Alright, thanks.

All old Nikon lenses have metal mount, Nikon has gone plastic just recently.

It's a metal mount. Rockwell has a whole reveiw on it.

Just wondering, does the old 50mm 1.8 D have a plastic mount or a metal mount?

Thanks willis.

Alright, it should work now.

Yeah, I'm planning on that, i'm pretty much addicted to primes now.

Hey Connor nice shots. Go edit your post to drop the period from your link, its causing it to come up unfound. Glad you like the lens. For $100, its a no brainier. I'd still pick up the 35mm when you can get the scratch together, its a great lens.

Hey guys, I just got a chance to take pictures with my new lens, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8,

If you want to see more, go to http://www.flickr.com/connorbroaddusphotography

thanks for all the advice and information, it's very appreciated. :)

Actually 35mm is always 35mm, just as 50mm is always 50mm. The picture projected at the same distance from the so called nodal plain (center of the lens) will always be the same, but the diagonal on the sensor or the film frame is different in DX, FX or else, so the angle of view from the nodal plain (which depends on focal length) will be different. If this focal length is equal to a diagonal of the image (sensor in our case) that angle is 45º. Angle of 50º to 55º is considered to be equal to human eye, and it is so considered normal angle (50mm lens on FX 43mm diagonal and 35mm lens on DX 28mm diagonal will approximately make this angle). Anything wider than this (with shorter focal length) is therefore considered wide, and anything with smaller angle of view is considered long lens. Normal lens were always considered boring and were not used by most professionals, and 35 is probably the most used all-around length (about the same as 24 on DX).
What really amazes me about this post is how much waves a little 50 f/1.8 lens (40 years old design with AF added just a couple of, well, decades or so ago) is making. And it is still sharper and optically better overall than the newest child of the most modern design such as this 35 f/1.8.

Ah, I see. Makes more sense now.

Look at it this way, if the sensor is smaller, there is less space being covered in light from the lens' image circle. Say any given lens provides you a 45 degree angle of view, that's on a full frame of 35mm film, or an FX sensor, project that same image onto a DX sensor, the same distance from the back of the lens, only a portion of that 45 degree field of view will be used. This is the same reason why a 35mm lens in medium format is ultra-wide, equivalent to about a 17mm lens in 35mm format, or a 11mm in DX

35mm is 52.5 because of the crop factor right?

I never understood why there was a crop factor. Sure, the sensor is smaller and all, but it doesn't make much sense to me still.

Oh. Wow, I feel stupid. Hahah.

Thank you though.

"actually, since the 35 is made for DX, it's intended as a DX lens, meaning 35mm is 35mm period."
35mm lens is actually 52.5mm on DX, as the lens focal range is always displayed according to standard frame, doesn't matter either You use DX, APS, P&S or any other format.

I've actually ended up going with the 50mm. I'll let you know how it goes for me and have some photos posted up soon enough, thank's for all the advice.

actually, since the 35 is made for DX, it's intended as a DX lens, meaning 35mm is 35mm period.

I think...

Id get the 35mm. It can AF on the D40 and its a normal 50mm lens after the 1.5 multiplier is applied.

I'd go for the 35mm f/1.8. Anyone here remember the test shots of the D3 - in no crop modes, and the 35mm DX? There was falloff, but It look like it may have been intended as a full-frame lens, and then redesigned as a DX lens.

My $0.02

Thanks trigger2007.

Using the 50mm 1.4 - Awesome, cant say much more. Depth of field control is excellent, great bokeh.

Thanks blackwellj! those are nice pics. I'm still very undecided on the 50 or the 35.

pros of 50:
full frame if i ever decided to upgrade
75mm equivilant
very sharp
very cheap
good contrast
small enough to be carried anywhere
great portrait lens
focus scale
metal design

cons of 50:
75mm equivilant
will not af on my D40

pros of 35:
35mm, strait up
designed with DX in mind
sharp, but not as sharp as the 50, (so i hear)
wide angle
plastic design
bigger than the 50

cons of 35:
DX only
a little wide
not as sharp as 50
70$ more than 50, but still cheap
not great for portraits
no focus scale

very pleased with my 50mm but it will not focous on d40 so watch out ,works fine on my d90 ,have a look at my site at http://www.jamesblackwell.comze.com for examples of photos taken with 50 1.8 and d90

@Willis

Thank you for your insight, I agree, I don't shoot too many portraits, so I'm gonna go with the 35, and if I want to shoot some, the 50 is only like, 75$ on CL. So I'll go with the 35 for now, and if i decide i need a portrait lens, I'll buy a 50.

as far as the SB-600 goes, I agree with you, I think it will be a steal for what you get once Nikon drops the 700. The reason the 800 went up so much, (now 800 on amazon, and they're the only place i can find it!)is because of wedding shooters, like you said. Not that many people can appreciate the 600 because the egronomics suck so bad.

I've got the 35mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.4. The 1.8 is almost always the one on my D40 because I can 1. Autofocus, and 2. It's wider. Usually when I need fast glass, its because I'm shooting inside. On a DX, the 50mm is just to much focal length... Its no biggie if your shooting grand central station, but if your shooting a tiny dive bar, it makes it kind of tough.

Connor - Don't spend to much time regreting that SU-800 purchase. As a trigger goes, its superior to the D80\90's pop-up flash. I don't own one, but I've read it has a good bit more range. As an added bonus, you can aim it.

On the SB-600 vs. SB-600 Replacement - I say wait. The SB-900 has some flaws. It's too big, and some of them have a problem with overheating. It also has some big advantages - Longer zoom range, MUCH better controls, auto WB adjustment, oh yes, and it goes to 11. I expect the SB-700 (or whatever) will basically be a SB-600 with a redesigned interface, possibly more power, and a few other goodies. Wedding shooters don't shoot with a 600, so they won't be around to drive up the price.

Yeah, and I hear it's really sharp, with little distortion, what better way to spend $130?

Yeah, the thing is the 50 1.8 is nice and cheap. And I need a prime too, so at least it's one thing I can afford. :D