# Prime lens vs Kit lens



## 0ptics (Feb 20, 2012)

Hello, I just was wondering about prime lens and wanted to know what  makes them so important for portraits or photography in general. I have a  Nikon D3100 and I've been using the kit lens 18-55mm so far; the images are good but I  know they could be better. So then my friend let me borrow  his *Nikon 35mm f/1.8  AF-S DX* and a *50mm f/1.4  AF-S*; both which I very much like but I had  some questions about them...

1) I'm still a new  photographer but I tried testing the image quality between the three  lens and I'll admit, I don't see much of difference in image quality;  maybe I'm doing something wrong or cause I'm still a noob to  photography/lens/camera. The other two primes lens definitely have  better/faster AF, build quality, bigger aperture, etc. but I still can't  much of an improve on the image quality, which to me seems the most  important.

2) What makes primes lens so essential? As  a beginner to photography I like the 18-55mm because it allows me to  use the zoom and control my composition, but I know that prime lens are  "better' but I guess I don't know why, the photographers I know use  prime lens as they're default lens and they always carry it around, but  for me I thought the 18-55mm would be better because it's more  versatile. Are they really worth the money?

3) My  friend let me try out her *Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF USM* on her Canon T2i and the images came out WAY  better than either of the three mentioned above! I don't know if its  the camera body or the lens, but even a simple snapshot the image  quality was amazing. I did some research on reviews on the Canon 85mm  and the Nikon 35mm and 50mm and all three of them had amazing  reviews/ratings but if I had to choose one, it would be the Canon 85mm  hands down; plus its cheaper (Nikon 50mm is about $500 and the Canon  85mm is about $420). I guess my question if what makes the Canon 85mm SO  much better in image quality than the 35mm and 50mm, because its focal  length is 85mm (does the Nikon 85mm AF-S compare to the canon's)? Don't  get me wrong I love my Nikon camera and lens, but it just seems that the  Canon 85mm is cheaper, great build quality, 1.8 is good enough,  fast/quiet AF, and the image quality is a  amazing.

The help one either question would be VERY  helpful, I'd really want to understand the importance of prime  lens!!
Thanks
0ptics


----------



## Kolia (Feb 20, 2012)

A fixed is just that, fixed.  Less things can go wrong vs a zoom.  And they generally have a larger aperture.


----------



## enzodm (Feb 20, 2012)

0ptics said:


> 2) What makes primes lens so essential? As  a beginner to photography I like the 18-55mm because it allows me to  use the zoom and control my composition, but I know that prime lens are  "better' but I guess I don't know why, the photographers I know use  prime lens as they're default lens and they always carry it around, but  for me I thought the 18-55mm would be better because it's more  versatile. Are they really worth the money?


If you do not feel you miss it, it is not worth to have it. If you do not need larger aperture, and possibly better bokeh, then no. This is not a joke: buy a new lens only when you learn you are missing it. To start, the kit lens is more than sufficient.
However, the main reason that typically makes primes essential is aperture.



0ptics said:


> 3) My  friend let me try out her *Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF USM* on her Canon T2i and the images came out WAY  better than either of the three mentioned above! I don't know if its  the camera body or the lens, but even a simple snapshot the image  quality was amazing.



most likely you do not have a clear idea of image quality. What makes you tell that images were better? Try to analyze results. Resolution at center or borders? Distortion? Chromatic abherrations? bokeh? And all of this wide open or at other apertures?
Or simply the kind of pictures taken with the longer focal length of the Canon seemed nicer vs. the ones taken at shorter focal length? 

The three lenses are all good/very good lenses, but they are very different in focal length, it is hard to compare them. And you choose focal length depending on the pictures you like to take.


----------



## robolepa (Feb 20, 2012)

I bought a Nikon D80 a few years back that came with that 18-55 kit lens, and I sold them both to buy a D300s.  The D80 I don't miss, but there not a day that goes by that I don't regret selling that 18-55mm lens.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 20, 2012)

robolepa said:


> I bought a Nikon D80 a few years back that came with that 18-55 kit lens, and I sold them both to buy a D300s.  The D80 I don't miss, but there not a day that goes by that I don't regret selling that 18-55mm lens.



