • Nikon 35mm
  • Sigma 17-50mm

    If you decide to switch to Nikon I would pick up a used body (best series you can afford) and a lens. I would not buy the D3400 kit, the lens is going to be comparable to whatever you have.

u/Buffalogriller · 2 pointsr/Nikon

The Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G is the best option for your camera, and perfectly within your budget.

Cheaper third party lenses have poor optical performance, and more expensive options are for Full Frame cameras, which makes the material and price go up, but has no advantage when used on your camera.

u/jawebb2649 · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

Get the nikor 35mm 1.8. It is the one i use with my 3300, with the 1.5x from the base camera comes out to 52....ish mm
Ours really crisp, and my best budget lens. Here is a link Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/skiman50289 · 2 pointsr/photography

I don't know much about any camera system besides Nikon, so that's what my answer is going to focus on.

If you've never owned a DSLR before, I would not buy a D7100 and cheap lenses. You'd be much better off getting a D3x00 or D5x00 and some better lenses/equipment. For about $750, you can get a Nikon D3200 with 18-55mm, 55-200mm, and 35mm f/1.8 lenses (all new). This is a great camera, and the lenses will be great for almost everything you need. This also leaves you $250-$750 left over for better lenses (once you know what kind your shooting style requires), photography books, classes, travel, filter sets, a tripod (also something you'll want to research), etc.

Don't get hung up on having the latest-and-greatest gear. Almost anything produced by any manufacturer in the past couple of years will give you amazing photos if you know how to use it to its fullest potential.

u/milkybuet · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

I don't have any real knowledge on Nikon lenses, but this 35mm seem to be very much within budget(500AUD = ~360USD), and has good reviews.

u/Rado_K · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

7200 is a great choice! 18-55 for landscape, 55-300 for wildlife, 35 1.8 DX for crispy shots and bOkeh and some extension tubes for macro. You'll see later whether you want spend thousands for better pro lenses. For start this should cover almost everything.

u/harrisonbeaker · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

This lens rarely leaves my camera. Nikon makes terrific lenses at both the high end level and the entry level.

u/Ceofreak · 2 pointsr/photography
u/Disastermath · 2 pointsr/pics

Oh yah. Lenses are expensive. What brand are you? This seems to be a good macro for nikon (although it's not an official 'Nikkor' lens.). I'd like to get this 35mm but I haven't gotten the chance yet. Once you go past 200mm lenses, the price skyrockets, especially if you want an HQ brand like Nikkor or Sigma.

u/clownpornstar · 2 pointsr/photography

I'm upgrading for ability to shoot video instead of carrying a camcorder to my daughters gymnastics meets. Usually in fluorescent lights.

Outside of that I primarily shoot nature and portrait type pictures. I use the 18-55 kit lens, plus I have this 35mm lens, and this 55-300mm zoom lens.

u/DeathStarJedi · 2 pointsr/photography

I would get this:

D3300 Body Only - $309

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G - $167

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 - $269

It's going to cost a little bit more money, but you can mitigate some of the costs by buying used. Just going from your options, I would probably go for the 70-300

u/jimrie · 2 pointsr/photography

35mm 1.8. If I had known about this lens when I was buying my D3100 I would've just got the body and [this] ( It's a prime lens so it's not incredible versatile, but all you have to do to zoom is get closer :). If you'd rather have a zoom lens this is really good for your budget, but you're very limited again with the zoom. That's the non vr version which is cheaper but at 200 mm you probably won't get a clear shot unless you have a monopod/tripod. Good luck searching. P.S. consider Tamron lenses, they are generally cheaper than nikkor lenses.

u/ennuied · 2 pointsr/photography

There are some people recommending getting a 1.8G lens, both 35mm and 50mm being mentioned. You would want the 35mm as it is equivalent to 50mm on full frame (non-DX) cameras.

It really is a great lens. Way worth the money.

It will give you the kind of shots you are looking for. I took this picture right after I got the lens.

u/soonami · 2 pointsr/philadelphia

First, I'll say, I've had my 35/1.8 for two and a half years now. It's awesome.

Honestly, it's so cheap ($200 retail) that you should just buy it on Amazon. You won't get much of a deal on one, I think the craigslist listing is for $185, and you have to drive or meet the dude somewhere. Buying new means that you know it wasn't abused, you can get the 5 year Nikon warrantee if something happens (non-transferrable), and you get it shipped to your door for free. Plus on Amazon, you can get a deal like a free $10 filter.

u/amneyer · 2 pointsr/parentsofmultiples

I love my DSLR for taking pictures of the boys. I have the D3100 with this lens. I also have a point and shoot which I carry in my diaper bag, but my favorite pictures normally come from the DSLR.

u/gabezermeno · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

Well for the price of a 600d you could get a 35mm 1.8 and a Rokinon 8mm fisheye. You would have tons of fun with those two lenses.

u/wickeddimension · 2 pointsr/photography

> if someone could clarify the whole DX vs FX thing

DX are lenses made for crop, FX are lenses made for full frame sensor.

The vocal length is exactly the same. The difference is in image projection. Thisimage illustrates that. That means a FX lens will have to cover a larger sensor. Hence there is more glass in there and larger elements. That means its more expensive to produce.

