|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Posts: 87
|
![]()
I've been using a manual focus 24-48mm on my D90.
I wanna get a mediumish AF lens, since MF is too slow and I also need to do available light pics. I have the 70-300mm VR right now. I don't know what to choose! 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S - $110 (not fast but I can get another lens too) 35mm f/1.8 AF-S - $199 50mm f/1.8 AF-D - $130 50mm f/1.4 AF-D - $320 50mm f/1.4 AF-S - $440 Suggestions? (around $300 max) Mainly using a D90, but I have some film SLRs too. However, FX lenses aren't a priority. How much of a difference is f/1.8 to f/1.4? Is it noticeable? What about the bokeh? |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
I've been very pleased with the Tamrom 17-50mm f/2.8 for shooting with available light. It's more than $300, but it's about the same as the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S you listed. And Sigma has an 18-50/2.8 that's also very good. Unfortunately, the stabilized version of the Tamron, doesn't appear to be as good, but except for the kit lens, it doesn't seem that you're worried about stabilization.
In addition to those, there's also the Sigma 18-55/2.8-4.5 OS that's stabilized and it's 2/3 stop faster than the kit lens. And the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is also 2/3 stop. That's the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 320. A large aperture lens will also severely limit your depth of field. If that's what you're after, those lenses will do it for you, but if that's not something you're prepared for, you'll have to pay a lot more attention to focus. You might want to get the 50/1.8 just to get the hang of it.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,009
|
![]()
im kind of in the same boat as you and i think ill be getting the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S simply because i dont think the 50mm is wide enough on the D90 when you consider it will be more like a 75mm
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
|
![]()
just picked up my nikkor 85mm 1.8
in my experinces, 1.8's are usulay crisper, but thats just me... and you dont need an af-s with a d90, they have internal motors |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
|
![]() Quote:
In terms of quality, f1.4 are typically more expensive, and unless you absolutely need the extra speed, I'd save the money and get the 1.8 version. With today's DSLR's having great high ISO performance, fast primes aren't a necessity (unless they fit your shooting style!) Last edited by rjseeney; Feb 18, 2010 at 5:50 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Posts: 87
|
![]()
I need light. Just don't know how much! I listed the 1.4 because I never had enough light with my old camera (see aperture graph).
I don't know if I need f/1.4 vs 1.8...No actually what I might be able to do is simulate the difference? ![]() What would f/2.6 be after a 66% reduction in light? ![]() Also I naturally tend to "stick" to around 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, which would be a wide zoom, the 35mm, and 50mm lenses on d90 DX. See graphs Last edited by NothingRare; Feb 22, 2010 at 1:47 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
There are no zooms that have apertures larger than f/2.8, so if you want something larger, then you need primes. And, btw, the aperture doesn't change with the angle of view (the size of the image sensor), so there's no "66% reduction in light".
If you want a zoom, the one that immediately comes to mind is the Sigma 17-70. It covers the zoom range you're talking about and it's fast (f/2.8-4.5 for the unstabilized version, f/2.8-4.0 for the stabilized version.) Alternatively, there's Sigma's and Tamron's 17-50/2.8 (both stabilized and not.) Beyond that, all there is are primes. It's also possible, btw, that your graphs just show that you do a lot of shooting at (the 35mm equivalent of) 24mm, and that just happens to be where the aperture can open up to f/2.6. Therefore, you may not need a really large aperture, just a short focal length. In which case, the Sigma 17-70 might suit you well.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 193
|
![]()
With the budget you have for "available light pics" I think you have to ask how often will you use it only for available light. The vast amount of time I use f2.8 or less is really for DOF control not just for getting faster shutter speeds. So are the available light pics just so you don't bother others or is it that the on camera flash looks like on camera flash? Your graph shows me that you shoot as wide as you can most of the time, that's what I find with mine as well. Especially inside the house. I think the 18-55 would be a great addition and spend the extra on an SB-600 (D90 has a commander mode) and learn to use it off camera by taking the strobist 101 course (Free on-line). Any of the less expensive 18-?? will fill the bill. Then I bet your graph will have data heaped up at the ends of that lens like you see now.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1
|
![]()
Why not consider the 18-55 VR? It's dirt cheap and allows you to shoot in low light. Yes, it does not freeze your subject, but for stills it will be great!
I've had the 18-70 (focus issues), the 18-135 (had CA issues), and the 18-55 GII (no issues!). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Portland/San Diego
Posts: 51
|
![]()
I would suggest a used 18-70 Nikkor. My copy is pretty sharp, it has a larger aperture than the other Nikon 18-whatever lenses (f/3.5-4.5 vs f/3.5-5.6), you can usually find them around 200 bucks, and you will share a filter size with your 70-300. Granted, no VR, but otherwise it's a great lens.
__________________
Kurt _______________________________________________ D90, D40x, D40, 18-55VR, 18-70, 18-105VR, 35f/1.8G, 50f/1.4G, 60 AF-S Micro, 70-300VR, Tamron 10-24, SB600 F100, N50, 24f/2.8D, 85f/1.8D, 135f/2 DC D, 28-105D, 35-80D, 70-210D, |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|