This type of debate always get's me a bit anxious so here goes...

OK, first things first!

The build quality of the 18-55 VR is flimsy and poor, no dispute on that one!

This idea though that some people have about the 18-55 being a POOR lens is completely unfounded, I would like to get the people who say the 18-55VR is a poor optical performer and send them out to sea because their claims are completely and utterly FALSE! 

Check out the results and you will see this lens can offer some very high resolutions images at the F8 range of things. You will get people trash talking the lens all the time, but they are completely wrong. The lens is highly capable and has many good aspects, low distortion, good CA control, good sharpness ratings, effective VR.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 20, 2012)

enzodm said:


> 0ptics said:
> 
> 
> > 2) What makes primes lens so essential? As  a beginner to photography I like the 18-55mm because it allows me to  use the zoom and control my composition, but I know that prime lens are  "better' but I guess I don't know why, the photographers I know use  prime lens as they're default lens and they always carry it around, but  for me I thought the 18-55mm would be better because it's more  versatile. Are they really worth the money?
> ...



You clearly know your stuff! :thumbup:


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 20, 2012)

There are no pictures here so there is no way for us to see which is better. TEST SHOTS!!!!! Post them!!


----------



## KmH (Feb 20, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> The build quality of the 18-55 VR is flimsy and poor, no dispute on that one!


Oh, but there is indeed dispute on that one.


----------



## MReid (Feb 20, 2012)

It is not the lens.
Excellent portraits can be made with any lens.
What quality of the 85 was it that you felt made the portraits made with it look better?


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2012)

Kolia said:


> A fixed is just that, fixed.  Less things can go wrong vs a zoom.  And they generally have a larger aperture.


for any given focal length, the prime almost always has the larger aperture.
Things hardly EVER go wrong in a lens...zoom or prime. 

I think that beginners should be forced to use prime lenses to build good composition habits.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2012)

0ptics said:


> I like the 18-55mm because it allows me to  use the zoom and control my composition, but I know that prime lens are  "better' but I guess I don't know why, the photographers I know use  prime lens as they're default lens and they always carry it around, but  for me I thought the 18-55mm would be better because it's more  versatile. Are they really worth the money?


There in lies the problem. You should not be using your zoom to control your composition. You should be using your feet to control your composition. The Zoom (and changing focal lengths) should really be used to control your compression.


----------



## Chann (Feb 20, 2012)

Prime lenses are typically sharper since they have less glass elements that the light has to pass through.

Here is a comparison of the equivalent canon lenses, 55mm(1.8) vs 18-55mm(3.5-5.6)

http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Canon-EF-50mm-1-8-II-Standard-Lens-Review.shtml


----------



## MReid (Feb 20, 2012)

[/QUOTE]
There in lies the problem. You should not be using your zoom to control your composition. You should be using your feet to control your composition. The Zoom (and changing focal lengths) should really be used to control your compression.[/QUOTE]

Explain.... why shouldn't he use zoom to frame a shot instead of walking forward or backward?


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 20, 2012)

chuasam said:
			
		

> There in lies the problem. You should not be using your zoom to control your composition. You should be using your feet to control your composition. The Zoom (and changing focal lengths) should really be used to control your compression.



That is kind of subject to opinion, the feet thing.7


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 20, 2012)

I don't think you should limit yourself by deciding if you shouldbe a prime shooter or a zoom shooter. Both style of lenses have their applications. I primarily use zooms because I haven't settled into one type of photography and I want the versatility, but I have run into situations that I wanted a fast prime.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 20, 2012)

There shouldn't be a vs. Its all tools. You can use a hammer to get a screw in the wall, but a screwgun does it better and cleaner.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2012)

> Explain.... why shouldn't he use zoom to frame a shot instead of walking forward or backward?


