amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Why do you find that difficult? Many people use FX (full frame) lenses on DX (crop) cameras with great success. They work just fine.

In fact, there are no 50mm DX lenses... so if 50mm is what you want, you have to buy an FX lens. I've used a 50mm f/1.4 lens for many years on crop sensor cameras, where the lens "acts as" a nice, fast, short telephoto.... ideal for portraiture, among other things. I actually don't care for 50mm on FX... even though it would work fine. I just find "normal" lenses rather boring and prefer something a little wider on a little longer. But on a crop camera, 50mm is different and I really like it. 50mm lenses are also relatively compact and unobtrusive compared to large, fast zooms. That makes them a good candidate for the "street photography" the original poster is wanting to do.

Both DX and FX lenses work on DX cameras. In addition to 50mm, other "full frame" primes I use on my crop sensor cameras include 20mm, 24mm (tilt-shift), 45mm (tilt-shift), 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2, 300mm f/4, 300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4. I also have a several full frame zooms I use on the crop cameras. I actually only have three "crop only" lenses in my kit (two ultrawide zooms and a compact macro).

It's the opposite that's problematic. While a DX lens will fit onto and - to an extent - work on an FX camera, it doesn't make much sense to do so because the image will show heavy vignetting and need to be cropped. Or the FX camera will be put into "DX mode" where it crops the image by only using part of the sensor. Either way, it effectively "throws away" a lot of the image quality potential of the FX camera.

Part of the reason I use full frame capable lenses on my crop sensor cameras is because I also use a full frame camera at times (although not nearly as much as I use the croppers).

It's not often the case, but when there is a choice.... when the same focal length is available both in DX and FX lenses... if using a DX camera it might be possible to save some money buying the DX lens. For example, Nikon makes both DX and FX AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lenses. The DX lens is currently $150 less expensive than the FX lens. The 70-300mm DX is also slightly smaller and lighter. The FX lens is a little closer focusing and has a 9-bladed aperture that should make for slightly nicer background blur effects.

Ellen101 Loc: Manhattan NY ..now Spring Hill, Fl

Why do you say that ? Please elaborate
I am learning

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Ellen, there is nothing wrong with using a FX lens on a DX camera. The opposite is not true. DX cameras have smaller sensors, and lenses designated for DX make a smaller image circle to the sensor, which is fine for a DX sensor. This allows for a smaller, lighter and often less expensive lens. In fact, when you start getting into long telephoto lenses, no one makes a 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm or longer DX lens. And the longest "do it all but not very well" zooms, like the 16-300mm, 70-300mm, and 18-400mm lenses
I think CameraF4 is just mistaken.

You can use a 50mm, which, on a DX camera with it's smaller sensor will provide an angle of view equivalent to a 75mm lens on an FX camera (or 35mm film camera). Longer focal lengths are more flattering to most faces than shorter ones, but this is more related to the narrower angle of view which requires you increase the distance from the camera to the subject. Anytime you add distance between the camera and subject, there is a flattening of perspective and the depth of field - the range of distance that will be in good focus front to back - will also increase.

This is a great page that covers the more popular lenses and their use on DX cameras. It contains a mix of DX and FX lenses.

https://www.switchbacktravel.com/10-great-nikon-dx-lenses

Silver printing refers to the use of a paper that contains a photosensitive emulsion, usually, but not always, silver bromide. It is part of a class of photosensitive chemicals called silver halides. These are often used to coat black and white films and paper.

A very popular print process is the Chromogenic or C-Print. These use three silver halide layers that are dyed cyan, magenta and yellow. When you see print labs advertising an 8x10 for $2.00, these are usually printed on Fuji or Kodak papers, and are wet processed using C-41 (or similar) chemicals. They are cheap to produce, high quality images, but in my opinion, do not capture the look and feel of a great print made using a rag paper and a high quality inkjet printer. You are likely to see both at museums.

I am not sure what you are looking for when you ask for help with your camera and lens.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And street photography is not the same as paparazzi.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I also own the Nikon 50mm f1.8G. That lens is a FX lens. And may be the least expensive FX lens you can buy Brand New, for just just over $200. I saw an advertisement not long ago for $179. The 50mm manual focus lens, was the standard kit lens, for many SLR film cameras of yesteryears. As stated previously, you can get a FOV of 75mm, on a DX camera. Making it a satisfactory portrait lens.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

Interesting perspective. Although I now have a D810, when I was using a D70s, D300 and D300s almost all of my lenses were Nikkor FX. The shortest is a 17-35mm f/2.8. I was able to use my lenses for every situation and when I traded the D300 and the only DX lens I had (16mm-85mm) for a demo D700 I didn’t have to buy any glass. I later bought a used D300s for some additional flexibility Lenses are an investment. And later sold both the D300s and D700 to get a used D810.

