What's new

Temporary lens trade

Hello all,

I am taking a vacation in September and would like to try a low F/stop prime lens for my trip. I don't want to buy yet, as I have no experience with primes. I also do not wish to rent one, because that's typically a good bit of money that can be used for purchasing one, in the event I like prime lenses. I am looking for anybody who has a low (2.0 or lower) flat F/Stop lens that is around 50mm, that is willing to trade for roughly two weeks (my trip is September 9-22). The only lens I have for trade, and at all, is my kit 18-55 Nikon lens. My camera is the Nikon D3300 DX.

All the best,
Brian
 
I agree with Alpster completely. In fact, either the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8 will do you nicely. My personbal preference is the 35mm for the extra width but both are fantastic, fast primes with really nice bokeh! Don't think about it, just get one.
 
That 35mm 1.8 Nikkor lens is the best buy in the Nikon DX hutch. JMHO! It's fast, clear, and very sharp.

On a DX camera the view you see through the lens is the close to the view you see with your eyes. You can focus very, very close to your subject. The real trick to prime lens work is moving your body to/from the subject.

It's been, or a lens like it (50mm for 35mm film), my favorite lens for over fifty years.
 
It might be hard to convince someone to trade your kit lens for their prime. I know you don't want to rent but it might be the only option if you want to try it out before you buy it. Lensrentals.com has the 35 1.8 for 29 dollars for 4 days.

As others have mentioned the 50 1.8 and 35mm 1.8 are great and wont disappoint for the price.
 
I only have old F mount non-ai Nikon lenses. I think they would mount on your camera, however they are manual focus and you will not be able to use automatic metering. I actually think all I have available is a 50mm. I have a much more extensive Canon FD collection that I inherited from my Grandfather.
 
wow I thought I replied to the thread. I have that prime, just don't know if it will work on a body without the motor built in.
 
That 35mm 1.8 Nikkor lens is the best buy in the Nikon DX hutch. JMHO! It's fast, clear, and very sharp
Definitely. The 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX lens gets unanimously good reviews. It also has the same filter size as the 18-55 and 55-200.
 
I have one of those 35mm's and it's definitely worth the $200 asking price. Works much better than the kit lens when the light starts to go and I think you'll notice your pics are sharper with it. Plus you can get some nice bokeh with it. Just buy one. You won't be sorry you did.
 
I'll be "that" guy...

I've been in photography for over 30 years now, taught it for 3 years, did it semi-pro for a while but anyways.

Prime lens aren't the "required must-have" that they once were.

Lens quality has improved a lot in the last 10-15 years, to the point that a good zoom can be just as good and provides flexibility.

The aperture thing.. heck, the sensors of newer better cameras can do wonders for the ISO levels, and unless you don't do your settings right, you can do fine pictures with a 2 - 3.5 lens.

If you are planning to take low light images, you're better off to get a variable power flash with proper diffusers.

No lens will compensate for knowing your camera and knowing how to take good pictures regardless of equipment.

I get a lot of images from around the world from people with fine cameras and it seems that no many how many times I provide them with the simplest information, most cannot understand white balance, proper ISO setting, and composition.

So unless you are planning something that absolutely needs a prime, get something else.

If you do get one, make sure that you know what you'll be doing with it, so to make sure that you get the proper focal range and capacity that you'll need.

28/35/50/70/80/100, macro/standard/wide/tele.

Just getting a prime is a lot more involved and since you stated that the money to invest is important, make sure you know what you need. Don't get something that you'll regret later.
 
I'll be "that" guy...

I've been in photography for over 30 years now, taught it for 3 years, did it semi-pro for a while but anyways.

Prime lens aren't the "required must-have" that they once were.

Lens quality has improved a lot in the last 10-15 years, to the point that a good zoom can be just as good and provides flexibility.

The aperture thing.. heck, the sensors of newer better cameras can do wonders for the ISO levels, and unless you don't do your settings right, you can do fine pictures with a 2 - 3.5 lens.

If you are planning to take low light images, you're better off to get a variable power flash with proper diffusers.

No lens will compensate for knowing your camera and knowing how to take good pictures regardless of equipment.

I get a lot of images from around the world from people with fine cameras and it seems that no many how many times I provide them with the simplest information, most cannot understand white balance, proper ISO setting, and composition.

So unless you are planning something that absolutely needs a prime, get something else.

If you do get one, make sure that you know what you'll be doing with it, so to make sure that you get the proper focal range and capacity that you'll need.

28/35/50/70/80/100, macro/standard/wide/tele.

Just getting a prime is a lot more involved and since you stated that the money to invest is important, make sure you know what you need. Don't get something that you'll regret later.

the lens in question is sub $200 for anextremely shart 1.8 35mm. on a DX platform thats a 50mm, which any photographer worth his salt has in his bag. at that price point and that platform it's the best bang for the buck bar none. hell it's even good on an FX platform as long as you take into account the vignetting you will get due to the sensor size.
 
the lens in question is sub $200 for anextremely shart 1.8 35mm. on a DX platform thats a 50mm, which any photographer worth his salt has in his bag. at that price point and that platform it's the best bang for the buck bar none. hell it's even good on an FX platform as long as you take into account the vignetting you will get due to the sensor size.

