Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fortkentdad" data-source="post: 529723" data-attributes="member: 24285">I have a 50 1.8 AF-D - the cheap one.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; One of the biggest upsides is it's size.&nbsp; Fits into the front pocket of my kit bag, heck it fits into the front pocket of my coat.&nbsp; I picked up a nice padded case for it and off I go.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; Technical Note:&nbsp; While the difference between 2.8 and 1.8 may seem small - it is actually quite a bit.&nbsp; Those F numbers are not linear&nbsp; - best way to say that is that the difference in light between a 1.8 and 2.8 is 1.0&nbsp; and the difference between F 9 and F 10 is 1.0&nbsp; - but the amount of light difference between 1.8 and 2.8 is far greater than the difference in light between F9 an F10.&nbsp; Or at least that is my understanding of some of this technical F stuff I've tried to learn.&nbsp; Open to correction if I've misunderstood. And did I mention it is very light and small?&nbsp;&nbsp; And cheap, my AF-D was under $100.&nbsp; Lots of great vintage 50's available for less. And has nice background blur when stopped down to 1.8 or so.&nbsp; I also use the 35mm 1.8 on my DX - pretty much the same, and for similar reasons.&nbsp; (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. [ATTACH]196864[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fortkentdad, post: 529723, member: 24285"] 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. [ATTACH=CONFIG]196864._xfImport[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification