[mortimersnerd]

So I'm looking at getting a prime for my D5000. Looking at either the Nikon 50mm AF-S f/1.4G or 35mm AF-S f/1.8G, which is $250 cheaper.

Would there be a noticeable difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8? I will have some lower light shots but not too many. The 50mm vs 35mm isn't too much of a determining factor. Or are there any other lenses around the $200 range - good primes that auto focus on the D5000?

Thanks.

 

[BlankThis]

Hey Mort you and I seam to be in the same boat except I'm on a D40. I've been doing a lot of scouting around and if it were me I would go for the 35mm. I expect your price for it to be somewhere around $225 and for the money you have supposedly one of the best bang for the buck lenses.
The D5000 is based on the same sensor as the D90 which from what I've read has excellent noise suppression so if need be to up your ISO your body should handle it well.
On the other hand 35mm in my mind is rather limiting.. It depends on how you are going to take your shots and of who/what.

~B~

 

[mortimersnerd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlankThis Hey Mort you and I seam to be in the same boat except I'm on a D40. I've been doing a lot of scouting around and if it were me I would go for the 35mm. I expect your price for it to be somewhere around $225 and for the money you have supposedly one of the best bang for the buck lenses. The D5000 is based on the same sensor as the D90 which from what I've read has excellent noise suppression so if need be to up your ISO your body should handle it well. On the other hand 35mm in my mind is rather limiting.. It depends on how you are going to take your shots and of who/what. ~B~

In looking at most of the pictures I take with my kit lens, I am usually around 30-45mm for indoor pictures. 50mm would work fine, but I am more looking at the differences between f/1.4 and 1.8, if that is worth the additional $250. I will probably take some broomball pictures, which are outside at night on a lit rink. The lighting is decent but not great. But if I can up the ISO, I might be fine with the 35mm.

 

[GoneTomorrow]

Not much difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8. Regarding the two lenses, they are fairly well matched in terms of sharpness, though the 50 I think barely edges out the 35. The 50 has slightly better build quality and better control over vignetting and chromatic aberrations. What it comes down to is the focal length, which should be a determing factor, esp. with a crop sensor. I have a 50mm myself, which I love, but there are numerous times I wish I had a 35mm lens. Interior spaces can be challenging with 50mm, requiring backing up quite a bit, but on the flip side the extra telephoto is a bonus when it is required. You have to ask yourself what you will be shooting with it - do you need more space in the frame or more telephoto?

 

[Marin]

At f/1.4 you can get a slightly faster shutter speed than f/1.8 due to it letting more light in.

Anyways, the 50mm f/1.4 can gain a thinner DoF due to it having a faster aperture and a longer focal length. The 35mm f/1.8 will have a FoV close to 50mm (35mm equiv.) when the crop factor is applied.

DoF @ 5ft:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4 Depth of field Near limit 4.92 ft Far limit 5.08 ft Total 0.17 ft In front of subject 0.08 ft (49%) Behind subject 0.08 ft (51%)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8 Depth of field Near limit 4.79 ft Far limit 5.23 ft Total 0.43 ft In front of subject 0.21 ft (48%) Behind subject 0.23 ft (52%)

DoF @ 10ft:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4 Depth of field Near limit 9.67 ft Far limit 10.4 ft Total 0.68 ft In front of subject 0.33 ft (48%) Behind subject 0.35 ft (52%)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8 Depth of field Near limit 9.19 ft Far limit 11 ft Total 1.77 ft In front of subject 0.81 ft (46%) Behind subject 0.96 ft (54%)

FoV when crop factor is applied:

50mm = 75mm
35mm = 52.5mm

 

[laboitenoire]

What about third-party options like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4?

 

[Marin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laboitenoire What about third-party options like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4?

My guess is it's out of his budget.

Quote:

Or are there any other lenses around the $200 range - good primes that auto focus on the D5000?

