| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2005 01:56:02 AM · #1 |
I've got a Nikkor 35-135 F3.5-4.5.
I bought it used ($135) when I bought my camera and it has worked well, but I'm finding myself missing the f2.8 I was able to get on my Canon SI-IS.
I do some portrait work so the ability to grab a wide angle from close in would be handy. The low light factor is the key though as I am also looking to use this lense to turn my D100 in to a very capable P&S which can be used for the occasional candid, evening, or general low-light shot.
I see the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 available for $394cdn, is this a good buy? Is the jump from 1.8 to 1.4 worth $230 (this is compared to the 50mm f1.8)?
Thank you. |
|
|
|
11/07/2005 02:45:17 AM · #2 |
| I have the f/1.8 and am very happy with it. I remember looking at lense testing and noticing that the f/1.4 was pretty soft wide open. The f/1.8 is still a bit soft at 1.8, but at f/2+ it is extremely sharp. I couldn't justify $200 for the extra half stop personally. |
|
|
|
11/07/2005 03:30:02 AM · #3 |
I have the 50mm f/1.4 but I rarely shoot it that wide open. Personal preference though I guess. But md8speed is right, the 1.4 is so much more expensive than the 1.8 that I don't think its worth it either. I only have one because it was a given to me by my father.
Message edited by author 2005-11-07 03:30:26.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 10:21:48 PM · #4 |
I've got the 50mm f1.8 in my sights but I'm also considering the 35mm f2.0.
What are some of the experiences with the 35mm 2.0 as a 'wide-angle' lense?
Would the 35mm prime give the same viewing angle as the 35mm end of my 35-135mm? |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 10:41:48 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by ShorterThanJesus:
I've got the 50mm f1.8 in my sights but I'm also considering the 35mm f2.0.
What are some of the experiences with the 35mm 2.0 as a 'wide-angle' lense?
Would the 35mm prime give the same viewing angle as the 35mm end of my 35-135mm? |
Question 3: yes...35mm is 35mm...well times 1.5 of course.
Question 2: 35mm times 1.5 which is near 50 is not wide by any standards.
Statement1: I would opt for the 50mm 1.8 in your situation.
In all honesty, I have the 80-200 f/2.8...and I LOVE it for portraits...from 80mm all the way to 200mm. The 35mm just isn't 'close enough' for my tastes. Actually, if it were me, I'd go with the 105 1.8 if money was no object.
Good luck...oh and to answer the original question about 50 1.4 vs. 1.8, I'd go with the 1.8 personally as the cost just doesn't justify the slight difference in quality or speed.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 07:35:06 PM EDT.
