prime lens?

[mttycaz85]

just wondering how many of you use a prime type lens? I have a nikon d3000 and was wondering and was wondering if i should invest in one?

[umop_apisdn]

Generally, you'll be able to obtain better clarity from use of a prime lens. The moving parts of a zoom lens are going to take from the precision of optical elements.

What do you plan on photographing, other than herps? I do not know that the average DSLR owner needs a prime lens when you can still take great photos with a zoom lens.

My only prime lens is a Canon 50mm macro. I do not use it often, but I've used it for smaller subjects, for the most part. I've been considering getting a 90mm or 100mm macro lens for a while, just for nicer close-ups and the ability to get tighter shots of tiny subjects without cropping.

My suggestion to you is to get a 50 or 60mm macro if it's close-ups of geckos you plan on shooting, primarily. I believe the 50mm macro is a staple of photography, at least for Canons.

[mttycaz85]

I just picked up a QUANTARAY 70-300MM with macro works really well. was great for taking photos at a baseball game. macro works pretty good but not so good for being close up to the object! saw a SIGMA 50mm 1:2.8 DG Macro for $300 was thinking of picking up. also saw some one selling a Tamron 90mm macro for $350. not sure if i wanna spend the money. have you used any of these lenses?

[umop_apisdn]

the 70-300, even though it says it has macro capabilities, is not a macro lens. A true macro lens is going to allow you to do close-up photography. With a 70-300mm lens, the closest you can get to an object and keep it in focus is about 5 or 6 feet, which is not good for macro attempts. With my 75-300mm Tamron, I once tried to shoot a salamander at my feet, and I had to stretch quite a bit to get it in focus (I am 6 feet tall). The shot was not a close-up in the least. I could probably manage a better "macro" shot with an 18-55mm lens.

I borrowed a 90mm Tamron macro lens from Andrew years ago when I was new to DSLRs. Sigma makes good lenses, too. You'll have to look up reviews and weigh the pros and cons between the two to figure it out for yourself. I think a 90mm macro is going to be a bit much for you, unless you really plan on doing very close work. If you're planning on filling the frame with the whole animal (around the size of a crested gecko), you'll probably be better off with a 50mm or 60mm. Once you get up to a 90mm or 100mm, you'll find you need a faster shutter speed to deal with your camera shake, plus a shallower depth of field (kinda).

[birddog]

Great information. I own a sigma 100-300mm with macro and over all for the money its a great lens. I mostly use it for wildlife photography. Moose/bear/deer etc. It needs a lot of light which can be a pain in the field. The Marco for me is most useful for a shot of a flower or something like that and yes beyond 5 feet. The 18-55 is what I use for geckos. It just does a better job. When I can afford it(someday) I plan on a whole new setup. Its on my wish list along with so many other things!

[mttycaz85]

Macro setting works well for talking photos of animals and insects. I'm glad I picked it up. think I'm going to get a sigma 50mm macro.

[Zerocoolxx]

Most of your true macro lenses will be cased as a 10mm-30mm range with use of up to 55mm for decent pictures. I personally will use my 18-55 lens, or my 50mm prime. I have taken pictures with extension tubes (tele-converter) using my 75-300 lens, but it causes a lot of Vignetting and purple off lighting behind a subject. I love my 50mm prime and my 18-55 lens for close ups

[Andrew Gilpin]

Originally Posted by Zerocoolxx

Most of your true macro lenses will be cased as a 10mm-30mm range with use of up to 55mm for decent pictures. I personally will use my 18-55 lens, or my 50mm prime. I have taken pictures with extension tubes (tele-converter) using my 75-300 lens, but it causes a lot of Vignetting and purple off lighting behind a subject. I love my 50mm prime and my 18-55 lens for close ups

Where are you getting this information? I don't think I've ever seen a true macro lens ( at least for a dslr) that is shorter than 50mm?
I would say most are 60, 90, 105, 150, and 180mm increments....


As Mike as mentioned, anything with a range ( zoom, ex. 70-300) no matter what the lens says, is NOT a macro lens.
All that it means is that it either has a finer focusing setting, or that it allows you to focus slightly closer than a regular zoom lens. Example.... a 'normal' 70-300 zoom may allow you to reach 1:5 magnification. This means it will only allow you 1/5 the magnification of a true macro lens. The zoom lenses that say 'macro' on them, may allow 1:4 magnification, still a far cry from the magnification and clarity that a 1:1 macro lens will allow.

For anyone following along that doesn't understand the 'prime' terminology, it is just referencing that the lens is fixed meaning it has no zoom ability. All true macro lenses that are capable of 1:1 magnification are prime lenses.

Originally Posted by mttycaz85

just wondering how many of you use a prime type lens? I have a nikon d3000 and was wondering and was wondering if i should invest in one?

To answer the initial question though, if you're doing a lot of detail macro photography, or wish to get into it, I would very highly recommend picking up a true macro lens. Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all make very nice macro lenses. Just make sure it's a fixed focal length ( 60mm, 90mm, 105mm etc.) and that it says it can do 1:1 macro.
There are some cheaper 'prime' 50mm options that will often time allow you to get 1:2 magnification with pretty nice results.
If you're shooting animals the size of adult cresteds, leachies etc. I would recommend going with the 60mm focal length. In my experience, 90mm+ is too far of a distance to put yourself from larger gecko species and it makes them difficult to manipulate/control while shooting ( with a crop sensor camera).
More questions? Feel free to ask