You get really lazy and you don't learn to see and understand the picture.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2012)

Chann said:


> Prime lenses are typically sharper since they have less glass elements that the light has to pass through.
> 
> Here is a comparison of the equivalent canon lenses, 55mm(1.8) vs 18-55mm(3.5-5.6)
> 
> Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard Lens Review


By that logic, wouldn't a single element lens be the sharpest of them all? my 50mm lens is the least sharp of my main 3 lenses.
The sharpest is my 70-200 zoom followed by my 24-70 zoom. The 14-24 zoom which I do not own is actually sharper than the 14mm or 24mm primes.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 20, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Chann said:
> 
> 
> > Prime lenses are typically sharper since they have less glass elements that the light has to pass through.
> ...



No, but a prime at the same price range/ pro quality would likely be sharper than the zoom. Quality also matters in the equation.


----------



## Austin Greene (Feb 20, 2012)

Bossy said:


> There shouldn't be a vs. Its all tools. You can use a hammer to get a screw in the wall, but a *screwgun* does it better and cleaner.



What is this...."screwgun" you speak of?


----------



## ph0enix (Feb 20, 2012)

Primes are usually fast.  Fast doesn't mean faster AF.  It means larger constant maximum aperture which in turn allows for faster shutter speeds.  Primes usually produce much nicer bokeh than kit lenses.
Question for you: how did you test the image quality of the 3 lenses?


----------



## Cop J (Feb 20, 2012)

I think the main reason the 50mm prime is so popular is due to its cheap price for the large aperture (F/1.8). Primes can get you that large aperture for a lower price than a zoom with that aperture. Most zooms only go as large as f/2.8 and those that do are usually a lot more expensive than the primes.

I think you are seeing similar quality between the kit lens and the prime because you are taking similar pictures. If you want to have more bokeh in your picture, the 50mm will be more effective, while if you are looking to shoot a landscape the kit will probably perform better.

I have both lenses and IMO I like the 50mm better, but not due to image quality, just due to what it can do. I take a lot of indoor pictures and I don't have a flash yet, so I like that I can take pictures in low light. Also, I take a lot of pictures of family in busy surroundings, so a prime would be better at blurring the background while capturing their faces.


----------



## 0ptics (Feb 20, 2012)

enzodm said:


> If you do not feel you miss it, it is not worth to have it. If you do not need larger aperture, and possibly better bokeh, then no. This is not a joke: buy a new lens only when you learn you are missing it. To start, the kit lens is more than sufficient. However, the main reason that typically makes primes essential is aperture.
> 
> most likely you do not have a clear idea of image quality. What makes you tell that images were better? Try to analyze results. Resolution at center or borders? Distortion? Chromatic abherrations? bokeh? And all of this wide open or at other apertures? Or simply the kind of pictures taken with the longer focal length of the Canon seemed nicer vs. the ones taken at shorter focal length?
> 
> The three lenses are all good/very good lenses, but they are very different in focal length, it is hard to compare them. And you choose focal length depending on the pictures you like to take.


 
Yes I&#8217;m looking for a lens that is a prime because of it&#8217;s large aperture but also for superb images; and again my bad I&#8217;m a noob to photography and when I say image quality I meant the shot comes out clear/sharpness/fine. I&#8217;m sure there&#8217;s ways to &#8220;measure&#8221; the &#8220;image quality&#8221; but I just thought image quality mean that. I want to do more portraits so I guess I&#8217;m asking why the Canon lens&#8217; images come out so much sharper than the Nikon&#8217;s? Is it because of their difference in focal length or is it just for another reason??




DiskoJoe said:


> There are no pictures here so there is no way for us to see which is better. TEST SHOTS!!!!! Post them!!



Ya that is my fault, I should have took similar photos with both cameras to show and compare; hopefully the next time I see her I&#8217;ll be able too. But I know for sure the images from her Canon T2i/85mm camera came out a lot better than my Nikon D3100 35mm/50mm




MReid said:


> It is not the lens.
> Excellent portraits can be made with any lens.
> What quality of the 85 was it that you felt made the portraits made with it look better?



I don&#8217;t know but even simple snapshots come out VERY clear, any shot with that camera/lens make every truly &#8220;pop&#8221;.




chuasam said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > A fixed is just that, fixed. Less things can go wrong vs a zoom. And they generally have a larger aperture.
> ...