As you stated "has IN his bag".

Unless you have an very specific scenario in mind so to use it, the 50mm isn't the staple lens that it used to be.

There's several reason that these lens are great, but several reasons that they are bought, use a few times, and then (again) left IN the bag and doesn't get much usage if any (so not that great if you don't end up using it anyways).

The OP is looking at nature/wildlife shots, so I am simply recommending that he aims for something that would be better for what he wants a lens for.

If later on he decides that he'd like to get a few prime lens, that's great. But at this time, the automatic "must have" just because "prime lens" sounds great, sorry but I would always recommend putting that (sub-200$) money towards something that will have a lot more usage.

There's a few very good zooms out there that can be very close to putting prime lens to shame.
 
Just to provide a few examples (I haven't uploaded much, but here's a few wildlife shots I've done) and not one was with a "prime" lens, 50mm or otherwise.

Some were even taken with *gasp* point-and shot cameras (pro-level ones, that provided full manual settings).

A good lens is simply a good lens, there's not much that a "prime" really does so much better than a good quality zoom. The biggest appeal to a prime at this point is it's weight, as they are much lighter, and the highest aperture. But knowing how to take proper low lights images shouldn't be about the aperture, heck, I can take a 4.5-8 aperture image at night by balancing my speed, using tripod, ISO, and such. A soft fill flash can accomplish miracles if you know how to not get a burn or reflections.


But honestly, hard to explain without going into details but part of my work is working with images taken around the world by local staff.

Many have DSLRs, very few know how to use them, the lens don't matter, they can't handle composition, white balance, ISO settings, etc. So I do a lot of image correction before I can publish them, many end up being virtually unusable.
 
Fast lenses are not only used for low light photography, as you undoubtedly know.

BTW, you have some fine images in your photobucket library.
 
Last edited:
Fast lenses are not only used for low light photography, as you undoubtedly know.

BTW, you have some fine images in your photobucket library.

The trouble is many assume that "fast" equals better.

I'd rather have a 3.5 and use skills to do my settings right and use something to steady the shot and get a great picture than go for a faster speed that washes the image quality out.

A low speed flash array ( I can load 3 flashes on my camera if I do my "let's scare the amateurs" setup) can do amazing shots, as for artistic shots it's not about speed, snap shots are about speed. (or action - such as sports)

Part of the pictures I have to "fix" are as such.. washed out colors and blandness.

Even worse are the Photoshop "experts" that send me overdone, oversaturated images that look like a circus pamphlet as they tried to compensate for the bad skills at taking the image in the first place. I always have to re-request the original image.


Note.. my images on photobucket (thanks for the complement)... barely retouched if at all.
 
I agree that for wild life shots a prime might not be the best (unless you can afford a 600mm f4 lol) But that being said I've used a 50mm lens on my camera for the past yearish.

For the pictures I take a 1.8 lens is preferred over something like a 3.5 because I'm not able to have a tripod and I hate using flash.

Now don't get me wrong there are sometimes I wish I had a good zoom to change the focal length but that doesn't happen much.

Lol fallen angel need any photographers from Toronto for your company?? ;)
 
I agree that for wild life shots a prime might not be the best (unless you can afford a 600mm f4 lol) But that being said I've used a 50mm lens on my camera for the past yearish.

For the pictures I take a 1.8 lens is preferred over something like a 3.5 because I'm not able to have a tripod and I hate using flash.

Now don't get me wrong there are sometimes I wish I had a good zoom to change the focal length but that doesn't happen much.

Lol fallen angel need any photographers from Toronto for your company?? ;)

600mm.. hehehe. better have a strong back to lug that around on a vacation.

What take of pictures do you take that you feel that 1.8 is necessary?

And a flash used right can be quite nice... the goal with a flash is to make the picture look like you didn't use one, but you could be surprised how much depth you could add to your pictures.

I'm a big fan of diffusers and angles. There's so many awesome flash mounts now that the top mounting of the camera is fairly obsolete.

I tend to use the built-in flash on low, using a diffuser approach, and have a second flash mounted sideways and angled to bounce (depending on the environment and adjusted).

An instant cheap and easy diffuser for the small build-in flash? a folded paper tissue wrapped around it gently.

And for tripods.. check into using a monopod, I have an "antique" tripod that is extremely solid and very compact that I simply keep the legs together and move around with it.. and if needed, I open them up a bit.

And sorry.. it's not a company, nor can I hire... part of why we have to get staff taking pictures at events and such.
 
I agree with Alpster completely. In fact, either the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8 will do you nicely. My personbal preference is the 35mm for the extra width but both are fantastic, fast primes with really nice bokeh! Don't think about it, just get one.

I refer to my 50 mm 1.8 a my clear body cap. What a fantastic lens, the 35mm is an extremely close second. The 50 requires a body focus motor so it will be a manual focus on the OP's camera.
 
Top Bottom