This one, this one ....or this one.

[Mr Zee]

Yeap, as the title suggests, another pick your brains on which lens thread! :D

I've narrowed it down to 2 ...no 3, possibilities. They are all the world famous nifty fifties.
The reason for this type is, I want to take indoor pics of my youngin' without the use of a flash. I want a natural shot in ambient light without the blown out light of the flash. In order to achieve this I need a big aperture, yeah. Therefore my choices come down to these....

i. Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f1.8D ...round abouts $150.

ii. Nikon Lens AF 50mm f/1.4D $350

iii. Nikon Lens AF-S 50mm F/1.4G $550 (these are quick internet prices assuming they're all greys)

Now apart from price and my inexperience, oh and one less stop on no. i, I can't seem to split 'em :o
Info tells me to go for the lowest/biggest f stop. Okay done! but is it that much of a great difference? I mean, I don't care, I'm planning on keeping this for a good while...not just a year or so. Therefore I'm content in spending the extra to achieve more flexibility as I get more o'fay for a better term, down the track.
Also, they're info states these are a very versatile lens to have in your armoury. From portraiture, night photography to snap shots...right down my ally.

So, what would you get? :) ...and I haven't even considered aftermarkets yet :eek:

I appreciate your input greatly :th3:

P.S. using it on a D90.

[Ray Heath]

Hi Mr

Pick the cheapest. You won't see an image quality difference between any of them and if it breaks you can afford to buy another.

[DJT]

:umm: 35mm f/1.8.

[Watchamacallit]

I second the 35mm on the D90, I've found the 50mm a little too long at times (75mm equiv) whilst the 35mm gives 52.5mm (close enough :P) - though, it does feel a bit plasticy at times.

[I @ M]

If you are considering spending that many dollars why not consider that for around the $450.00 mark you should be able to buy the 35mm F/1.8 and the 50mm F/1.8.

The 35mm is destined to become another minor Nikon classic and will work well on a full frame camera (with a very small crop) if you go down that route later and the 50mm is already a well known and loved lens.

[bigdazzler]

Hi Mr

Pick the cheapest. You won't see an image quality difference between any of them and if it breaks you can afford to buy another.

huh ?? No difference between a 1.8 and 1.4 ?? :confused013

I beg to differ in low light, or when youre after paper thin DOF.

[arthurking83]

There will be a significant difference between the two lenses at up to approx f/2.8 or so, where the f/1.4 will be much better.

35/1.8 is also a great lens, but I think a little expensive for what it really is!
..... which is basically the Dx equivalent of the 50/1.8.

I'd be inclined to go for the 35/1.8 over all the others if this was a one lens for many situations choice.
50's are great lenses, but a bit limited in scope as a general walkabout lens offering an (equivalent) FOV of 75mm on a Dx body.

If you wanted a dedicated portrait type lens then the 50/1.4 G AF-S would be the best alternative here.(Otherwise check out the Sigma 50/1.4 if it's now cheaper)

[Mr Zee]

Cheers guys, thank you for your thoughts.
I fill like a dil now having chosen the 35 initially for the list but then scrapping it cos I'd mis-read the description....mirco does not mean macro, yeah??

[Ray Heath]

There will be a significant difference between the two lenses at up to approx f/2.8 or so, where the f/1.4 will be much better.

Oh, Ok, significantly better. So this would be readily obvious is someone was to post an example?

Given the way amateur photographers use their eqiupment and the methods by which they display their work I do not believe the OP would be best served by buying a lens 2.5 times more expensive than another. He will not see or appreciate a 2.5 times "better" image.

[Regnis]

def go for the sigma 50 1.4... the bokeh and colour are amazing

[bigdazzler]

Oh, Ok, significantly better. So this would be readily obvious is someone was to post an example?

Given the way amateur photographers use their eqiupment and the methods by which they display their work I do not believe the OP would be best served by buying a lens 2.5 times more expensive than another. He will not see or appreciate a 2.5 times "better" image.

The extra stop of light alone is worth the extra money IMO. And maybe after a bit of practice he will learn to utilise the 1.4 effectively. I wouldnt buy a 1.8 lens when there is a 1.4 available unless budget is number one consideration. Just my 2 cents of course.

[Ray Heath]

The extra stop of light alone is worth the extra money IMO. And maybe after a bit of practice he will learn to utilise the 1.4 effectively. I wouldnt buy a 1.8 lens when there is a 1.4 available unless budget is number one consideration. Just my 2 cents of course.

But it's not a whole extra stop is it?

That extra half a stop is most often accomplished by making the lens phsically larger. So also check out the filter diameter.

To me any lens that needs a filter larger than 58mm is a big, heavy, and hard to handle piece of equipment.

[bigdazzler]

Correct... typo on my behalf, there was meant to be a half in there. Pedantics anyway. The OP has already says that he wants something that can grow into and plans on keeping the lens for a while. I feel given that, it is worth buying the faster lens. It will be more useful to him in the long run IMO.

