A lot of this information is subjective and sometimes comes down to personal preference. If this was easy, anyone could do it. And I don't see "anyone" listed as a forum member.
Why a 50mm Lens is your new Best Friend
- Thread starter KavinAnderson
- Start date
Whiskeyman
Senior Member
Example one: Last year, I had to photograph our local high school band senior class sitting in the stadium bleachers. It was after pre-game practice but before the game started, and light was an issue. I wanted to keep noise to a minimum, so ISO stayed at 200. I was up on a ladder platform placed in the bed of a pickup truck and had no room for a tripod, so the shot was hand-held. At the distance of the shot, the 50 did the best job of filling the frame, and the depth of field at f/1.8 was good. The light allowed a shutter speed of 1/125 sec at that aperture, which was preferable to anything slower due to the shot being hand-held and on a shaky platform.
It's not a lens that I use often, but when it's the best one for the job, it does get first billing.
As far as primes being sharper than zooms? It may or may not be the case. Many years ago, the accepted consensus was that prime lens IQ was much better than zoom lens IQ. Zooms have been greatly improved since then, and in some cases, you might be able to find a zoom lens with better IQ than a prime lens in the same focal length.
WM
Whiskeyman
Senior Member
The 35 mm f/1.8 will give you no more light than a 50mm f1/8. No matter the lens' focal length, a particular aperture will give the same exposure value with all other things equal. The 35mm is considered a normal lens on the Nikon DX format, and should serve you well. I just purchased a Nikkor 35 mm f/1.8, but it is the full frame version, and is a very nice lens.
WM
To me, it's one of those lenses that I never think about, but it's always at the bottom of my bag. If I was to sell it or lose it, I would miss not having it.
It's like what @Whiskeyman says.
It's like what @Whiskeyman says.
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
I have a 50 1.8 AF-D - the cheap one. But I love it, use it and would not part with it (well unless I upgrade to a better model like the Siggy Artsy 1.4 - but that's more than a grand).
One of the biggest upsides is it's size. Fits into the front pocket of my kit bag, heck it fits into the front pocket of my coat. I picked up a nice padded case for it and off I go.
Love it for some baby shots - natural light - no flash in baby's face (Mom's don't like that - not sure how baby feels - but natural lighting on baby's is great - even creative lighting from alternative light sources).
Technical Note: While the difference between 2.8 and 1.8 may seem small - it is actually quite a bit. Those F numbers are not linear - best way to say that is that the difference in light between a 1.8 and 2.8 is 1.0 and the difference between F 9 and F 10 is 1.0 - but the amount of light difference between 1.8 and 2.8 is far greater than the difference in light between F9 an F10. Or at least that is my understanding of some of this technical F stuff I've tried to learn. Open to correction if I've misunderstood.
And did I mention it is very light and small?
And cheap, my AF-D was under $100. Lots of great vintage 50's available for less.
And has nice background blur when stopped down to 1.8 or so.
I also use the 35mm 1.8 on my DX - pretty much the same, and for similar reasons. (not quite as cheap as it has a internal motor)
I also have a 60mm 2.8 and zoom lenses that are 2.8 at 50mm - and yes being able to zoom is wonderful - and I usually have a zoomer on my camera more often than a prime.
But I'm keeping and using my 50mm.
One of the biggest upsides is it's size. Fits into the front pocket of my kit bag, heck it fits into the front pocket of my coat. I picked up a nice padded case for it and off I go.
Love it for some baby shots - natural light - no flash in baby's face (Mom's don't like that - not sure how baby feels - but natural lighting on baby's is great - even creative lighting from alternative light sources).
Technical Note: While the difference between 2.8 and 1.8 may seem small - it is actually quite a bit. Those F numbers are not linear - best way to say that is that the difference in light between a 1.8 and 2.8 is 1.0 and the difference between F 9 and F 10 is 1.0 - but the amount of light difference between 1.8 and 2.8 is far greater than the difference in light between F9 an F10. Or at least that is my understanding of some of this technical F stuff I've tried to learn. Open to correction if I've misunderstood.
And did I mention it is very light and small?
And cheap, my AF-D was under $100. Lots of great vintage 50's available for less.
And has nice background blur when stopped down to 1.8 or so.
I also use the 35mm 1.8 on my DX - pretty much the same, and for similar reasons. (not quite as cheap as it has a internal motor)
I also have a 60mm 2.8 and zoom lenses that are 2.8 at 50mm - and yes being able to zoom is wonderful - and I usually have a zoomer on my camera more often than a prime.
But I'm keeping and using my 50mm.
Whiskeyman
Senior Member
f/1.8 and f/2.8 are 1 1/3 stops apart. f/8 and f/13 are also 1 1/3 stops apart. I did a quick search and found this chart:
Free f-stop chart: master your aperture | Digital Camera World
There are likely better charts and explanations out there, but this is a start.
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
There are many efforts to explain this F'ing thing.
Here is another that made a bit of sense to me, but comes from a page entitled: "A Tedious Explanation of the f/stop" by Matthew Cole A Tedious Explanation of the f/stop
F/Stops
f/stops are a bit more confusing because the numbers appear so arbitrary. This is the standard sequence of f/stops from f/1.4 to f/22. Although it may not seem intuitive at first, in this sequence the f/1.4 setting lets in the most light while the f/22 setting lets in the least. Also, each of these f/stops hasprecisely the same halving/doubling relationship as the shutter speed sequence.
1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22
On the face of it, going from f/4 to f/5.6 doesn't sound like halving the amount of light. What's more, 5.6 is a larger number and sounds like it ought to be more light, not less. Neither does f/4 to f/2.8 sound like doubling the amount of light. In fact, each of the numbers in this sequence is a halving/doubling of the amount of light from its immediate neighbours, just like the shutter speed settings are. Not only that, but it makes sense, as I shall show below.
The reason that both the halving and doubling and the smaller numbers mean more light things make sense is that the f/stop is a ratio.
So the difference between 1.4 and 2.0 is the same as 5.6 to 8.
For me a 50mm is one way to get a sharp faster lens into you bag without breaking the bank.
This is interesting, I am also one of those looking at these lenses.
I consider the AFD 50 mm 1.8 a great lens. I am sure the G lens will be even better. However, on the DX camera, it seems too tight and is slightly better on the FX body. I think the 35mm is a better walk about lens. For flexibility, I decided on the 24-120 mm f4. Will need to test it out to see if my observation is correct.
I consider the AFD 50 mm 1.8 a great lens. I am sure the G lens will be even better. However, on the DX camera, it seems too tight and is slightly better on the FX body. I think the 35mm is a better walk about lens. For flexibility, I decided on the 24-120 mm f4. Will need to test it out to see if my observation is correct.
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Bukitimah, I'm sure the 24-120 F4 will make a great walk about - nice range and fast enough for most lighting situations - especially if you are out and about on your walk about in daylight hours. When I looked at Sigma's version of this lens I was a little concerned about situations where I would want something faster than an F4 but that all depends on what you shoot. The D610 will also allow you to crank the ISO up to get the shot.