Upgrading lenses...which to get?

V

vishvanaar

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1
Name
vishvanaar
Edit My Images
No
I'm a natural light photographer who specializes in children, senior, engagement, and family photography. I'm planning on using my tax return money to upgrade my camera to a full frame sensor and upgrade my lenses. I currently own a 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8 (all nikon products). I thought that the 50 1.4 would be great for my natural light studio sessions (as my studio is a tight sunroom in my home). But the 85 1.4 would be great for my outdoor sessions. I can only choose one or the other...which would you suggest?
valuepointdistribution
 
Last edited:
If you're upgrading from DX to FX, then you ought to know that lenses will behave differently on the new camera. On full frame you'll get a wider field of view and shallower depth of field.

The 85/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 50/1.4 on DX, so that sounds like it's worth keeping.

The 50/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 35/1.4 on DX, which is a nice tool to have in the bag but not necessarily one that's right for your work.

I think you need something longer. If you want to achieve the same effect as 85/1.4 on DX, then on FX you'd need something like 135/2. Nikon do make a lens in that range which is specifically designed for portraits - the very strange 135mm f/2 DC (DC = Defocus Control) so maybe that would be worth investigating.
 
StewartR said:
The 85/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 50/1.4 on DX, so that sounds like it's worth keeping.

The 50/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 35/1.4 on DX, which is a nice tool to have in the bag but not necessarily one that's right for your work.

.
Click to expand...

Really...?

Mike.
 
StewartR said:
Yes, really. Which aspect are you questioning, and why?
Click to expand...
Assuming we are discussing focal lengths only there is a typo in your second sentence, fx and dx round the other way, easily done.
 
Last edited:
No I think Stewart is right. If you like how a scene is framed using a 50mm on a crop sensor. To get the same framing on full frame you will need a 75mm focal length (assuming 1.5x crop)
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
No I think Stewart is right. If you like how a scene is framed using a 50mm on a crop sensor. To get the same framing on full frame you will need a 75mm focal length (assuming 1.5x crop)
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
You could always get a flash, then you wouldn't need to call yourself a "natural light photographer" :lol:

Seriously though, I'm not sure how much better your images would be going from 1.8 to 1.4

I've had 1.4's and 1.8's in all the above and if it were me I'd just stick with the 1.8 and think about what else might aid my images.
 
From the article:

"This means, for example, a 24mm lens on a DX sensor camera will provide an approximate 36mm view."
 
Having reread when not on the iPhone and looked at the subsequent paragraphs, the failure here is using language in such a way that it can mean two completely different things.
 
Stewart kinda told you, but to be more specific a replacement for your 50 and 85 is 85 and 135 ish.

So, as you already have the 85, get a 135.

I'm not familiar with Noink, but on Canon it'd be the 135 f2
 
inkiboo said:
Having reread when not on the iPhone and looked at the subsequent paragraphs, the failure here is using language in such a way that it can mean two completely different things.
Click to expand...

This is the nub of all this...

Mike.
 
StewartR said:
If you're upgrading from DX to FX, then you ought to know that lenses will behave differently on the new camera. On full frame you'll get a wider field of view and shallower depth of field.

The 85/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 50/1.4 on DX, so that sounds like it's worth keeping.

The 50/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 35/1.4 on DX, which is a nice tool to have in the bag but not necessarily one that's right for your work.

I think you need something longer. If you want to achieve the same effect as 85/1.4 on DX, then on FX you'd need something like 135/2. Nikon do make a lens in that range which is specifically designed for portraits - the very strange 135mm f/2 DC (DC = Defocus Control) so maybe that would be worth investigating.
Click to expand...

Looks correct and pretty well explained to me (y)
 
StewartR said:
Are you referring to this bit? If so I'd be grateful if you could explain what the two completely different meanings are.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

"The 85/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 50/1.4 on DX, so that sounds like it's worth keeping."

You can read that you are talking about one lens being moved from a FX body to a DX body. Or you can read it as one lens on FX and a different lens on DX.
 
inkiboo said:
Absolutely.

"The 85/1.8 on FX will behave roughly like a 50/1.4 on DX, so that sounds like it's worth keeping."

You can read that you are talking about one lens being moved from a FX body to a DX body. Or you can read it as one lens on FX and a different lens on DX.
Click to expand...

You "could" read it like that but I don't think anybody but you is doing so. It makes sense to me anyway :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top