Since a DX sensor is smaller you can use lenses with less image projection, hence cheaper cost. You can use either on a crop camera, and both will be 50mm equivelant field of field (35x1.5 = 50mm field of view).

The other cost difference comes from the quality of the lens and it's age. Higher quality optics produce sharper images, especially at the edges. Basically, good FX glass gets really expensive quick.


> point me in the right direction when it comes to purchasing my first lens

If you havent used the camera with the kit lens, start with using that. Dont buy new things for the sake of buying new things. The kit lens is designed to be a good entry level with various vocal lengths and usages. Use that for a while and figure out what you like. A faster (wider aperture) standard prime like the 35mm DX, or perhaps more reach with a 70-300 AF-P telephoto. You can't know what you want until you start taking photos and learn your camera and what you like to photograph.

That all said, if you are looking for a standard zoom prime like the 50mm is for FX cameras. Then this35mm DX is the one you want to buy. Here is a amazon link

u/OmniaMors · 2 pointsr/photography

Both are super cheap new or used

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/ParkaBoi · 2 pointsr/Cameras

OK, to cover all of that, I think you'd want this refurbished kit and for the low light shots, one of these. That comes to $626 (I assume you work in USD). You should use the $74 left to get a memory card, a spare battery and a cleaning kit.

However, you are still going to have to learn how to use it. You're going to need to decide which ISO and aperture to use and why. There's a course in the sidebar over in r/photography. That's a good start.

u/Minkalink4 · 2 pointsr/predaddit

The camera body is important for features and ease of use, but honestly the glass is most important. I had read extensively about Prime lenses and highly recommend that you look in to them as well. I purchased a $150 refurbished Nikor 35mm Prime lens from Adorama and I haven’t taken it off of my camera. It has incredible sharpness - a huge upgrade over the stock lens. The nice part about the Prime lens is that it has f1.8 aperture capability, meaning it can allow more light in to the sensor thus it works extremely well indoors and in low light situations without using the flash (which I find typically ruins more pictures than helps). I’ve used it with our niece and the lens does not blur indoors when she’s moving around or making faces since I can achieve a high shutter speed. However, the lens also excels with bokeh which is the background blur shallow depth of field. I use it for portraits as well.

The only downside to the Prime is that it’s a fixed lens and doesn’t zoom. I don’t consider it a disadvantage since I can zoom with my feet as they say. I wouldn’t use this lens for wildlife shots, sports, or a graduation, but its sharp images, low light/indoor capabilities, and versatility make it worth it.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/BillyTheRatKing · 2 pointsr/Nikon

What lenses do you already have? I see you mentioning you're indoors and light is an issue. If want a zoom lens with a low fstop you're going to be spending a fair chunk of change.

I'd determine which focal length works best for you and buy a prime lens with a low fstop for better low light performance and sharpness, plus save some cash! But of course with a prime, you'll have to zoom with your feet as you won't have any other option.

35mm f/1.8 will run you $197 new or $155 used on Amazon.

50mm f/1.8 will run you $216 new or $165 used on Amazon.

Or even longer - 85mm f/1.8 will run you $477 new or ~$390 used on Amazon

u/insomniac_koala · 2 pointsr/iWallpaper

Let me know if you like any of the images from my instagram. I'd be happy to provide full-res wallpapers from it. 🤙

*Edit: For those interested in my setup:
·Nikon D7100
·35mm f/1.8

I'd like to reiterate the fact that you definitely don't need the camera I used to take this. You can get a cheaper camera with similar result. It's all about what glass (lenses) you have.

u/kranima · 2 pointsr/photoclass2017

I recommend checking out the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G prime lens, I have a Nikon D5500 and I'm thinking about buying that lens next. Since it's 35mm on a DX sensor the effective focal equivalent to a 55 mm lens, which is great for everyday use.

u/SirRipo · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Item which would most make you seem like an old posh Englishman: Fountain Pen

Most "oh god, I would never be seen with this in public" looking item: Totoro kigirumi

Most phallic looking item: Giant banana suit

Most geeky item: Probably the Millenium Falcon repair manual

Item which would most help you achieve a goal: A new camera lens

Best item to bring to a deserted island: A ukelele and some coconuts.

u/soforth · 1 pointr/photography

You definitely don't need to spend $1500-$2000 just to get better low light on your dx. Prime lenses have wider apertures (and therefore more light) for less money and are sharper too.

This one will do great for $200

If you need extra reach, get the 50mm f/1.8 DX instead or a even a used FX 85mm. Hell, with your budget you can get all three!

u/bl79 · 1 pointr/photography

Thanks for the reply.

I think I'd be willing to accept the trade-offs that come with the D70. Plus I can get one for under $150! I can build a lens collection while I wait to get a new body if I end up liking photography anyway.

Speaking of which, any relatively cheap "must have" lenses? Is this the 35mm that was mentioned before?

Any others?

u/bigpresh · 1 pointr/photography

For reference, I use the 18-55mm kit lens the D3100 came with, and also picked up the following lenses:

Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 - I've found this to be a pretty damn reasonable telephoto & macro lens for the price. A couple of photos taken with it, for reference: wet flower (macro), WizzAir jet landing (full zoom), pigeon eating bread (full zoom).