ELNikkor

The 50 1.8 is a great portrait lens for the D5100, Ellen! I have the D5100 and a 50 1.8 lens also. To take street photos, you might take candids from a distance, but if you get close, it is good to ask first. If you are doing portraits, for me, it is best to do portraits of friends and family until you get good at it. That way, there is no pressure or nervousness as to what you might do with the photos. I usually like to open the lens all the way to 1.8, pose the subject, and then shoot several different angles and expressions. Make sure you always have the eyes in focus, as at 1.8, or 2.8, there is very narrow depth of focus. Try this, then put a few of your photos up here so we can see how you are doing!

Silverrails

Yes, the 50mm 1.8 lens, sometimes refered to as the "Nifty-Fifty", is considered to be an acceptable "Portrait" lens, it can, as learned, create good "Bokeh" in your Portrait, which sometimes is a Nice added touch to make your Portrait Subject stand-out more. As a secondary Lens might be the 18-140 3.5-5.6 lens too.
I purchased "Used" Camera +Lens when starting my Photography journey, very satisfied.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you put that lens on a cropped body (I am assuming you own one) then that lens would have an angle of view of 75mm on your cropped sensor camera ( 3000 series, 5000 series, 7000 series camera's)
I would stop down one stop and make sure the back ground is at least 10 feet away so it will be well out of focus. Focus on the eyes, that is most important.
Forget the silver process until you can turn out good portraits, you are not ready for the big time yet.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Yeah, probably goes back to my first digital experience with D80 and my 35mm lenses. Hadn't done the research (yeah, I know) but as a "landscape guy" I was totally bummed to find that my 20mm "extreme wide angle lens" behaved like a 30mm barely wide angle. Once I got an FX camera I was a happy camper again and discovered that, for wildlife shots, a FX tele on a DX body could be a very good thing.

Najataagihe

First, keep your 50mm f/1.8.

It is a great low-light, moderate telephoto lens on your camera and it makes wonderful full-torso portraits.

You might be pushing it to get head-only shots, but it can be done.


Add ONE lens and you may never need to buy another, unless you start doing special-needs photography.

I use my "fast 50" for low-light conditions and this lens for nearly everything else:


Nikon 55-200mm AF-S f/4-5.6 VR II.


This is my primary lens - the one I use the most.


Used: $85 on eBay (including shipping), $110 at KEH camera (reputable dealer).

New: $350, from Amazon or B&H Photo Video.


Make sure you get the VR II version, not the VR version.

It's weighs less and collapses, making it smaller when you are not using it.


This is a great general purpose lens.

It makes an excellent portrait lens.


It is light, small, sharp, inexpensive and has effective Vibration Reduction.

Its field of view is comparable to an 80-300mm lens on a 35mm film or Full-Frame digital camera.


This lens was discontinued, last year, because everybody wants the 55-300mm lens for its longer reach.

I think the 55-200mm is a better balance of size, weight and reach.


I hope you can, at least, borrow one to check it out.

I think you will like it.


Why do I think that?

Well....you're not getting mine!

Leitz Loc: Solms

And there was nothing about street photography in this thread until you hijacked it.

1963mca

I had only one DX lens for my D90, my first DSLR, which came with the camera body. From then on I only bought FX lenses. And I'm glad I did! After many years I upgraded to a D800, then a D850 and I had all the FX lenses I needed to get started, with no concern about what to do with any leftover DX lenses. I gave the D90 and the original DX lens that came with it (an 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G Zoom DX) to my daughter and son-in-law to use for pictures of our grandchildren. Am I worried about moving to a mirrorless Z? Nope, at my age my I expect my D800 and D850 to last me for as long as I need them. Plus I can use the lenses on my F4. I checked out the Z7 at the store and while the body weighed less, by the time I added the adapter and either of my two main FX zoom lens (28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 FL) the weight difference felt negligible. And no, since I wouldn't be getting any 7 series lens, no Z series Nikon body for me either.

Geegee Loc: Peterborough, Ont.

While I agree that a 50mm lens on a DX camera will give the same angle of view or field of view as a 75mm lens on an FX camera it will not be very good for portraits. It is still a 50mm lens with the same perspective, regardless of using it on an FX or a DX body. In other words, if you took a portrait of a person with a 50mm lens on an FX body and cropped it by a factor of -1.5 the picture would look exactly the same as if it was taken with a DX body. The only difference would be the loss of pixels when cropping the full frame image.

For good portraits, a focal length of 75-85mm would give best results regardless of a full frame camera or a crop frame camera.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

True. But the price is right on a Nikon FX 50mm f1.8G. On a full frame, you're expected to buy quality lenses. If I owned a full frame camera. I would probably own a prime lens in a FX 85mm f1.8, or a prime lens full frame formatted, 135mm f2.8 or faster lens. For portraits.