Nifty fifty for D60

C

Carlm90

Suspended / Banned
Messages
189
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
No
I have a D60 and I'm wondering which equivalent has the AF-S so it autofocuses and how much should I look to be paying? Not impressed with the results from manually focusing my 50mm f 1.8 or should I keep going at it?
 
I think you're looking at the 1.4 to autofocus so £300+ for that.

I had the same problem for my D40x so went for the 35mm 1.8 AF-S for about £170.
 
Oh ok great, what's the key differences between the 35mm and the 50mm ?
 
Carlm90 said:
Oh ok great, what's the key differences between the 35mm and the 50mm ?
Click to expand...

Can of worms there mate :D

It's pretty much the obvious, that the 50mm is longer than the 35mm.

If you do a search there's plenty discussion on it already, however one point to note is that the 35mm on your camera will behave like a 50mm on a full frame camera :)
 
A fair bit cheaper and better FoV (IMO anyway, especially indoors) on a crop sensor. If you want something a little faster then Sigma do a 30mm f/1.4 but it is a bit more.

EDIT: Its only cheaper if you are looking at models that focus with the D60.
 
I'd persevere with manually focusing your nifty. If you are playing with DoF, you will in many scenarios need to focus manually anyway. Especially if the D60 (like the D40) only has three focus points. Maybe you could try a view finder magnifier.

I tend to always try and take a shot to test image sharpness, preview it and zoom right in on the area I want focus to be sharp. If necessary I can take another shot.

Of course, this only works easily with non-moving subjects.

You could of course, sell your D60 and maybe put what you make, plus that extra £170 towards a good second hand D80 or D90.
 
do you have the kit 18-55?
if so set it at 35 then at 50 to show you the difference in field of view
 
ed_o_brain said:
I'd persevere with manually focusing your nifty. If you are playing with DoF, you will in many scenarios need to focus manually anyway. Especially if the D60 (like the D40) only has three focus points. Maybe you could try a view finder magnifier.

I tend to always try and take a shot to test image sharpness, preview it and zoom right in on the area I want focus to be sharp. If necessary I can take another shot.

Of course, this only works easily with non-moving subjects.

You could of course, sell your D60 and maybe put what you make, plus that extra £170 towards a good second hand D80 or D90.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to upgrade to a D80 or D90 for quite a while yet, I purchased the D60 with the intention of learning a lot more with a lighter camera before seeing whether I will need a better camera in the future.

The D60 will be fine with the lens I have and I'm going to get a nifty fifty for portrait work. I just didn't know whether to have the AF-S.
 
I'm in the same predicament as you. Also have a D60 and torn between getting the 50mm and using manual focusing, or saving up and spending the extra on the 35mm.

At the moment the 35mm is winning out. While getting to grips with manual focusing might be handy in the long run, I can envisage using whichever prime lens I have at many social gatherings (dinners, house parties, and other such low-light situations) and I think not having autofocus when shooting people might be quite a disadvantage. Thoughts?
 
Carlm90 said:
Oh ok great, what's the key differences between the 35mm and the 50mm ?
Click to expand...
15mm? ;)

Seriously, the 35mm is probably a better option for crop sensor cameras as it'll give the same equivelent focal length as you'd get with a 50mm lens on a full frame camera - ie. 35mm x 1.5 = 52.5mm. If you use a 50mm on a crop body, you're actually going to get a 75mm equivelent focal length.
 
I always found 50mm too long on a APS-C sensor, unless you're going for head and shoulder portraits. I did have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 paired with a D40 and it was a brilliant combination.

If I were buying now though, I'd save up for the Nikon 35mm. I don't think the Sigma's worth the extra money and weight.
 
I recently had the same decision to make and decided on the 35mm.

I borrowed my mates 50mm and found when used wide open that with AF in low light I often struggled to nail the focus. I bought a 35mm and was really impressed with it all round and found the wider 15mm a big help especially for indoor portraits.

I have since upgraded to the D90 and whilst the 'nifty fifty' would have AF on it I am pleased I chose the 35mm for the added build quality and smaller focal length
 
The 50mm may have a more restrictive FOV on a crop sensor camera but the perspective is very flattering indeed, also you can get nice DOF blur even a good few metres away and at high (ish) f/ number as well, due to the effect that a longer lens has on being able to blur the background. I have an old 30mm lens and a 50mm and yes, the 30mm gives me more 'room' but the 50 allows me to be so much more creative, I'd choose it every time.
 
weiran said:
I always found 50mm too long on a APS-C sensor, unless you're going for head and shoulder portraits. I did have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 paired with a D40 and it was a brilliant combination.

If I were buying now though, I'd save up for the Nikon 35mm. I don't think the Sigma's worth the extra money and weight.
Click to expand...

It's only to long if you don't have manoeuvring room. Depends on where you are.
 
I think there are 2 options in the 50mm-for-D60etc stakes, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S (£289) and the (according to some reviews, better) Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM (£357.99) (both prices for new lenses from Warehouse Express). It looks like Ffordes have one of the Nikkors in their 2nd hand selection, priced at £239 (Mint-)(inc 6 months' warranty but + £7 P&P). They also have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC EX HSM at £279 (rated E++ condition). TBH, I would be a bit surprised if they still had them - AF-S and equivalent lenses are relatively rare (and consequently still quite pricey) on the 2nd hand market.
 
We use the 35mm f1.8 as the "standard" lens on a D3000, it's a great lens but too short for portraits, you're in their face, possibility of unflattering shots and restricted background blur.

Invest in the 50mm f1.4 AFS and you have a lens for the future, ideal for half length portraits and H and s shots.

john www.phototuition.net
 
I've got the 1.4 AFS its a fantastic lens

very happy with the results especially for portraits of the kids and candids at weddings and parties etc
 
This is an excellent thread! I am a d60 user and looking into buying a AF-S prime lens for portrait use and this has really helped me with deciding on which lens to go for.

Thanks
Andrew
 
Or wait a while until Nikon releases the newly announced AF-S 50mm f/1.8. Shoukd be around £200 or below I'd have thought.
 
I have the 35mm for my D90 (originally got it for my D60), and very glad I didn't go longer for indoor shots.
 
New 50mm f1.8 AF-S

Copied from a press release, as its an opposing forum, I would not be popular with a link . . . :

"From 2 July 2011, you'll be able to get your hands on Nikon's latest 50mm fast aperture lens. Priced at £199.99, the 50mm standard Nikkor f/1.8 lens will be useful in low-light situations or when you want to create a shallow depth of field.

Zurab Kiknadze, Product Manager Lenses, Accessories & Software, Nikon Europe said: "The new 50mm is an ideal second lens for curious DSLR enthusiasts wanting to venture beyond the kit lens and explore the creative possibilities that a fast aperture can offer, including effects such as blurred backgrounds in portraiture."

The lens, which weighs 185 grams, features a dedicated Silent Wave Motor (SWM) and a weather-sealed metal mount. The 50mm lens is compatible with Nikon FX-format DSLRs as well as offering a 75mm (equivalent) focal length when used with Nikon DX-format DSLRs.

The lens is supplied with a lens hood and a soft pouch.

Visit Nikon for more information, or view sample photos on Nikon's blog"

CJS
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top