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G - lovely fast prime - I couldn't really justify the extra cash to go for the 1.4 version, but this one has worked very well for me so far. 35mm on a crop sensor like the D3100/D3200 ends up about the same as a 50mm on a full-frame camera. A couple of sample shots: custom motorcycle engine, York gate emblem, Wilmot-Breeden calormeter.

I also grabbed an ancient used Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 prime for £30, but as a lens without a focus motor, it can only be used in full manual. However, it can also produce some good images, e.g. bacon roll, lily flower, laptop keyboard. If you're willing to play around in full manual mode (and I'd recommend it, if you want to learn the most you can about photography), starting with something like that could make a lot of sense.

Hope this helps somewhat.

u/cheech_sp · 1 pointr/photography

New lens, or new camera?

I have a Nikon D40 (with 18-55 kit lens) and like its quick shutter lag, but need a bigger aperture to get a shallow DOF for portraits. Should I spend $200 on a F/1.8 AF-S lens (35mm or 50mm), or spend $300 and get a newer Olympus XZ-1 (with f1.8-2.5 lens).

Having a smaller camera would be handy, but I don't want to sacrifice fast shutter lag. But maybe the Olympus will be fast enough?

u/axvk · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

I also have a d5300 for about a year now. There really isn't a one lens fits all kind of solution if you want quality. My favorite lens is this one

It's a good quality prime lens. Meaning that it's only 35mm and you can't zoom (You zoom with your legs.) Once you see the quality compared the 18-35 lens that comes with the camera, you won't be able to go back.

35mm on d5300's APS-C sensor will feel a little cropped so you will need to back up a good amount to capture the entire object.

u/Artvandelay403 · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

Thanks for the reply, lots of helpful information!

These are what i'm currently considering (I don't have a physical camera store within a 3 hour drive)

Any idea if the AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED kit lense is decent for distance shots, or should I be looking at something else? I'm assuming that both the kit lenses are poor quailty, as they only add $300 to the price of the body.
Trying to keep it under $2500ish

u/SketchyMcSketch · 1 pointr/Cameras

Thanks for the recommendations! You're probably pretty knowledgeable on my friend's setup, then. Would this be an appropriate 35mm lens? And would this be an appropriate 50mm?

Also, I would like to know what these lenses would be capable of that the 18-105mm would not be able to do. I would assume the zoom levels on the 18-105mm should cover those lower ranges as well. But, like I said, I'm a novice. So I'm assuming a lens that specializes in a range is better in its area than a "jack-of-all-trades" lens?

u/booostedben · 1 pointr/photography

Yeah money is always an issue, I've been reading up on lenses even more after I made this post and just found out about crop frame cameras, there's no way a 50mm will work for me with the cropped sensor. I'm now thinking the 35mm version or maybe even smaller would be the best option.

I'm now thinking about this lense. I really want the f/1.8 even if I rarely use it. I'd hate to spend more money on lenses just to figure out I want this one. If I put my kit lense to 50mm is that about how close a 50mm prime will look or will it be more like the 35mm with the cropped sensor?

u/SentimentalSentinels · 1 pointr/Nikon

Pinterest has helpful photography cheat sheets to get you started.


When you get comfortable with the basics, I recommend investing in a good lens - I have this 35mm and it takes amazing portrait shots.

u/vwllss · 1 pointr/photography

I'd suggest a 50-prime but your D60 doesn't have a focus motor in it. Sucks. You could get a 35mm f/1.8.

It wouldn't have the ability to zoom in and out but it'd let in a lot more light than your current lenses and have a shallower depth of field as well. I know "no zoom" sounds shitty, but it really is a fun way to shoot.

u/savedbythebeard · 1 pointr/Cameras

I wouldn't recommend buying a bundle package. They come with a bunch of cheap crap that you probably won't need or use. Just buy everything separately. Look into buying used to save some money. Also as others suggested, get a prime lens like a 35 or 50.

u/grape_juice_nigz · 1 pointr/photography

I was looking at this for my D3000 would that work on it?

u/daegon · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S. Unless you need to be far away from your subjects, but from the shots you have already I assume that's not needed.

u/Ryshafire · 1 pointr/photography

Oh really? So you're saying this lens that's advertised as 35mm DX, would still be 35mm even though the sensor crops?

u/zorkpt · 1 pointr/Filmmakers

i found this one: Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus

It's relatively cheap, do you that would do the job for now ?

Thanks for helping, its really hard to pick what best suits my needs with such low budget.

u/H11ve_M11nd · 1 pointr/photography

I would suggest the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX lens. Its a really good lens for being so cheap (just over 200$). I also own the sigma 70-300mm zoom as well as the Vivitar 400mm 5.6 prime lens that i used for my old film camera. Both good lenses (the sigma is clearer glass than the Vivitar because it is much newer). I have heard that the 55-200 is a good lens, although I have never used it. This may be slightly irrelevant but i did use the canon 80-250mm f5.6 and it was fantastic. As as side note, I did some traveling in Guatemala and the 18-55 served me quite well.
Link to the 35mm:

u/BCSounds · 1 pointr/photography

I'm looking to get a decent 35mm lens for my dinky little Nikon D3200 (starter DSLR I've been having a blast with). Looking for a maximum bang for the buck, is there any recommendation aside from the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens (runs right around $200), or would this likely be my best bet?

u/voyetra8 · 1 pointr/photography

I'd suggest looking at the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX, if you are looking for a 'normal' lens.