Ya that&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve been told, though other photographers may disagree I feel that using a fixed focal length does force you to be more creative with your composition.


ph0enix said:


> Primes are usually fast. Fast doesn't mean faster AF. It means larger constant maximum aperture which in turn allows for faster shutter speeds. Primes usually produce much nicer bokeh than kit lenses.
> Question for you: how did you test the image quality of the 3 lenses?


Ohhh ok thanks for the clarification, when I did some research I wasn&#8217;t sure what they meant as &#8220;faster aperture&#8221; I thought they meant AF.

*Overall I definitely want to get a prime lens because of it&#8217;s larger aperture, fast/quiet AF, and fixed focal length but also make my images really pop and very sharp. I just didn&#8217;t see much of a difference between Nikon&#8217;s 35mm and 50mm to the 18-55m, but for Canon 85mm every shot look amazing!!

Again the help would be very much appreciated, still quite confused about prime lens and why the Canon lens produces much better images than the Nikon. And I do NOT plan to switch brands/cameras; haha I don&#8217;t have the money!*

0ptics


----------



## Bossy (Feb 20, 2012)

togalive said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > There shouldn't be a vs. Its all tools. You can use a hammer to get a screw in the wall, but a *screwgun* does it better and cleaner.
> ...



Really? Its like, a screwdriver with a motor.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 20, 2012)

0ptics said:
			
		

> Yes I&rsquo;m looking for a lens that is a prime because of it&rsquo;s large aperture but also for superb images; and again my bad I&rsquo;m a noob to photography and when I say image quality I meant the shot comes out clear/sharpness/fine. I&rsquo;m sure there&rsquo;s ways to &ldquo;measure&rdquo; the &ldquo;image quality&rdquo; but I just thought image quality mean that. I want to do more portraits so I guess I&rsquo;m asking why the Canon lens&rsquo; images come out so much sharper than the Nikon&rsquo;s? Is it because of their difference in focal length or is it just for another reason??
> 
> Ya that is my fault, I should have took similar photos with both cameras to show and compare; hopefully the next time I see her I&rsquo;ll be able too. But I know for sure the images from her Canon T2i/85mm camera came out a lot better than my Nikon D3100 35mm/50mm
> 
> ...



I'm sure you would feel the same way about the Nikon 85mm....


----------



## Bossy (Feb 20, 2012)

Here's the thing. There's the age old, Nikon vs Canon crap. But if you really want to compare glass, you need to compare like to like, which you're not doing.


----------



## 0ptics (Feb 20, 2012)

MTVision said:


> I'm sure you would feel the same way about the Nikon 85mm....



Oh ok, actually that's good news, I just wasn't sure why the Canon 85mm  looked so much better than the 35mm and mostly the 50mm. Because the  Nikon 50mm's price is more than the Canon 85mm, but from what I've noticed the Canon 85mm produces way better images. Just to make sure, does the Nikon 85mm's shot look better than the 50mm? And does the Canon 85mm shots look better than the Canon 50mm? And I know price shouldn't be the the factor that indicates a "good/better" lens, but it just seems reasonable that lens that produces better/sharper images would cost more


----------



## Bossy (Feb 20, 2012)

0ptics said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you would feel the same way about the Nikon 85mm....
> ...



?? What you're looking at? The Nifty 50 is about $100 for manual, $200 for auto focus. The Canon 85 is about $430.


----------



## IByte (Feb 20, 2012)

I found this clip and I hope you like reason 5


----------



## SCraig (Feb 20, 2012)

God I love the weekly prime vs. zoom topic!


