is the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S worth the $$ over the f/1.8 AF

[JDub02]

My wife has a D40 and she's starting to get into photography has a hobby. She currently has the 18-55 kit zoom and the 55-200 VR zoom. Neither are fast enough for lower light or portraits.

It seems like the 50mm f/1.8 AF lens is a no-brainer at ~$130. Only it won't auto-focus on a D40.

I noticed that Nikon is now making a 50mm f/1.4 AF-S lens that will autofocus on the D40. It's just that this one runs ~$450.

She has a birthday coming up and wants a portrait and/or a macro lens. I figure she'll get more use out of the portrait lens at first. I realize that $450 isn't a ton of money for a lens, but it's not chump change, either .. especially with the f/1.8 lens clocking in at under 1/3 of the cost.

Thoughts? Worth investing in the f/1.4?

 

[PowerRanger]

Have you considered the new Nikon 35mm F/1.8 (AFS)? It is a DX only lens, but it is cheap ($199). Also, a 35mm lens on a crop camera (you D40) will yield a more "normal" field of view (~50mm) as opposed to a 50mm (75mm).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/...ikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html

 

[corkyg]

Power Ranger makes a very good point with the crop factor. As for the f/1.8 vs f/1.4, that would be significant if she does a lot of low, available light photography. Otherwise, save the $$$.

 

[twistedlogic]

Forget the 50mm and go with the Nikon 35mm f1.8, it will AF on the D40. And throw in a SB-400/SB-600 with the money you saved.

Then if she is happy with the 35 but still needs some reach, then look into the 50 1.4.

 

[JDub02]

I hadn't thought about the 35. I figured it would be too short for portrait type stuff. Maybe I'll pick her up both the 35mm and the 50mm f/1.8. And she can just manual focus the 50 until we upgrade the camera. I'm guessing the focus indicator lights still work when in manual focus. Can anyone confirm?

 

[alkemyst]

go to kenrockwell.com and check out his DX Dream Team of lenses.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: JDub02
I'm guessing the focus indicator lights still work when in manual focus. Can anyone confirm?

Yes, in the bottom left corner of the optical viewfinder there is a little green dot. When focus is acquired, the green light will turn solid. If not, the light will just blink.

Have you considered a fast zoom lens to replace the kit 18-55? Tamron offers a cheaper alternative of a 17-50mm f/2.8 ($450) and 28-75mm f/2.8 ($380), and even offer a newer 17-50 with Vibration Control (VC).

Her current 55-200mm would do very well at portraits if you can get enough light on your subject. Usually portraits are shot @ f/5.6 and higher.

Regardless I still suggest you look into the SB-400 or SB-600, no matter how fast your lens is flat light is still flat light.

 

[jpeyton]

My Nikkor AF-S 50/1.4 is coming in the mail today; I'll let you know.

I already have a Sigma 50/1.4, and a Nikkor AF-S 35/1.8.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
go to kenrockwell.com and check out his DX Dream Team of lenses.

While KR makes some great points, his about section mentions:

"While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction that it is. it is the product of my own imagination."

Just a warning to the OP, take things from Ken with a grain of salt.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I already have a Sigma 50/1.4, and a Nikkor AF-S 35/1.8.

Any issues with you Sigma back focusing?

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I already have a Sigma 50/1.4, and a Nikkor AF-S 35/1.8.

Any issues with you Sigma back focusing?

If your shooting head shoots then look at the 85 1.8

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
go to kenrockwell.com and check out his DX Dream Team of lenses.

The 10-24 is out of the budget right now. She has the 55-200.


Can anyone comment on whether or not it would be worth the cost to buy both the 35 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8?

She has a 3rd party flash that looks similar to the SB-600 that her dad bought her last Christmas. Not sure how it compares quality-wise.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't think you'd want both a 35 and 50mm. Is there a need for those two and both at 1.8?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: alkemyst
go to kenrockwell.com and check out his DX Dream Team of lenses.

While KR makes some great points, his about section mentions:

"While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction that it is. it is the product of my own imagination."

Just a warning to the OP, take things from Ken with a grain of salt.

Key thing he is mentioning "you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction that it is. it is the product of my own imagination."

it's due to lawsuits.

His advice is pretty dead on.

 

[ProfJohn]

I wouldn't buy the 50mm until you upgrade to a camera that can autofocus it.

You will most likely never use the camera because doing the old fashion focus thing will annoy the heck out of you after using autofocus so much.

I'd stick with the 35 afs or find a similar lens with the autofocus feature on her camera.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I already have a Sigma 50/1.4, and a Nikkor AF-S 35/1.8.

Any issues with you Sigma back focusing?

I'll be checking focus accuracy between the lenses this week. Up to this point, the Sigma has been fine (even at f/1.4), but I want to see if the Nikon focuses better in dim light. The Sigma is not consistent in really dim light, but I'm not sure if I have unreasonable expectations for my camera/lens AF abilities.

The 35/1.8 has very accurate focus, but can be a little slow in locking focus in dim light. I've heard the same about the Nikkor 50/1.4. I won't be keeping the 35/1.8 for much longer because I recently sold my D90 (too bad it's not an FX lens).

 

[jpeyton]

Just chiming in after some quick low-light testing with the Nikkor 50/1.4.

FYI, I'm not brand biased when it comes to lenses; in fact, I really was rooting for the Sigma 50/1.4 to be the better of the two. I like the bolder design, the larger body (feels better with my D700/grip), and the better build-quality. But the Nikon seems to be better (albeit a little slower) when it comes to focus accuracy. Shooting in a dim room (1/60s, f/1.4, ISO 25,600), the Nikkor just nailed the focus with no hunting.

I'll have to do some real-world testing with the Nikkor tomorrow and see how it performs. Sharpness wide-open is good.