I use Aperture for my library management. I don't use JPG format often, but when I do, I either export a copy using Aperture, or just do a "Save for Web" output out of Photoshop.

u/stupid_horse · 1 pointr/Cameras

Maybe a Nikon D3200 or D3300 and a 35mm f/1.8 lens. Keep in mind though that Since the D3200/D3300 have an APS-C sized sensor that 35mm will have the same field of view as a 50mm on a full frame camera so it shouldn't be too wide. Here's what the pictures from that lens look like.

u/grizzlyblake91 · 1 pointr/Nikon

Thank you! So this lens would work well? If so I'll start saving up for it

u/joppetie · 1 pointr/Cameras

I may be biased by making this choice in the past, but I and many others with me agree on a few things:

  • The Nikon D3200-3400 have a better sensor than equivalent Canon bodies. (much higher resolution, better dynamic range)

  • Fast primes are mostly cheaper on the Canon side than on the Nikon side

    Having said that, I still believe that with a budget of $500, you'll get the best results with a Nikon D3200-3400 (really doesn't matter which, they all have virtually the same sensor) and a fast prime (35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8). Don't bother with the kit lens, it's really not any better than acceptable.

    I originally bought the D3300 as a kit, but since I bought my 35mm f/1.8, I simply didn't use the kit lens anymore, so I sold it.


    Now, I looked around a bit on Amazon, and it seems that such a combination would set you back about $514: Body and 35mm

    However, if you're willing to go second hand for the body or lens, you could save a fair chunk, even maybe even upgrade to the D5
u/cockhorse-_- · 1 pointr/photography

Well - so I have a 35mm 1.8 DX Lens, and a 105mm Nikkor ED Prime

I figured the 105mm should get me buy until I can pick up a 70-200

u/chillcut · 1 pointr/photography

Oh, good to know that theres an updated version. I was talking about this one. As you can see, a lot of mixed reviews on amazon as well. In comparisson, the nikkor 35mm gets better reviews, for what its worth.

u/subsetr · 1 pointr/photography
u/trumpondrugs · 1 pointr/photography

Try one of these, should be able to get one cheaper if it's used

u/-rba- · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

I like the 35mm prime lens. Cheap, good quality, pretty versatile.

u/DickieJoJo · 1 pointr/Beginning_Photography

While others may have differing opinions I really like sticking with the manufacturer's lenses as there is a guarantee that these will always work with your future body purchases (assuming of course you remain with said brand, duh).

So if you're looking for 35mm I would recommend the following from the cheapest reputable retailer: nikkor 35mm 1.8.

35 is great for filming too because in terms of perspective its closest to the human eye. The 50mm is super popular as well as it provides a nice amount of zoom. I happen to own a 35mm and an 85mm though and while the nifty 50 would be great at times I make it work with the two fast lenses I have.

u/ChokingVictim · 1 pointr/photography

Yes, but only if you get the G/AF-S version.

Here is a direct link to the 35mm:

Here is a direct link to the 50mm:

You're looking specifically for "Nikon AF-S [...] G."

u/running-with-pugs · 1 pointr/photography

I have the Nikon D3300 with its basic lens that goes from 18mm wide to 55mm zoom - that's like rather wide so you can almost fit a whole room into the shot - to about 4-5x zoom on point and shoot cameras.

On top of that I got a used lens that goes from 55mm to 300mm ant this thing is good for hunting ducks and other animals from distance (dunno, additional 15x zoom? hard to say because these are different class cameras). Great fun lens for day use, I like it a lot for the 170€ that cost me used. It's this one:

For night time I got a fixed 35mm lens - no zoom, just very sensitive to light: Used a lot for concerts, video and general daily use.

After that is my "candy", stuff I don't reaaaallly need but wanted it bad enough to now have it :)

Got a fixed 85mm that's very sensitive to light: I use this one for through the crowd shots on concerts and portraits and sometimes for the hell of it, the damned thing is fun to use.

50mm I got as a gift, also very sensitive to light: It mostly lives on my other camera for every day use as I'm trying to learn fully manual photography.

A 18-105mm zoom that came with my other camera. Not a very good lens but comes handy when I have no idea what to expect. Got it with a used Nikon D90 camera. This is an older camera with poor video capability. But it has many pro features that I'm really starting to miss on D3300, like additional buttons and a second dial and an LCD screen.

u/I_Like_To_Bike · 1 pointr/videography

No problem!

You perfectly described AF-D vs AF-S. The AF-D are significantly cheaper (they are the older generation) coming with the drawback of louder focusing mechanisms and most likely with the added benefit of manual focus rings. Just to be clear, you can operate AF S lenses on both cameras with or without focus motors. It's only AF-D that have the restriction.

Honestly the deal from your friend is nice camera wise, but those lenses are nowhere near the quality you'd get from a good AF-D and maybe a slightly older camera. This is for a few reasons: although the D3300 sensor is newer and may have better high iso performance, those two lenses are f/4 and f/3.5 as opposed to a 1.8 or 2.8 you could easily get for AF-D. Furthermore, those lenses are zoom lenses. While you can get great quality from zoom lenses, take the holy grail 14-24 or 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for example, they have nowhere near the quality : price ratio you can get from a fixed lens.

