A few questions about a prime lens...

macs

macs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
794
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm playing about with the idea of a prime lens for portrait photography of my family and general shooting and after looking about a bit i've got a few questions i'd like answered:

1 - i've got a Nikon D3000 so it's got a crop factor, should I get a 50mm or a 35mm so it's 50mm equivilant?

2 - how come I can't find one with VR? Is that because the aperture is so wide the lens is quick and therefore no time for vibration to occur?

3 - should I spend more on the f1.4 or is the value of the f1.8 so good I shouldn't even consider spending more?

Thanks for answering any of the questions that you can.
 
macs said:
I'm playing about with the idea of a prime lens for portrait photography of my family and general shooting and after looking about a bit i've got a few questions i'd like answered:

1 - i've got a Nikon D3000 so it's got a crop factor, should I get a 50mm or a 35mm so it's 50mm equivilant?

2 - how come I can't find one with VR? Is that because the aperture is so wide the lens is quick and therefore no time for vibration to occur?

3 - should I spend more on the f1.4 or is the value of the f1.8 so good I shouldn't even consider spending more?

Thanks for answering any of the questions that you can.
Click to expand...

1- 35mm on your crop sensor will be similar to a 50mm on a FX/35mm Film body

2 - VR on anything that wide is pointless

3 - The 35mm f1.4 is going to cost you a second mortgage, either 35mm or 50mm in f1.8 are both optically superb, just make sure you get the AF-S ones with the built in motor.

My 35mm spent more time on my crop body than my 50mm.
 
1. 35 is a great lens, but 50 would be better for portraits. Perhaps buy a used 50 1.8 used to see how you go, you'll not lose any money on it to speak of should you wish to upgrade to the 50 1.4 or get a 35.

2. Yes, short focal length and wide aperture renders VR less useful.

3. If you are referring to the 50 see answer 1, but the 1.4 is a better lens should you find you like the focal length.
 
1. When using a "crop" sensor DSLR a 35mm lens will give you the equivalent field of view of a 50mm lens on full frame but it will have the image characteristics of a centre crop of a 35mm lens on a full frame camera because that's what it is. The only way to get the look of a 50mm lens on a crop camera is to use a 50mm lens, but the field of view will be different. I guess the best thing to do if at all possible is to try them both before you buy and see which you prefer.

2. The lack of IS on shorter primes is a massive PITA IMVHO and cameras with in body IS have a massive advantage here. I disagree with Martyn, I wish all of my lenses had IS. You can always turn it off if you don't want it but if you want it it's nice to have it.

3. When buying a lens like this I think that the "look" the lens produces is very important so if the extra speed or DoF control between f1.4 and f1.8 isn't significant for you why not just go for the lens that gives the best "look."
 
Hi Rich,

The only person that can say which lens you should have is you ... it's down to which one gives you the look that you're after. The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 (in terms of "speed") is pretty minimal when you compare it the difference between a kit lens (f/4-ish at 35/50mm) so I wouldn't beat myself up about that - just go for the one that suits your pocket :)

On a DX body a 35mm lens will give you the look similar to a 50mm lens on FX (or 35mm film) and this is considered to be the "normal" view.

No-one (AFAIK) fits VR/OS/IS/whatever to small primes because unless you have a serious shake problem you just don't need it.

Be aware that whichever lens you decide to go for it has to have focus motor in it as your body doesn't - in Nikon parlance this means you need an AF-S lens if you want to be able to auto-focus.

Hope that helps :)
 
Something else about IS and fast lenses... Just because a lens is capable of going to f1.4 doesn't mean that you'll want to. You also might not want to use ISO X,000.

IS can allow you to have the choice of using a smaller aperture and/or a lower ISO and either one of these things could make the difference between getting a keeper and getting nothing, really.
 
1) Really depends what you want, 50mm on a crop makes a nice portrait lens but (for me) it can feel a bit 'long' in a tight space or close quarters, and I wanted a short prime to compliment my 70-200, so for me a 50mm didn't feel significantly shorter.

2) I think VR/IS is not necessarily too important on a short prime, especially a fast one, as it's less prone to camera shake and blur than a long lens.