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2012)

I use both....kinky


----------



## greybeard (Feb 20, 2012)

I have a hobby that is very closely related to photography and that is recording.  When one first starts into recording they usually start out with a entry level microphone, a entry level pre-amp/ADA converter and some entry level software.  As your ears get better from hours of listening you start to appreciate the subtle differences between various microphones and maybe you even dump a bunch of money on a Neumann or other really expensive mic.  Microphones are a lot like camera lenses.  When you first start working with them your ears and eyes can't really tell much difference between the expensive ones and the cheap ones.  But, as your ears and eyes get better at picking out the differences you then start to appreciate the differences.  I use a 18-55 kit and for what I do it is just about all I need.  I am sure there are big differences between it and the expensive stuff and when my eyes develop to a point that I can see this big difference, I'll probably spring for a more expensive lens.  (jmho)


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 20, 2012)

I don't doubt the superiority of the canon 85 1.8 over most lenses. However, lens resolution is not everything (most lenses are good enough), versability and convinience is more important to me. I don't like to waste time changin lenses or walking more. Besides, you can always sharpen the image in post processing.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 20, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> I don't doubt the superiority of the canon 85 1.8 over most lenses. However, lens resolution is not everything (most lenses are good enough), versability and convinience is more important to me. I don't like to waste time changin lenses or walking more. Besides, *you can always sharpen the image in post processing*.



Waaahh Wrong Answer.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> I don't doubt the superiority of the canon 85 1.8 over most lenses. However, lens resolution is not everything (most lenses are good enough), versability and convinience is more important to me. I don't like to waste time changin lenses or walking more. Besides, you can always sharpen the image in post processing.


I always sharpen my images in post. Even when I'm using a 70-200 f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.
I shoot in RAW so the images need to be sharpened anyway.
If you don't want to waste your time walking or changing lenses, why waste your time taking pictures


----------



## MTVision (Feb 20, 2012)

0ptics said:
			
		

> Oh ok, actually that's good news, I just wasn't sure why the Canon 85mm  looked so much better than the 35mm and mostly the 50mm. Because the  Nikon 50mm's price is more than the Canon 85mm, but from what I've noticed the Canon 85mm produces way better images. Just to make sure, does the Nikon 85mm's shot look better than the 50mm? And does the Canon 85mm shots look better than the Canon 50mm? And I know price shouldn't be the the factor that indicates a "good/better" lens, but it just seems reasonable that lens that produces better/sharper images would cost more



The Nikon 85 1.4 is an amazing lens (from what ive read/heard -thank god since its so expensive. The Nikon 85 1.8 - I had one for 2 days and really liked it but i returned it because it was a full manual focus lens. A new Nikon 85 1.8 should be coming out soon though - in a month I think. 

Not sure if you answered it already but what made the pictures so amazing?? Different focal lengths have different purposes and they present different angles of view(?). Maybe you just like the longer focal length - I don't know. 

Nikon price is higher because it is an af-s lens. Some Nikons have a focusing motor built in the camera whereas some don't. So the lenses that have the focusing motor inside them are a little pricier (like the 50 1.4). I'm not completely sure but I don't think canon puts a focus motor in any of it's cameras.....

To be honest - you can get amazing shots out of any of those lenses (including the kit). You just have to know what you are doing.


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 20, 2012)

I prefer to use a zoom lens, not as sharp as a prime lens but sharp enough. Walking is not a problem, but missing a shot for not having the right focal length is.

I guess the best thing about prime lenses is that they are faster. You can isolate the subject, and use them under low light. I wouldn't get a prime lens based only on its sharpness, if it's the right focal length and you need a bigger aperture go for it.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 21, 2012)

If you have a smartphone, there are many free Depth of Field calculators available. I found it useful to get a grasp of the impact of each variable in the final image.  

That way I could take pictures with a plan in my head and understand why I only got one eye in focus, why the back ground didn't soften as expected etc. 

Use the preview function of your camera if it has one.


----------



## Dao (Feb 21, 2012)

It depends on the type of photos you take.  If you feel like 85mm lens is best for the type of photo you take, yes go get the 85mm lens.  (It is not Canon is better, with a Nikon 85mm on your camera, you will like it too).