Here's what I would recommend given your most recent response:

Nikon D7000 for ~$500.
Nikkor 50mm AF f/1.8D lens for ~$125 and I would save up for the Nikkor 35mm AF-S f/1.8G and the Nikkor 85mm AF f/1.8D for a longer lens to add to your bag.

Make sure to shop around because Amazon isn't always the best option. Just to demonstrate, if you went with the 85mm AF-S you would spend an extra $150 and if you go for the 50mm AF-S you would spend an extra $100. That $250 in savings gives you enough to get the 35mm 1.8G and a couple of SD cards, an extra D7000 battery, or maybe a tripod or some other accessory you will undoubtedly pick up after your main purchase!

u/zekel11 · 1 pointr/videography

Thanks and I'm also considering the 5200 if I can find a good deal. And for the lens do you mean [this one] (

u/notAnAverageAmerican · 1 pointr/photography

Does anyone know why crop lenses (like DX) are sold at their 35mm equivalent instead of their DX equivalent?

u/Beer_Is_So_Awesome · 1 pointr/photoit

I suggest the 35mm 1.8DX. It's got a built-in focus motor, light weight, and included lens hood. It's much faster than the kit lens, approximates a 50mm (the standard normal prime for a film SLR) and costs only $200 brand new.

It'll allow you to shoot in much lower-light environments, focus closer and encourage you to get more creative with your composition by forcing you to a fixed focal length.

You may never need your zoom again.

Edit: I was recommending this as your "every day" lens. It's not going to give you the zoom you need for wildlife, however I'm extremely pleased with this as a "walking around" lens and for casual portraits and group shots. To get a sense, for the focal length, twist your zoom lens to the "35" marker and leave it there.

u/peachyiphoneuser · 1 pointr/Nikon

Ok thanks for the response.

Well it all comes together at $650 for everything. I think my add is misleading. That what I just paid for it awhile back is what I was getting at. I just removed the prices because that was dumb.

The 35 isn't a wide angle. It's a prime. This one here
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

This is the other lens. A bit older
Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens (Discontinued by Manufacturer)

u/galvatron · 1 pointr/photography

I'd buy a 35mm for a (1.5x) crop sensor body. This is the 50mm-on-a-fullframe (or 35mm film) equivalent.

You should be able to get a faster than f/2.0 35mm lens at an affordable price if you buy for a crop sensor body (e.g., the Nikon DX lenses, like

Faster than f/2.0 wides (say 35mm or wider) for full-frame bodies tend to get pretty expensive..

A 50mm becomes a tele (75-85mm) on a crop sensor and you may find its FOV is slightly too tight for an all-around lens.

u/spisska · 1 pointr/photography

I'm a Nikon guy, and I don't know a whole lot about the Cannon universe.

But you can definitely get set up with a nice new rig for under $1,000.

There are a number of good Nikon bodies out there in this price range. The only thing I'd caution is to avoid bodies that lack an AF screw, as these will limit autofocusing to lenses with their own motor. I know the D40 is one that lacks this feature.

The first thing to buy is a good prime lens -- like this 50mm or this 35mm

Even if you get a model with the kit lens (usually an 18-55mm zoom), you'll want to replace it quickly. It's not a bad lens, but a good prime will make a world of difference in the quality of your shots. Both the lenses I listed above are exceptional values.

Good luck.

u/kiyanaheart · 1 pointr/cats link to the 35mm
edit: also if you're looking around, stick to the G lenses. They are vastly improved to D.

u/microkool · 1 pointr/Nikon

This one, it's definitely worth at least twice its cost.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/come_back_with_me · 1 pointr/Nikon

Are you sure you are looking at the right lenses? The FX 35 1.8G is way more expensive than the DX 35 1.8G. In terms of image quality they aren't that different when used on a DX body.

FX 35 1.8G:

DX 35 1.8G:

u/ghostfox1_gfaqs · 1 pointr/photography

well, new lens for under 200, which is pretty good.

u/kylehowdy · 1 pointr/photography

I have a D3300. My most used lenses are the 35mm 1.8 and the [Tokina 11-16 2.8] ( I highly recommend both of them. The 35 is great for every day use, and the 11-16 is amazing for landscapes. But it really depends on what you want the lenses for?

u/fluffsta007 · 1 pointr/photography

Can I jump on this comment..

Will this 35mm 1.8 lens fit my D5300 and will it auto focus?

u/inorman · 1 pointr/photography

I highly recommend NOT getting the fisheye converter or the starter pack kit of cheapo accessory lenses. I know it sounds like a good deal because you're getting a lot of "stuff" but frankly all of those things are complete and utter crap. Take the $75 and the extra $220 dollars you wish to spend and spend it on a fast prime like the AF-S DX NIKKOR
35mm f/1.8G
and spend at least a little more on a decent tripod with a ballhead like this affordable Dolica Tripod. I used one of those tripods for years doing studio work and landscapes and it's actually pretty good. A steal for $50 and sure to be better than the one you originally linked to.

Trust me on this one, you'll thank me later. That 35mm f/1.8 will be the best lens you'll own for a long time, guaranteed.

u/GetMentalGetWeird · 1 pointr/photography

I'd like to save the $200 and get the a5000. It's my first camera ever. I'm a little wary about lens selection in the future though from Sony. Is there somewhere I can see what their full lineup of glass is currently? Also, I saw mention of adapters that allow the use of other lens. What are the disadvantages to using an adapter? And last question, with an adapter what exactly would that let me use? Could I get the adapter for the a5000 and be able to use say this lens?