Having said that, Canon have got new 24 and 28mm primes with IS, but I think these might be designed with low light & video in mind, where I understand IS helps with visible camera shake on recordings (sorry I'm a Canon person, not sure about Nikon's line up)

3) Hard to call, not sure how the Nikon's stack up; I suppose if I intended to use it a lot and in low light, perhaps the 1.4 is worth it?

I had a similar question in my head this week for my 7D, and have ended up ordering a 35mm f2 today :)
 
woof woof said:
2. The lack of IS on shorter primes is a massive PITA IMVHO and cameras with in body IS have a massive advantage here. I disagree with Martyn, I wish all of my lenses had IS. You can always turn it off if you don't want it but if you want it it's nice to have it.
Click to expand...

Noted :D

When they start producing primes the size of drainpipes I know who to blame because I need a larger bag and a caddie to carry it all :D

If it is available and it helps use it by all means, but it is not something I have ever wanted on a sub 100mm lens.


.
 
Last edited:
IS in the lens makes the lens heavier and much more expensive. See the new 50-150 OS from Sigma. It costs twice as much as the non OS and weights a ton. I can see the benefits of lens OS but I think they far outweigh the benefits. You gotta buy the same feature time and time again with each and every lens.

Thus why I have a Pentax K-5.
 
My 35mm f1.8 is such a versatile lens, it always makes the cut to go in the camera bag when I've got not much room while the 50mm stays on my film camera.
 
Martyn... said:
When they start producing primes the size of drainpipes I know who to blame because I need a larger bag and a caddie to carry it all :D
Click to expand...

If there's a bulk and weight penalty it's the only downside I can think of but the positives would be massive for me. I suppose the only way to guage it would be to compare current IS and non IS lenses of the same focal length and aperture.

The only IS lenses I have at the mo are a 14-42mm for MFT, and it's tiny, and a 70-300mm for Canon and that's hardly a back breaker so I doubt that a 50mm f1.4 IS would have me reaching for the dumbbells to bulk up.

Anyway, it would at least be nice to have the choice but as a sad and behind the times Canon user I have no choice in the matter at all.
 
woof woof said:
If there's a bulk and weight penalty it's the only downside I can think of but the positives would be massive for me. I suppose the only way to guage it would be to compare current IS and non IS lenses of the same focal length and aperture.

The only IS lenses I have at the mo are a 14-42mm for MFT, and it's tiny, and a 70-300mm for Canon and that's hardly a back breaker so I doubt that a 50mm f1.4 IS would have me reaching for the dumbbells to bulk up.

Anyway, it would at least be nice to have the choice but as a sad and behind the times Canon user I have no choice in the matter at all.
Click to expand...

I still have my Minolta SLR and a couple of lenses from the 70's, whenever I get them out of the cupboard they look like little toys compared to the size of my current kit :D

Canon have just announced IS on a couple of the wider primes they are due to release so you may be in luck.
 
Yup. I spotted them but as far as I remember they're f2.8's and TBH I don't see the point of shorter non macro f2.8's when there are quality f2.8 zooms to choose from. They may be good lenses but I can't see myself buying one, if they were f1.4's then I'd possibly be interested.

I'm hard to please.
 
I'm a Canon man but have prime lenses in 35mm (f/2), 50mm (f/1.8) and 85mm (f1.8) and by far my most used prime overall is my 35mm.

I personally find it a great focal length for everything from portraits to landscapes.
 
A pretty perfect set really, 35, 50 and 85mm, give or take a couple of mm either way.

I have 20mm f1.8, 50 and 85mm f1.4's and keep thinking that my life would be complete if I had something like a 28mm f1.8.

:D
 
Nikon 35mm f1.8 g afs - bloody excellent. Link to pics on the sig
30mm f1.4 sigma - if you get a good copy its wonderful - not sure it focusses on your camera tho - worth a try if you can find a store with one - around 300ukp ish?
nikon 50mm f1.8 - meant to be good and fair reasonable in price
nikon 50mm f1.4d - screw drive so wont af on your camera - around 200ukp new
nikon 50 f1.4g afs - think this would work with your camera, but more pricy around 300ukp ish?

Best to find a store with them in and try them all. Used might give you better options. If you can snap a pic or two from the store entrance (so you get outside lighting) and use f1.x and f4 perhaps f8 to see differences.


Good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top