 

[mortimersnerd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoneTomorrow Not much difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8. Regarding the two lenses, they are fairly well matched in terms of sharpness, though the 50 I think barely edges out the 35. The 50 has slightly better build quality and better control over vignetting and chromatic aberrations. What it comes down to is the focal length, which should be a determing factor, esp. with a crop sensor. I have a 50mm myself, which I love, but there are numerous times I wish I had a 35mm lens. Interior spaces can be challenging with 50mm, requiring backing up quite a bit, but on the flip side the extra telephoto is a bonus when it is required. You have to ask yourself what you will be shooting with it - do you need more space in the frame or more telephoto?

I have a felling that I will be doing a lot of indoor photography and 35mm will be much easier. If the lens quality is similar I will probably go with the 35mm since money is sort of an issue right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marin At f/1.4 you can get a slightly faster shutter speed than f/1.8 due to it letting more light in. Anyways, the 50mm f/1.4 can gain a thinner DoF due to it having a faster aperture and a longer focal length. The 35mm f/1.8 will have a FoV close to 50mm (35mm equiv.) when the crop factor is applied. FoV when crop factor is applied: 50mm = 75mm 35mm = 52.5mm

Is a thinner DoF better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by laboitenoire What about third-party options like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4?

I'm not opposed to other brands if they offer similar quality.

 

[Marin]

Thinner DoF means more background blur.

Using two of my shots as examples.

Canon 10-22mm (16-35mm equiv.) f/3.5-4.5 @ 15mm f/8

As you can see due to the very wide angle and tight aperture everything in the shot is in focus (thus a very deep depth of field).



50mm f/1.1 @ f/1.1

This shot was done on 35mm film, so because of the framing the DoF is already thinner than the shot would be on a crop sensor (using the same framing). Now because of the focal length and the very fast aperture the DoF is very thin, rendering the background completely blurred out.



Now is a thinner DoF better? Well, it depends on if you want it or not.

And the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is better than the Nikon 35mm f/1.8. I don't know if the Nikon version has the same QC issues as the Canon version.

 

[iandroo888]

i like the 50mm distance more.. 35mm seems bit close. iunoe. personal preference

 

[Danylu]

By close do you mean far?

 

[BlankThis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marin 50mm = 75mm 35mm = 52.5mm

Sorry isn't the D5000 a full frame?

 

[Danylu]

Nope, it's DX. If FX came at that price I don't think you would see too many in stock

 

[Marin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlankThis Sorry isn't the D5000 a full frame?

No, lol.

 

[tK FuRY]

That would be one cheap Full Frame

 

[GoneTomorrow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tK FuRY That would be one cheap Full Frame

Wouldn't it be cool if you could swap sensors out of cameras much like swapping the focus screen (much like digital backs for medium format film cameras)? Then I could save up for just a full frame sensor.

 

[iandroo888]

only full frame is the d700. and the d3's i believe for nikon.. then the mark's for canon.

2k+ for body at least
...

and yes i meant far @[email protected] keep accidentally interchanging those two..

 

[BlankThis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marin No, lol.

My mistake

 

[Marin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandroo888 only full frame is the d700. and the d3's i believe for nikon.. then the mark's for canon. 2k+ for body at least ... and yes i meant far @[email protected] keep accidentally interchanging those two..

For Canon it's the 5D and 1Ds.

 

[Mootsfox]

The 1D series is 1.3x crop, and the others are 1.6x, 1Ds and 5D as Marin said are FF.

For Nikon, the D3, D3s, D3x and D700 are the only Full Frame bodies.

The 2/3 stop difference on the lenses isn't worth it imo. I've got the 50mm f/1.8 AF and 50mm f/1.4 and the difference is minor. It's useful when you have no choice but to go to 1.4, otherwise you'll be better off with three extra Benjamins in your pocket.

The 50mm's (aside from the AI f/2.0) are sharper than the 30mm Sigma f/1.4, which is a decent lens in it's own right, but not worth the $450 unless you need or really want it for a purpose. The siggy is a good lens, but has major problems with CA in nearly every shot. It's correctable in Lightroom or PS, but still a pain. The 50's from Nikon on the other hand have almost no CA or fringing in any conditions.

Note, I use my D1H and 50mm f/1.8 AF for product shots for work. Haven't had a problem with them yet.

SO, my recommendation would be the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S, because it's cheap, awesome and 2/3 of a stop is not important for someone who is not going to need to crank out their gear for every last piece of light.