Thanks in advance! I feel like I'm swimming in a sea of endless options!

u/X_Nightman_X · 1 pointr/photography

I would like to buy a either a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G or a 35mm f/1.8G lens. I'm still fairly new to photography and though I think I know what I'm getting when I choose between 35mm and 50mm, I'm not really sure if I'm making the right decision or thinking this through properly. What lens would you recommend purchasing and can you explain why? Thanks!

u/ErikJHealey · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

So this for example would work?

u/apollo5354 · 1 pointr/photography

I agree with that sentiment for a lot things but not so much for cameras.

The technology in camera bodies (sensors/chips) are advancing very quickly so you want to spend for what's good enough for your needs and no more. Once you outgrow it, you'll be glad you didn't lock yourself into the previous generation. Your mid range camera today will lag behind your entry level in several years.

Instead save the money on the difference for a good lens. E.g.
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

Also your entry-level DSLRs were designed with beginners in mind so they tend to have more user friendly menus.

[Edit: Wow. Someone downvoting all the posts/suggestions. Folks, remember downvote if off topic not to disagree.]

u/crimsonskunk · 1 pointr/SonyAlpha

Without saying anything about lens quality here are some price comparisons.

[Nikon D3300 w/ kit] ( $447, [35mm 1.8] ( $177, [50mm 1.8] ( $197


Sony A6000 w/ kit $650, 35mm 1.8 $450, 50mm 1.8 $250

I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, just making a comparison. On the Sony you get OSS with the lenses which drives the price up. If you are trying to save money though, OSS might not be that important.

u/Karmaisthedevil · 1 pointr/photography

Sure, even bigger aperture sounds good to me, I love the blurry backgrounds and not having to worry about light as much sounds worth it. Is this what you'd advise me buying for my D3000?

u/Floofyboy · 1 pointr/photography

Hmmm first of all, maybe it doesn,t have to be THIS much shallow. Something like this would be fine:
Thanks for info about mid tiers. I guess an entry level is perfectly fine for me.

So should i get both kit lens AND in addition, one of the recommended lens?

For example, what about this combo:

This is def well within my budget. As i explained, i can def afford to spend more money if its worth it, but the features you mentionned doesn't sound like something i need at all.

u/joy_reading · 1 pointr/photography

Hi guys,

I am a casual hobbyist and have a Nikon D5500. I mostly shoot with the 18-55mm kit lens and also have an inexpensive 55-200nm lens. I am looking to get a prime lens, either 35 or 50 mm, to use for improved general photography (street scenes, portraits) in lower light situations where now I'm forced into slower shutter speeds than I can stabilize with handheld. I would also like to use the new lens with extension tubes for macro photography. Would you recommend a 35 (e.g., or 50mm lens for this? I actually find myself shooting at about 40mm most often on my kit lens. I'm also not sure if the 50mm would be a bit too close focusing when combined with extension tubes for macro photography or if it will in fact be an advantage in getting small details.



u/hammad22 · 1 pointr/photography

Alright I'll look into it, thank you! Btw you are talking abt this 35mm 1.8 right?

u/KR0SSED0UT · 1 pointr/hardwareswap
u/doc17 · 1 pointr/Cameras

When you're ready to buy your first prime, this is the one I would suggest:
It's ideal for lower light, portrait or street photography. People seem to gravitate to the 50mm prime, but the slightly wider angle on the 35mm makes it a more practical lens. I rarely take of off the camera.

And extra battery is always wise, and some sort of dedicated bag (I prefer the sling bag style).

u/BRUTALLEEHONEST · 1 pointr/photography

I have this lens: Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Is this what you mean or are you pointing at a different one? I'll try using it next time in the romantic restaurant example but in the social event example I predict it won't work well because the depth of field is too shallow at that aperture. I've taken a plate of food at f/1.8 at 3 feet away and found that even just the food on that single plate is not all in focus.

u/bostonbruins922 · 1 pointr/photography

I was looking at this
Whats the biggest difference between 35mm and 50mm? I know its a rookie question.

u/makawk · 1 pointr/Sneakers

The extra lens you're getting is used for long distance, so it's not really ideal for streetwear photos. You're going to want a lens like a 14mm, 35mm, or even 50mm.

I would look for prime lenses (like this) because it will:

-give you a better idea on how to frame shots on your own first

-these lenses are designed to shoot quickly and they will be able to give you a blur effect which makes your subject look very crisp

I would also check out pawn shops or local camera shops to get a starter camera like this. If you do end up enjoying the hobby then you'll definitely want to upgrade your camera so don't invest in a brand new d3400 imo.

u/zixmanroll · 1 pointr/photography

Is this the 35mm I should be looking at? Worth using even as I upgrade?

u/Roknboker · 1 pointr/photography

I'd say do it, but you're going to have to spend the money on a lens that has the autofocus motor built into it. A great lens would be this 35mm. It's a great lens. I'm also a fan of this 50mm but it will not auto-focus on your D50.

That 35mm though, I promise you will fall in love with it, and it will still work perfectly when you upgrade cameras.

u/Haematobic · 1 pointr/TekSyndicate

Found it! It was this one.