My 50 1.4 is a 55mm filter ?? Nikons are different ?? Dunno ....

[joele]

I agree with the suggestion to get the 35/1.8, fantastic performance for price, my partner has one for her D80, she has the 50/1.8 too but never uses it.

[arthurking83]

The stop is actually 2/3rds so it's half way between one man's half and the others full stops :p

I just had a peek at the images I have taken with Andrew's(I@M) 50/1.8 which seem to indicate that this lens is very handy and capable.. @ f/1.8.
But I did underexpose to maintain some extra contrast in the image, and it's boring image of a stud and elasty strap on the back of my old ute :lol:

My take:
if the 50/1.8 is wanted as an allround stuff about lens, search ebay for a decently priced version(Approx $50-100 should do it).

This leaves a lot more financial room to acquire something else such as a 35/1.8.. and I think you can never have too much when it comes to options in lenses.
(so I've decided to get myself a 50/1.8 as my stuffabout lens.. fo rno other reason than to stuff around with it :D).

if you can justify the expense and really do want the extra DOF ability of the faster lenses, the AF-D version is a very capable lens too.
Apparently the AF-D focuses faster than the newer AF-S version due to the lower geared focus gearing. That means that the AF-S version will(or should!!) focus more accurately as the focus throw is finer(where you need more turns to focus from near to far).
The manual focus action of the AF-D lens is not good. It's sloppy and not damped at all(compared to a decently crafted lens!), and as it's motor driven you have to manually disengage the screw drive first and so forth and so on. not ideal and when the time comes and you also decide that full time manual focus over ride is an important aspect.. it'll annoy you too, and you'll wished you got the AF-S version instead.
i've had a quick and brief play with the AF-S version a while back, the manual focus quality is a lot better, than the AF-D lens. Not as nice as the nicely dampened 50/1.2(but that lens is a dedicated manual lens).
Still good and too similar to the Sigma HSM lens.
I'll try to commandeer my cousin's 50AF-S, one day soon, for a few years :p ... for the purpose of checking it out more thoroughly against the other 50's I have.

My lasting impression of the Nikon AF-S lens was that the bokeh was not as nice as the Sigma,and while this was a few quick random shots whilst standing in the shop(and I stupidly deleted the Nikon images and the first few Sigma shots), even tho the Sigma cost $80 more than the Nikon lens, I still went for the Sigma. Nicer lens, slightly bigger in diameter, but when you onlyhave one or the other(ie. not both!) that isn't an issue, as the Nikon is still quite large when compared to even the 50/1.4AF-D.

Front thread/filter sizes should be 52mm on all Nikon's 50mm lenses(post AI at least.. dunno about the pre AI lenses).
That was another nice aspect to the bigger Sigma 50. The 77mm front threads/filter size(of which I have many).

i'm off to search out some 50/1.8's on ebay now ..... $5! .. tops!!

:action66:

[bigdazzler]

The stop is actually 2/3rds so it's half way between one man's half and the others full stops :p

of course it is ... I always forget lil ol 1.6 :o :D

[Mr Zee]

Cheers guys ...I see both sides of the argument Ray and bigdazzler. Yes, food for thought - do you get a cheapy or go all out?
Now the cheapy would be good to learn on. Not a great loss if it didn't suit ya expectations (lens or the monkey standing behind it) ...should be good, all the info and purposes point to that. But here in lies the unknown. What if I develop an eye that requires more? :D. ...I spose ya flog it then (standby for an eBay special comin' your way, AK! Lol!). And just today I was pointed in the direction of a 30mm Sigma f/1.4, by our friendly camera store....what! :eek: More choices! This can't be. A wide angle lens that is capable of low light levels, portraiture, landscape and a general bum around lens??? ... I'm suspicious, cos of my newbiness to the trade, I backed off. ;)

So in order to to choose the suited focal length lens for me (especially for indoor use), I'll continue to use my kit lens for now and this time pay close attention to my focal length settings. ATM I just been zooming in and out to suit the desired composition rather then my physical position (lazy bast**** photography). :o

Once again, I appreciate your input greatly fellas :th3:

[Mr Zee]

Just further to that..
I saw the 50mm sigma today. Wow, big lens compared to the factory lenses. And a bit weighty...must be a fair bit of glass in 'em! Looks quality ..feels quality ...so why the reliability issue? I'm not keen sending my 2 week d90 off for a cal cos of a poorly setup lens. But yet they're the sharpest in the price range :confused:

[Mr Zee]

Just an update...

I ended up going for the sigma 50 @ 1.4 and ....wow! This thing is crystal.
Got it from a mob in Miranda for $556 store price which I thought was a good deal in person.
Thanks for all of your advice in choosing a great lens ....off to play now :)

[Colourised]

cngrats on the new lens! its gnna be a fun lens! do post em pics

[bigdazzler]

Good stuff mate. Enjoy.