where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
hey, I'm kind of new to this whole posting thing, but here goes.
I have a D40, and I was wondering if it would be a waste of money to go for the 50 1.8 from nikon. Should I just save up the extra 70$ and go for the 35 1.8? Or just go for the 50? I'm upgrading to a D80 in december, or possibly a D90. I also hear the 50 is sharper. Give me some input.
The 35mm is "normal" on the DX format. While the 50 becomes a more specialized portrait lens / short tele. Without knowing why you want the lens we cant really recommend either. For general low light use the 35 will be the choice. For nice low light portraits the 50mm ..
connor - You wouldn't be able to use AF on d40 with Nikkor 50/1.8 as it's not an AF-S lens.
If you're upgrading to a D80 or 90, then the 50mm 1.8 would work fine on both cameras, it just won't autofocus on the D40.
I know that it wont autofocus, I'm more looking at it to shoot interiors. Like, churches, homes, stuff like that.
For churches and interiors you need as wide and as bright as possible if you are not allowed to use a tripod. Of the 2 the 35 would be by far the better choice. Otherwise if a tripod is allowed just get a good tripod. What lens do you currently have?
Uhh, shooting a 18-135mm f3.5-5.6
Horrible distortion, but great range.
I have the same lens on my D40 as the kit. I love the range on it. Frankly, I don't notice the distortion unless I'm shooting something straight, which I usually am not. Brick walls aren't my favorite things to take photos of. :D
I think of it as the poor man's 18-200. No lens switching to get to higher focal lengths. And no VR of course.
yeah, same here, but shooting vertical I seem to notice it more.
I think I'll probably go with the 35. Just cause of the newer technology, and that 8 months of af sounds better than manual focus the whole time.
what's your setup?
I really don't have much of a setup. It's just my D40 with the 18-135. I too am thinking of a 35mm 1.8. Just waiting for it to be in stock at my local camera store. I do have a cheap tripod, 1 UV filter, and that's it.
I've had my DSLR for a little over 1 year now. How about you?
About 6 months. I'm the same, just have an SB-600 and a D40, 18-135, and a 55-200 that I plan on getting rid of soon. Oh, and an SU-800.
Cool. I don't know, I think I'm outgrowing my D40 very quickly. I seem to know how to use it effectively and I find that perhaps I should have gone for a D80 instead of a D40 earlier. That's because I'm regretting the fact that my lens choices are limited now. What would you replace the 55-200 with? Maybe a 70-300 VR?
However, I do enjoy the D40's small size factor and the quick flash sync speed.
I also am planning for a SB600 when the funds arrive. :D
Yeah, I feel the same, I just don't have the money to upgrade right now, I'm fourteen, so except for the off lawn mowing or chore money, I'm pretty much stuck until birthday christmas (they're within a month of eachother). But yeah, I was planning on the 70-300 VR, 65mm's just isn't enough range for me too want to switch lenses when I'm shooting in the field.
I shoot a lot of skateboarding and inline skating, so when I first got my D40, I made off-camera flash a main priority. Looking back, I wish I would've gone right with a D80 for the built in SU-800, and gained a few megapixels and feautures for my 250$, but oh well. I'm aiming for another 600, but with talk of the 700, I'm waiting until december, (once again, $$$) before investing in anymore off-camera flash.
Wow, that's a lot of gear. I shoot a lot of autoshows, so I kind of need a flash. Like you, I'm putting it off so at least the SB600 might be somewhat cheaper.
Then again, when you think of it, you'd be hating yourself that you bought a D80 instead of waiting another couple of months to get a D90. :D The difference between the two I think is huge.
From a D40 to a D5000, not so much.
Y'all are talking about purchasing an SB600 when the price goes down. Check out other postings in the forum about this - when the SB800 was replaced with the SB900, the price of the SB800 went WAY up.
And if it goes up, I just won't buy it. That's all. I do keep track of the prices.
Yeah, I was thinking about a D5000 but, I was just like, "why would i upgrade from an entry level SLR to another entry level SLR?" it just didn't make sense. Plus, I'd rather go for a D90, considering the price'll probably be down by december, and it's got the same megapixel count, HD video, and a lot more features. So I'm just going for the D90, and not going to waste my time with a D5000.
Too expensive... D90. Maybe when it gets phased out. But until then, no, for me at least.
yeah, that's part of my thing too. but i'm supposed to get a gig shooting pictures for the oklahoma state fair in september, so I'll possibly have the money.
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
Yeah, and I hear it's really sharp, with little distortion, what better way to spend $130?
I've got the 35mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.4. The 1.8 is almost always the one on my D40 because I can 1. Autofocus, and 2. It's wider. Usually when I need fast glass, its because I'm shooting inside. On a DX, the 50mm is just to much focal length... Its no biggie if your shooting grand central station, but if your shooting a tiny dive bar, it makes it kind of tough.
Connor - Don't spend to much time regreting that SU-800 purchase. As a trigger goes, its superior to the D80\90's pop-up flash. I don't own one, but I've read it has a good bit more range. As an added bonus, you can aim it.
On the SB-600 vs. SB-600 Replacement - I say wait. The SB-900 has some flaws. It's too big, and some of them have a problem with overheating. It also has some big advantages - Longer zoom range, MUCH better controls, auto WB adjustment, oh yes, and it goes to 11. I expect the SB-700 (or whatever) will basically be a SB-600 with a redesigned interface, possibly more power, and a few other goodies. Wedding shooters don't shoot with a 600, so they won't be around to drive up the price.
@Willis
Thank you for your insight, I agree, I don't shoot too many portraits, so I'm gonna go with the 35, and if I want to shoot some, the 50 is only like, 75$ 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.
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
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
You must log in to post.