Mind you, I'm by no means an expert, and considering how vast the photography world is, I could really benefit from a video titled "photography for dummies".

So far I've settled for a Nikon D3300 and a 35mm f/1.8G lens (which I'll be getting in the near future), which considering my "amateur" status, should be more than enough.

I felt that this video made a better job explaining the differences between ISO levels than his, for instance.

u/CajunBindlestiff · 1 pointr/photography

Here ya go. With this amazingly cheap lens it's easy to get professional quality images and learn more quickly than with the kit lens.

u/boocoo · 1 pointr/photography

Prime Lens - If you don't have one, you should invest in a prime before a new body imho. Feel it out, compare, and go from there. And by prime lens, I mean specifically the Nikon 35mm 1.8. At just under $200, it's the best bang-for-your-buck.

u/Ubiquity4321 · 1 pointr/barter

Not trying to argue or anything, everything is 100% cool with you not wanting the lens.

But I am a professional photographer, so I have to say something to help out where I can...

Do you mean the newest 50 f/1.8 G? Or an older D model? Older D models have a screw-focus mechanism and will not autofocus with D40/40x/60/3000/3100/5000/5100 model cameras and will have to be manually focused anyway. And the lens is more than $200 before taxes.

If you want a "normal" (normal field of view, i.e. what your eyes see more or less) lens with the 1.5x crop of most consumer level digital cameras, you might want to look for a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G. You can see that, even used, the lens is less than $200.

And do you mean the 55-300 f/4.5-5.6? That one is $400 and has less light coming onto your sensor wide-open at f/4.5 through f/5.6. Any lens that goes from 55mm to 200mm is not going to be very sharp and will probably not focus well from about 8pm on (due to modern phase focus systems and consumer lens manufacturing).

What camera do you own?

Personally, I would look at prime lenses (lenses that are one fixed focal length) over zoom lenses - you zoom with your feet rather than with the lens and it makes you a better photographer faster because you have to use all of that slight annoyance of not zooming to get a better picture. It helps you think. In my opinion, zooming is a crutch. Prime lenses are also generally sharper because they are not trying to be sharp at all focal lengths and they are generally faster (f/1.8 as opposed to f/4.5-5.6 which means it lets more light onto the sensor).

u/jclim00 · 1 pointr/photography

I second the pocketing the $100 and putting it towards some decent glass if you decide later you need that kind of reach for birding, sports, etc. Heck use it to buy a beginner low-light capable standard prime like the nikon 35mm., which in all likelyhood you'll end up using even more than the standard 18-55 kit lens.

u/N8Burn · 1 pointr/LosAngeles

I was thinking of getting that one but I think I want the 35mm instead. And I also want this Sigma 70-300mm.

u/ANiceSunset · 1 pointr/photography

I have a Nikon D5300. I have the kit lens it came with and I would like some suggestion on which lens I should go for.
What I'm looking for is a lens that will put more focus on the model (like zoomed in on the model ish) and less of the background. I noticed that in most of my photos I've gotten a lot of the background and the model/cosplayer. I would like some assistance on knowing which lens (if any) that can focus more on the model/cosplayer.

I looked online for the next lens people recommended and asked around stores like Best Buy. I read online that typically people would get the 50mm prime lense but the people at Best Buy recommended the 35mm prime due to tight corners situations, which, would've been handy at times when I was at Anime Expo. I also was told that the one in the link was an FX and since the camera i have is a DX, it gets cropped as if it were 70mm or so.

Is it safe to say that 35mm prime is better for group photos shots but the 50mm is better if you're up close? Has the cropped part of putting a FX lens on a DX camera body ever helped anyone?

u/AerithFaremis · 1 pointr/photography

So this camera with this lens? Sorry I'm a complete noob to photography.

Thanks for helping!

u/Smiley_35 · 1 pointr/photography

My SO recently bought a Nikkor DX 35 and loves it. He's looking for something more for landscapes/scenery or otherwise a good all around lens. He has two stock lenses which he does not like. Any suggestions? Apologies as I'm not familiar with any of this stuff. Thanks!

Edit: the camera is Nikkon D5100
The lenses are AF-s Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G and af-s nikkor 18-55mm 1 3.5-5.6 g

u/istguy · 1 pointr/photography

I'm getting ready to go on vacation, and I'm considering buying a new lens to celebrate and have fun with. Currently, I'm shooting with a D60, and I have the 18-55mm kit lens + the 55-200 telephoto lens.

The pictures I'll be taking on the trip will probably be a mix of shots of scenery/landscapes and my friends.

I would love to get an 18-200mm lens, but the Nikon one is simply out of my price range at $600. Is the Sigma 18-200 an acceptable substitute? I like the 18-200mm coverage, because it would be very nice to just take the one lens, and not worry about changing it.

I'm also considering getting a prime lens instead, because in the future I'd like to do some better indoor shooting. Possibly the 35mm Nikon or the 50mm. My sense is that the 35mm would be great for landscapes on my trip, but that the 50mm might be better for taking pics of friends. Am I wrong?

I'd welcome any advice/opinion on which lens to get, and which lens(es) to carry with my traveling. Thanks in advance.

u/DaMuffinPirate · 1 pointr/photography

I can't think of any sub $300 wide angle and fast lenses that are new. You can get the Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 for $319 new or cheaper if used, but it has no autofocus. The Tokina lens that the other guy mentioned is also good. If you're willing to sacrifice the wide angle, you can get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 which is pretty cheap at about $200.

