where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hi,
First time posting here!
I have a D70s with a Nikon 18-200mm lens. I have a flash, memory cards, etc...I have about $150 to spend on camera stuff with a gift certificate...Is the 50mm a good idea?
I like the idea of having a lens that will shoot well in low light. I'm just not sure if it makes sense to buy a lens that's within the focal range of my current 18-200...
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Well, the 50mm is one of the sharpest/cheapest/best lenses you can get.
Sure, sneaker zoom can suck, but I have found that the forced crop of the lens leads me to pay more attention to composition and subject of my photos, and as a result, I take MUCH better pics with it.
I have many lenses that overlap it, but I still use it 1/4 of the time that I'm shooting.
It is probably my favorite lens.
-- Dave
50mm f/1.8 has much better image quality than 18-200 in every aspect, you will just have to walk and prepare a bit more but you will get better pictures. And if you later add extension rings to it you will get great little macro glass also.
I wouldn't buy it. At 50mm it's really a low range zoom with the equivalent of 75mm FOV. My love affair with the 50mm f1.8 ended several years ago and it now sits largely unused in my camera bag.
IMO save up some more money and buy the new 35mm f1.8. You will get way faster focussing with the AF-S, you will get more "normal" FOV with a 50mm equivalent and you will get what at this stage appears to be better image quality.
At 50mm it's really a low range zoom
As a 50mm prime, it is not a "zoom"
and you will get what at this stage appears to be better image quality.
If by "better image quality", you mean more chromatic aberration, then yes...
50 1.8: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1
vs
35 1.8: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=1
The 35mm appears to be really good at 1.8, but has a good bit of CA just about everywhere else, where hte 50mm has some at 1.8, but has very little everywhere else...
-- Dave
I will NEVER EVER sell my nifty fifty. If I lose it I will buy another without blinking, if I break it I will buy another without blinking. BUY IT. I have seen full photographic shows shot only with a 50. You can find em for about a hundred bucks (nada when it comes to lenses) and will get your money's worth!!!
As a student I have very limited financial resources, so I bought a D80 w/ 50mm f1.8. It's a great value lens, particularly if you like "bokehs" and the "softness" the bigger Aperture adds.
that really depends on what real focus length you're trying to get.
on a DX body, if you want to get 50mm, you have to get 35mm due to DX's crop factor. otherwise, you can go with 50mm which you get is 75mm.
In FX/film the 50mm was the king of the lenses and was used more often than any other lens, its called the "normal" lens for that reason. In DX the 50mm becomes a specialized lens. mainly for portraits or events and stage. I would suggest that you get the 35mm 1.8 if you are doing to stay with DX. as it is the "normal" lens for DX cameras.
Buy it. It is by far the best bang for your Nikon buck you can get. Tack sharp (stopped down to 2.8 or more), no distortion very little CA, light, compact, fast focus.
50 vs. 35? Well you said you only have $150 so you are not going to have enough for the 35. Another thing to consider is the 35 is a DX lens , so if you ever upgrade to an FX body or want to shoot a film body (some will consider that an upgrade as well) the 35 will be useless. The 50 is an FX or film lens so you won't have the vignetting that the 35 will have on a FX or film camera.
hopefully they've made a decision by now, it's been over a year. :)
Just wait for the replacement, NSX (I'm pretty sure that's why J&R has it on closeout). You'll thank yourself. ;-)
You must log in to post.
