Prime Lens for the D750 (Page 4): Another lie by your camera shop. The Nikon AF-S 50mm F/1.8 G ED lens is a full frame lens (FX) I use it on my D810. And the optics on it are great and...

ltcarizona

Another lie by your camera shop. The Nikon AF-S 50mm F/1.8 G ED lens is a full frame lens (FX) I use it on my D810. And the optics on it are great and it sells for $199. In fact it has better reviews than the F/1.4 G ED lens that sells for $426. I don't know the who the hell that photo shop hires but they should be firing them. No need to buy a $800 lens other than they want to pocket the commission and money they are profiting by. Find a new camera store or order from where I only do: B&H Photo and Camera NY City. Skip the tax and the middle man if you don't live in NY.

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

PhotoTime wrote:

I have the AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G.... My local camera shop said I should not use it on the D750 as its a DX lens... So, I haven't even tried it on this camera, had it for my D5600 that I returned to use towards the purchase of the D750. Should I give it a shot? He recommended the 50mm and I think he said it ran about $800.... must be decent glass.

Wouldn't work on the D750 ...is FX format which is 1.5 x bigger than DX. Let me put it this way...you will be able to take a picture but the lens will not allow enough light through to cover your censor..

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Most Nikon full-frame cameras have an adjustment where you can reduce the amount of the sensor
that will be used.
You are correct that the image circle from a "DX" lens is smaller than the image circle from an "FX" lens,
but the camera uses a smaller amount of the sensor so that the DX lens can be used.

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

Robert Bailey wrote:

Most Nikon full-frame cameras have an adjustment where you can reduce the amount of the sensor
that will be used.
You are correct that the image circle from a "DX" lens is smaller than the image circle from an "FX" lens,
but the camera uses a smaller amount of the sensor so that the DX lens can be used.

geezer7 Loc: Michigan

Regarding the Nikkor 50mm af1.8d lens, I found mine to be soft at 1.8 but sharp at 4.0. It was better at 2.8 than at 1.8 but not really sharp. I've seen comments supporting my observations. This was on a D7100. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Geezer7,
That lens is only sharp between f 2.8 and f 8.
Here is the dxomark test report on sharpness (mounted on a D7100).

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.8D-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100---Measurements__865

geezer7 Loc: Michigan

Robert Bailey wrote:

Geezer7,
That lens is only sharp between f 2.8 and f 8.
Here is the dxomark test report on sharpness (mounted on a D7100).

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.8D-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100---Measurements__865

Thanks Robert. That verifies my experience! I don't think I checked the f-stops beyond f11.

therwol Loc: USA

PhotoTime wrote:

Looking for a good 50mm Prime Lens for my D750... any suggestions or recommendations as to which one?

Thanks,
Joe

I use the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D on my D810. I have no complaints. It is a bit soft until you get to f/2.8. Beyond that, it's as sharp as a tack. Comparing it with the 50mm f/1.4 G lens, the reviews I've read pretty much say it's a wash in terms of IQ. Also, not based on ownership but reviews, the much more expensive 50mm lenses (Like the Sigma ART) really shine at the wider apertures, but it is worth almost 3 times the price? Not for me.

Hbuk66 Loc: Oswego, NY

Nikkkor 60mm D

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Actually, Geez, in my experience nearly all lenses are "softer" at maximum aperture than at any other f/stop. Works well for portraits and very low light. But if sharpness is your game, practically any lens will do its best around f/8 to f/11.

therwol Loc: USA

cameraf4 wrote:

Actually, Geez, in my experience nearly all lenses are "softer" at maximum aperture than at any other f/stop. Works well for portraits and very low light. But if sharpness is your game, practically any lens will do its best around f/8 to f/11.

Here is the difference between a lens that costs $329 and one that costs $950. I'm only including one DxOMark parameter. If you pay more, you get greater sharpness at the wider apertures. Some newer lenses are changing the rules.

CO

whwiden wrote:

I have the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I find it a bit soft. I got a Tamron 45mm which I like better. It has VR, and is on sale now. When shooting primes, my two lens kit is a Nikon 24 and a 85 mm f/1.8 prime which I find very good. When I take a third prime it generally is the Tamron. I use them on a D750.

I also have the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens for my Nikons. Tamron has been redesigning their SP prime lenses. The new lenses have vibration compensation, a metal lens barrel, and are fully weather sealed. The vibration compensation really helps when it's not practical to use a tripod. It's a little soft wide open at f/1.8. I stop down to f/2.8 or smaller.

CO

Bill_de wrote:

The thinking hasn't changed. There were many folks advocating that over 40 years ago. But then and now it is based on mathematics, not what the majority of people wanted to see through the viewfinder. Since there weren't a lot of 43mm lenses around many people had a 35 and a 50 in the bag.

--

This is what Tamron was thinking when they came out with the 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens last year.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Very impressive, therwol. I have to admit that all of my experience was with film cameras and MTF charts. DxOMark is new to me as of this year. But on the practical side, other than the "Top 1%" in the country, how many of us would choose to buy a $950 Prime 50mm over the "legendary Nikkor" costing roughly one third the price? That is something I would never be able to justify in today's economy.

therwol Loc: USA

cameraf4 wrote:

Very impressive, therwol. I have to admit that all of my experience was with film cameras and MTF charts. DxOMark is new to me as of this year. But on the practical side, other than the "Top 1%" in the country, how many of us would choose to buy a $950 Prime 50mm over the "legendary Nikkor" costing roughly one third the price? That is something I would never be able to justify in today's economy.

I've got the $329 lens, and I have no complaints. It's not worth it to me. I guess I already said that. I've already spent much more than $950 on one zoom and close to that on another, and while I probably could afford another "expensive" lens, I'm okay with what I have. I can think of other ways to spend the money, like on traveling to take pictures.