SquamishPhoto said:
Im always baffled when I hear someone say this since you're effectively shooting an 85mm when you slap a 50mm on DX. Since when is 85mm an annoying focal length?

Coming from someone who is waiting to take delivery of the 85 1.4G, for use on my FF bodies, I was thinking exactly the same thing? However Drab is correct, it is of course a 75mm equivalent on DX, not 85, yes I also would rather be on the 105mm side of 85 rather than the 75, but for the money, I don't think you can complain.

Drab's right about the 50 1.8 being something you can just buy without thinking if you've got $100 on hand. It's one of my favorite lenses, but I use it on DX. It's brilliant.

Hi LoveTheBerry
The only person who knows wether you should buy a 50mm f1.8 is you.
If cost doesn't matter then get the f/1.4.
I see someone posted "More dollars than sense I'd say", I'm not going to comment on wether that's true or not, but I understand the general sentiment. Like others who work as photographers I've made a lot of sacrifices to buy the best equipment I can, and to hear someone who uses a D3s ask "What is so great about a Prime lens?" is a little frustrating.
Don't get me wrong, you've got as much right to buy a D3s as anyone, but if you take the time to understand photography you'll be able to use more of the D3ss' massive capability.

SquamishPhoto said:
Im always baffled when I hear someone say this since you're effectively shooting an 85mm when you slap a 50mm on DX. Since when is 85mm an annoying focal length?

It's not...it makes a great portrait lens. I have the 50mm 1.8 and also the 35mm 1.8. I find them both a joy to use. I leave my zooms at home most of the time.

SquamishPhoto said:It comes across as complaining for the sake of complaining.

So your response to the two explanations I gave for my opinion was to repeat your previously stated position?

Debate team captain I bet. ;)

EDIT: Added a smiley as in rereading that likely came off as snarkier than intended. My intention was to say "we're all talking opinion here, I don't feel I dismissed your opinion but rather explained mine, and all I got in return was a repeat of what you had already said."

I am using a 105mm for portraits. I friend keeps NAGGING me about his 50mm and says that I will love it ($100). That is why I asked. The 105 is getting the job done well but for $100,..who doesn't want a new toy?

Drab,...lighten up,...it's almost Christmas!

Drab said:
You have a D3S but are asking on a rumors forum what the value of a prime lens is?

More dollars than sense I'd say.

Nay, it's 75, not 85. Not an insignificant difference. The same as the difference between 16 and 18 mm on the other end. Not to mention I'd own a 105 f/1.4 rather than a 85 f/1.4 as portrait lens if such a thing existed.

The point I was making was that the range that the 50mm becomes on a DX camera is hardly undesirable, and is in fact rather close to another incredibly popular focal range. And the difference between 75 and 85 is very insignificant. I don't think I've ever been so constricted that I couldn't move one footstep closer and I can't imagine that anyone who does run into that much constriction actually deals with it so regularly so as to see the lens as determinately too long. It comes across as complaining for the sake of complaining.

Gareth said:
the 1.4 is not sharp at 1.4. i don't know if the 1.8 is sharp at 1.8, but i assume it is.

Not really. I don't like to take it below 2.5. That's part of the reason I bought the 35 1.8 DX. It's plenty sharp wide open. However, the 50 1.8 is really sharp above around 2.5 and it focuses faster than the 35.

Edit: You have an FX camera, so you don't want the 35 1.8

You have a D3S but are asking on a rumors forum what the value of a prime lens is?

More dollars than sense I'd say.

SquamishPhoto said:
Im always baffled when I hear someone say this since you're effectively shooting an 85mm when you slap a 50mm on DX. Since when is 85mm an annoying focal length?

Nay, it's 75, not 85. Not an insignificant difference. The same as the difference between 16 and 18 mm on the other end. Not to mention I'd own a 105 f/1.4 rather than a 85 f/1.4 as portrait lens if such a thing existed.

I am using a D3S (FX).

SquamishPhoto said:
Im always baffled when I hear someone say this since you're effectively shooting an 85mm when you slap a 50mm on DX. Since when is 85mm an annoying focal length?

I find 50mm DX good for pics of 1 or 2 persons, but a little too long for groups or events where tables, etc. hamper your ability to back up. I prefer a 35mm DX in that case.

Prime lenses cover only a single focal length. Because of this, they are simpler to construct and can be optimized for sharpness and large aperture. They also tend to be cheaper.

The 50mm 1.8D is a classic design. It is a little soft below f/2.8 but the effect of that is minimized if you are taking portraits and purposely trying to blur the background. I don't have the 50mm 1.4G, but I expect it would be a bit sharper at f/2.0. Plus, it has the autofocus motor built in. For $120, I don't regret getting the 1.8D. The 35mm 1.8G mentioned above is also worth a look.

Gareth said:

that said, i find 50mm on dx an annoying focal length, on fx it's fine. you might find the 35 1.8 better on dx, many find it very nice.

Im always baffled when I hear someone say this since you're effectively shooting an 85mm when you slap a 50mm on DX. Since when is 85mm an annoying focal length?

It's $100. I consider that "impulse buy" range when talking about photo gear.

I bought my D7000 with a 50mm f/1.8 and I'm very happy with it. :) For such a small price it's a terrific lens, well worth buying!

I have a 50mm 1.4 on a D700, its great for photographing in poor light when you cant use flash, by moonlight and black cats in coal holes, but it's my least used lens
As ever it depends on what you are photographing and what other lenses you have. For landscapes you are likely need something wider say between 10 and 35mm, for portraits you need something longer, say between 85 and 200mm ( beware most standard lenes do not have VR)

the 1.4 is not sharp at 1.4. i don't know if the 1.8 is sharp at 1.8, but i assume it is.

i have a 70-200 vrII and my wife likes my 50 1.4g better on my d300s.

that said, i find 50mm on dx an annoying focal length, on fx it's fine. you might find the 35 1.8 better on dx, many find it very nice.

if you can't take nice photos on a prime, you can't take nice photos. if you have only shot zoom, you need a prime just to understand what you don't understand.

A prime lens is great for low light (without flash), it has amazing picture quality, and is incredibly cheap for it's quality.

You won't really ever find the need for a 1.4 unless your a pro; the 1.8 is a great lens to work with for portraits, close ups and gives amazingly shallow depth of field.

It's always a great handy lens to keep as a backup in case the light is really low and you want to shooter in lower ISO and / or without flash

Some photographer friends are tellin me that the Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens (Prime)for $119 is a MUST to have.

What is so great about a Prime lens? There is also a 1.4 for $400. Worth the difference?