What Nikon lens would ou choose? (Page 2): I have both for my D300s and find that althogh they are both good, I dont really use them that much. I'd spend the money a purchase the...

Edmund Dworakowski

I have both for my D300s and find that althogh they are both good, I dont really use them that much. I'd spend the money a purchase the 18-200 VR II. I think it's a great lens for the average shooter and makes some really good quality pictures. That being said, I find myself using the 18mm end of the lens almost exclusively. I would much rather have the 16-55 f2.8, but it's $1600 and May not be any better than the 18-200

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I would go with the 50. You will want to take a lot of head shots and the 35 will distort. Also you will need to get close up (like in the face) to take them with the 35 and will be able to stand back with the 50. - Dave

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

For a young photographer, the 35mm will likely be more useful, as, on a DX camera, it is basically a 52mm, which is the "normal lens" which was the most common lens back in the days of film.

Further, for a young photographer, I'd stay away from VR lenses, as good handling technique can arise from the need to hold things steady.

There was no VR back in my photojournalism days, nor digital cameras, for that matter, but I developed the skill to shoot a 200mm lens at 1/8th of a second shutter speed with tack sharp results. With a wide angle and elbow supports, I can shoot at nearly two full seconds exposure, tack sharp. There's no substitute for developing steady hands and good camera technique.

Over one second exposure, handheld

ziggy7 Loc: Jax, Florida

I use the 50MM 1.8 on the D7000 quite a bit in my wedding work. The 1.8 aperture works well when flash is not allowed, and of course the 50MM becomes 75MM on the D7000 and makes for nice portraits. People look better at 75MM than at wider focal lengths, and they are more comfortable because you are further away. Children will not notice you as much.

jim charron Loc: Ontario Canada

the 35 !! :thumbup:

not much difference insize but 50 many times not wide
enough indoors.

Use 35 for everything, crop till you drop. Use your head and feet.
35 all the way !!

richnash46 Loc: Texas

cjones132 wrote:

I have a Nikon D3200 and want to buy a good lens for taking pictures of my new Grandchild. I am looking at the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G. Any feedback on which one would be better for indoor shots. Thanks

If it was me I would go for the DX lens as it was specifically designed to get maximum performance from Nikon's crop sensor DSLR's such as your D3200. :wink:

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

richnash46 wrote:

cjones132 wrote:

I have a Nikon D3200 and want to buy a good lens for taking pictures of my new Grandchild. I am looking at the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G. Any feedback on which one would be better for indoor shots. Thanks

If it was me I would go for the DX lens as it was specifically designed to get maximum performance from Nikon's crop sensor DSLR's such as your D3200. :wink:

Herein lies the problem with that ... future-proofing. The 50 works with full frame, and as prices drop on full-frame cameras to under 2K, and eventually towards 1K, having full frame lens will save an expensive transition.

Also, when shooting with my D7000, (while I was waiting for my D800), I did not notice getting compromised results from my full frame lenses, (and especially since issues of vignetting will be much less of an issue at the wider apertures on a crop sensor.)

Given a choice, by the full frame lens, and you won't regret it when you eventually move to full frame. (And yes it will happen that way, as Nikon is pushing down the price-point on full-frame to deal with the compression from the bottom as i-phones encroach on crop sensor territory.)

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

richnash46 wrote:

cjones132 wrote:

I have a Nikon D3200 and want to buy a good lens for taking pictures of my new Grandchild. I am looking at the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G. Any feedback on which one would be better for indoor shots. Thanks

If it was me I would go for the DX lens as it was specifically designed to get maximum performance from Nikon's crop sensor DSLR's such as your D3200. :wink:

Herein lies the problem with that ... future-proofing. The 50 works with full frame, and as prices drop on full-frame cameras to under 2K, and eventually towards 1K, having full frame lens will save an expensive transition.

Also, when shooting with my D7000, (while I was waiting for my D800), I did not notice getting compromised results from my full frame lenses, (and especially since issues of vignetting will be much less of an issue at the wider apertures on a crop sensor.)

Given a choice, by the full frame lens, and you won't regret it when you eventually move to full frame. (And yes it will happen that way, as Nikon is pushing down the price-point on full-frame to deal with the compression from the bottom as i-phones encroach on crop sensor territory.)

jtipps Loc: Dallas

Wow, awesome photo.

PhotoArtsLA wrote:

For a young photographer, the 35mm will likely be ... (show quote)

jtipps Loc: Dallas

I too have a D 300 and both the 35 and 50. For money spent they are both the best lens in my bag. For what you want I would recommend the 35 plus in my case I think it is just a tad sharper. You won't be unhappy with either one. Honestly for the price I would look on Craigs list or KEH and get them both. You porbably won't spend over $200.

JacobPH

I have used the 35 and it's an excellent lens for ~$200. It's sharp and the focus is quick and accurate. You'll be happy. Remember that you need an AF-S lens to focus on your body. If you were to get a 50, I'd suggest the 1.4. It's worth the investment.

pettigkr Loc: Texas

The 35mm lens, after multiplying it by 1.5 (crop factor for a DX camera), is a little over 50mm, which is considered "normal" (lifesize). The 50mm will be about 75mm, a good portrait length.

I own the 35mm lens. Using it for head shots of people will bring distortion into the frame. It's best used for full-body shots. If I could only buy one lens, it would be either the 35mm or a good zoom.

AKeane

If Nikon made a 16-35 F 1.4 it would probably cost in excess of 10,000. Just look at the cost of the Sigma 200-500 f 2.8.