I have the 85mm f/1.8 Canon myself.   Before I bought the lens, I have the 50mm f/1.8 version 1.  But I found that when I took photos of my family out door, I often use my telephoto zoom lens (not a fast lens) and shoot around 70 to 100mm range because I like it better.   The out of focus blur background and the compression appeared to be better than my 50mm lens.  So I bought the 85mm lens and yes, it is even better.  (besides creamer background, the color and contrast is better than my telephoto zoom lens at 85mm)

So I think why you feel the 85mm is better because of the focal length.  Of course, it can be something else too.


----------



## 0ptics (Feb 22, 2012)

IByte said:


> I found this clip and I hope you like reason 5
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwmCrGVS3ZQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player


 
Thanks for the link, ya digitalrev is always interesting to watch!




MTVision said:


> The Nikon 85 1.4 is an amazing lens (from what ive read/heard -thank god since its so expensive. The Nikon 85 1.8 - I had one for 2 days and really liked it but i returned it because it was a full manual focus lens. A new Nikon 85 1.8 should be coming out soon though - in a month I think.
> 
> Not sure if you answered it already but what made the pictures so amazing?? Different focal lengths have different purposes and they present different angles of view(?). Maybe you just like the longer focal length - I don't know.
> 
> ...


Thanks MTVision, idk its just when I tried the camera/lens the images came out VERY sharp/clear and the colors were vibrant and popped, even simple snapshots looked great. I wish I was able to compare shots from the Canon lens and from the Nikon 35mm and 50m&#8230;But ya I guess my main question is that does focal length affect the sharpness/clarity of the image? For an example would I get similar images if I compared the Canon 50mm to the Nikon 50mm, Canon 85mm to the Nikon 85 (the new one that you mentioned), and Canon 35mm to the Nikon 35mm? I know they are all different lens and overall they&#8217;re both GREAT glass but just from what I remember when using it, the Canon 85mm&#8217;s images looks so much better than the Nikon&#8217;s 35mm or 50mm. I&#8217;ll definitely try them all out and hopefully be able to compare the differences/similarities.




Dao said:


> It depends on the type of photos you take. If you feel like 85mm lens is best for the type of photo you take, yes go get the 85mm lens. (It is not Canon is better, with a Nikon 85mm on your camera, you will like it too).
> 
> 
> I have the 85mm f/1.8 Canon myself. Before I bought the lens, I have the 50mm f/1.8 version 1. But I found that when I took photos of my family out door, I often use my telephoto zoom lens (not a fast lens) and shoot around 70 to 100mm range because I like it better. The out of focus blur background and the compression appeared to be better than my 50mm lens. So I bought the 85mm lens and yes, it is even better. (besides creamer background, the color and contrast is better than my telephoto zoom lens at 85mm)
> ...


 
Oh ok thanks for the help Dao! This might sound repetitive , but you would say that the Canon 85mm is similar to the Nikon 85mm (Canon 50mm similar to Nikon 50mm/Canon 35mm similar to Nikon 35mm)? *If so, would does focal length affect the sharpness of the images so much *(or atleast from what I experienced)??

Thanks again for everyone&#8217;s, there probably isn&#8217;t a definite answer to my question but any insight/help would be awesome!!


----------



## Bossy (Feb 22, 2012)

The quality of the glass is different between the 35mm and the 85mm of either brand.


----------



## cardonalj (Feb 22, 2012)

You keep saying reiterating sharpness and pop over the Canon lens than the nikon ones...were you shooting at different aperture settings? shooting a f/5.6 compared to f/1.8 can produce a drastic change in sharpness and clarity...


----------



## Kolia (Feb 22, 2012)

cardonalj said:


> You keep saying reiterating sharpness and pop over the Canon lens than the nikon ones...were you shooting at different aperture settings? shooting a f/5.6 compared to f/1.8 can produce a drastic change in sharpness and clarity...



Not to mention different bodies...


----------



## Tarazed (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm going to guess that the OP liked the 85 due to the bokeh of the longer lens.  That is what made the lens appear "sharper".  Just a thought.


----------



## enzodm (Feb 23, 2012)

0ptics said:


> *If so, would does focal length affect the sharpness of the images so much *



No. Actually, the Nikon 35mm has more resolution than the Canon 85mm.


----------

