Nikon 35mm f/1.8 on D40

[sask]

Well I'm thinking about getting the 35mm f/1.8 for my D40 and was wondering what you guys think. It would be replacing my 18-55 which I really don't like that much. Do you guys think that 35mm won't be wide enough to use as my main lens. I have a 55-200 VR and a 50mm prime but don't have any wide angle lenses. I might buy a wide angle in the future but probably not this year. Any thoughts? I should probably mention that I don't plan on upgrading to full frame any time soon either.

[crazzy88ss]

I shoot wide a lot, and couldn't live with out something around 17mm range.

However, if you did get the wide angle later (like a 12-24 or 10-20) along w/ the 35mm, that'd work just fine.

I'veh eard the 35mm f1.8 is a great lens.

[Brandon]

I personally couldn't live without my 17-50. There are just times when you need more reach than 35mm, and others where it just isn't large enough.

Having just a prime will increase your creativity, but sometimes it can be limiting.

I've gone on a few shoots with just my 50 1.4 and have been generally fine.

[sundayx Veteran]

I went to Vietnam with just a 30/1.4 and it's fine for more lifestyle shooting, but if you're doing a lot of scenery and stuff you'll need some range.

[sask]

Some good points, thanks everyone.

[Murkey]

You've got a 18-55mm, try the 35mm focal length on it and see what you think. Or if you have software organising your library, see what focal lengths you favor?

[sask]

You've got a 18-55mm, try the 35mm focal length on it and see what you think. Or if you have software organising your library, see what focal lengths you favor?

Good idea, when I get home I'll go through lightroom to see what focal length I usually shoot at.

[Argote]

So you'd be selling hte 18-55 to get the 35? Or why get rid of it?

[lawtai]

Yea, both lenses are lightweight and the 35mm is relatively cheap. I'd just keep both lenses.