Note that I'm not a Nikon user, and you can find a lot of information on astro from a lot of sites, especially Lonelyspeck.

u/mathlete_jh · 1 pointr/photoclass2017

My camera is the Nikon D3300 with the standard kit 18-55mm lens and the kit 55-200mm lens. I will be comparing it to one of the basic full frame camera from Nikon, the Nikon D750.

The main difference between these two camera is the size of the sensor. Both camera are 24 megapixels, yet the Nikon D3300 is a cropped frame sensor, while the Nikon D750 is a full frame. This gives the D750 better capabilities in low-light photography. Also, the D750 has many more points of autofocus, allowing for better tracking of subjects and an overall improvement in moving subjects.

The lens that I use for my Nikon D3300 is what I would upgrade next. While it's not horrible, it's definitely not that great of a lens and worsens the performance of the camera. The next lens I would get would probably be this one: Link. While it is a prime lens, it would greatly improve the quality of the glass and pictures taken. Also, it's a 35mm lens, which is about the same as a 50mm lens on a full frame camera (The "nifty fifty"). Does this seem like it would be a good next lens to get? Or are there any other recommendations for lenses that would be good for my Nikon D3300?

u/albaniax · 0 pointsr/videography

Nikon D3300 aswell & $100 cheaper, with which you could get another wide prime lense or a good tripod.

I would get this prime lense if you want to shoot at night:

35mm * 1.5 crop factor = 52.5mm


u/loath-engine · 0 pointsr/photography

Start with somthing like this:

It will give you an idea about what all the nobs and dials can do.

Realize that a "kit" lens is way more of a limiting factor then the camera. A d3300 is a marvellous technical achievement. To reach the limits of its capabilities you will most likely need some quality lenses. An all in one super zoom lens might not be the best choice(I assume that was the type of lens in your kit). The relatively cheap alternative but impressive improvement in quality can be had with prime lenses. The 35mm 1.8 comes to mind.

u/evanparker · 0 pointsr/DSLR

It depends a lot on what you'll be shooting of course.


i'd probably bring a big zoom and a 35mm prime lens, because it will end up being about 50mm with your D3500's 1.5x crop.





can't beat either for the price.

I often bring the so-so kit lens on hiking trips as well, since it's frankly pretty durable and essentially disposible, very replaceable. I wouldn't mind if i broke it.

u/captmkg · 0 pointsr/photography

Hi all.

I'm currently in the market to try and upgrade my current gear for my Nikon D7100, and I would appreciate some feedback / suggestions / general thoughts on my choices.

Thanks in advance!

Current Gear & Amazon Links

Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens

Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

Possible Lens:

Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye Nikkor Lens

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens

Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens

Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR Lens

Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR FX Lens

Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens

What I'm thinking:

From the potential lens that I could get, I definitely want to invest in the 18-300mm lens.

With that lens added to my current gear, I could then get rid of the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lens from my gear. Changing my total lens count from six to five.

I want to keep the 10-24mm lens. I don't see the purpose of having the 10.5mm lens, so I must just cut that out.

The lens from the potential list (24-70mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8, 24-85mm f2.8) I could remove from my list because if I understand this correctly, this seems more of a choice for people who want that extra step in the f stop.

I'm in a debate about which one of these to chose from to either replace or upgrade the 35mm I have in my bag, and the two I'm looking at are 50mm f1.8D and 50mm f1.8G. I'm just not sure if it is worth the upgrade in terms of a better overall picture or just to stick with the 35mm.

I am a little bit confused about the 85mm that I have and whether to upgrade it with the 60mm or the 105mm. If I understand that macro world of lens correctly, the 60mm would be the ideal choice, correct?

Lastly, I am in debate about keeping the 40mm with my given choices. I'm also not aware of what the 85mm f1.8 could offer, if it will replace a lens or just add another option to my gear bag.

In summation, here is the current gear:

: Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
: Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
: Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
: Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

What I will most likely keep if I go through my possible changes:

  • Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
  • Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
  • Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
  • Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
  • Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
  • Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

    My new gear set:

    : Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
    : Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
    : Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens
    : Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
    : Maybe one of the 50mm or the 85mm f1.8

    Any thoughts would be appreciated on this.

    Thanks again in advance!
u/cattown · -1 pointsr/photography

The depth of field looks pretty shallow in those examples so I would guess that they're using a pretty fast lens, affordable lens are usually 1.4 or 1.8, I think 1.2 is available if you want to spend some money. I'm a poor amateur, these are two that I fantasize about: 35mm 1.8 and 30mm 1.4. Just keep your lens wide open, good luck!

u/djds23 · -2 pointsr/photography

It should be noted that if you are going to purchase the DX lens, if you were to ever upgrade to full frame later then the DX format would be rather useless.

Assuming is the lens in question.

I only bring this up because I am thinking of purchasing a DSLR as well, and it concerns me that if I start with a crop sensor and I was to upgrade to full frame later, I would want the lenses to upgrade as well.

DX = Crop Sensor
FX = Full Frame

u/doubleyouteef · -4 pointsr/photography

> I my head, I expanded "35mm lenses" to "35mm SLR lenses"


This is a 35mm lens,

And so is this, and so on.