Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2010, 4:01 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
Your review said the 1.4 is the sharpest of the nikon 50mm and is faster then the 1.8.
Yes, but, again, that's a lot of money for a little bit of extra sharpness and 2/3 stop. And for portraits, sharpness isn't always a good thing. Though, to be sure, it's a lot easier to take sharpness away than it is to put it back.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 4:10 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

If I went with the 18-105 kit lens, I would probably get the 50mm 1.4 at Christmas and something with longer reach for my birthday next March.

I am unsure if I can talk my husband into spending 1000 up front right now, . . . . so, it might be I need to start out with the cheapest lens possible which would probably mean the 50mm 1.8 to start, unless there is a different lens in the 100 dollar range that would do for me now until Christmas and still delivers good quality photos that anyone would recommend. I could then still get the 1.4 and something with longer range later on.
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 4:24 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

If you'll be getting the 50/1.4 eventually anyway, you might be better off getting the 35/1.8 instead of the 50/1.8. It's a very good lens, with a more natural perspective.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 5:01 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

If I got the 50 mm 1.8 I would probably stick with it and not get the 1.4, I just want to make sure I put my money where I will get the most bang for it. If it is better to sink 300+ dollars into a zoom lens as opposed to the 1.4 then that is what I want to do. If my husband wants to keep the price as low as possible and not get the kit right now, then I will need a budget lens to start with for sure and if I get more use out of a 50 mm over a 35 mm then I'd probably go with that. Unless there was a low end budget zoom that works well and then I could go with that.

Obviously I will need some sort of lens to start with so I can use the camera, I'd like it to be as high quality as possible, but practically speaking, if it can be in the 100 dollar range that is great.
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 6:04 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

You can get a tamron zoom lens, their 70-300 DI LD macro is a good bang for the bucks zoom, but you get no IS around 130 dollars. They also have a shorter zoom 28-80 for 70 dollars. Again they are the bang for the bucks lenses. If you are getting a D90 which is an excellent camera, hampering them with the low quality lens will cost you more money in the long run with upgrades. I would get the kit lens form the D5000 if possible.

I actually think the Pentax K-x kit lenses are very optically good and much better then the 2 tamron and give you better wide angle reach, the DAL have the same optic as their DA lenses, and the 300mm zoom is quite good on the long end. For 700 dollar for the 2 lens kit.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Mar 31, 2010 at 8:29 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 9:22 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Exactly, I don't want to dumb down a good camera with a bad lens. So I want to make sure that if I do need to get a 100 dollar lens I get one that performs well enough to not need to be replaced. So it sounds to me that the 50mm 1.8 would be the way to go if I need to start with a less expensive lens instead of just getting the kit lens.
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 9:30 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The 50mm is way to limiting for your first lens, and I shoot mostly primes, and I carry 3 of them when I do shoot prime. I would go for the 18-55mm lens that is offer with the d5000. It will give you a better working range.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 9:48 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But if you are willing to give up on the wide end, the nikon 55-200mm VR may be a better option for chasing your kids around. It would be worth the extra 120 dollar. It may be a the better option if you are just getting one lens first if you are trying to save a bit.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 10:45 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Ok, what about the 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens, is that the kit lens you are talking about? It costs about 140 dollars, then I could get the 50 mm 1.4 for Christmas and a longer range zoom for my Birthday. That would have me fairly well equiped by next March, of course, that is assuming that lens is worth the money. Ultimately if it is best to just not get a budget lens then we could maybe try that, or wait for the tax return to buy a kit.
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 10:46 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

That would be a much better workable solution as it will give you some more working range. And it is a pretty good lens with IS.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:31 AM.