Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 1, 2007, 7:57 PM   #31
JohnG's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

AngieG wrote:
So, now I am torn...whether to go with the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 or the 35mm 2.0. They are so close in price, I just want to get the best lens for low light (I'm sure either will do fine in normal lighting situations). I'm leaning toward the 35mm, just for the wider view.

Any suggestions?

Angie - I'd suggest you ask this in the Nikon lens forum. While the 1.4 is a full stop faster, it is also a lot narrower. From a focal length standpoint it depends on what type of shots you want and how close you'll be. It's critical to have the appropriate focal length in a prime lens - especially when your distance to the subject is outside your control. And, just as importantly you should find out from people who do a lot of low light shooting with multiple lenses to find out how the lens performs.

The reason why is this: in the Canon system, a person has the choice of two 85mm lenses - an 85mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.2. Just deciding on aperture alone a person may choose the 1.2 for low light action. That would be a bad choice. The original 85mm 1.2 is much slower focusing than the 1.8 (they have a mk II version which is better but I believe still slower than the 1.8). So, following conventional wisdom would lead to a very costly error in this canon situation. I have no idea how the focus speed of the two lenses you are considering compares to one another. That's why I would suggest consulting with experienced Nikon shooters WHO USE THE LENS FOR SOME SORT OF MOTION photography. And, of course, it always helps to see sample photos in similar situations (like the ones Sara provided with her sigma lens and nikon camera). That way you can judge for yourself!

Good luck!!!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2007, 12:47 AM   #32
Senior Member
rfortson's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 349

Here are a few examples taken with my Pentax K100D and a manual Pentax lens, the 135 f/2.8, which costs less than $100. I've actually gotten a couple of good 135mm lenses (an f/2.5 and an f/2.8 )for well less than $50, but I paid a little more for the Pentax since it has auto aperture. Both shots at ISO800, I believe.

The shake reduction in the K100D really helps a lot! However, I took some shots of my friend's band last summer with my Pentax *ist DL which didn't have shake reduction. The lighting wasn't quite as good, either. However, the high ISO performance for that camera was good, also. This one was taken at ISO1600 with a Tamron superzoom at 28mm f/3.5. I also bought a Pentax 50mm f/1.4 lens, and I can take shots almost in the dark with that lens. You can get a similar one for your Nikon and be good to go.

Get a cheap, fast 50mm lens and (if you can find it) a fast 135mm lens. I think you can probably find them used and save some money, but I don't know the market for used Nikon lenses, nor the compatibility.

rfortson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2007, 12:47 AM   #33
Senior Member
rfortson's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 349

doh! double post
rfortson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2007, 1:54 AM   #34
Senior Member
Greg Chappell's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,589

I scanned through most of these answers looking for one key issue regarding DSLR's and shooting at these types events. Maybe I just missed it as I did scan them all quickly, but are you, or will you, be in a position to take such a camera to such events or are you talking small-time performers where security issues are no issue?

I've been turned away from many professional events, from NHL hockey to NBA basketball to NFL games to concerts, because I had a DSLR and telephoto lens(actually, with security, any lens will do)around my neck.

Before dropping serious dollars on an outfit like that, I'd make sure you're even going to be allowed in to events where you'll be wanting to take it.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2007, 6:58 AM   #35
Senior Member
TCav's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826

mtclimber wrote:
Can you now explain or interpet the details of your post
My post refered to the photo posted by you.

I regret to say that my experience with live performances does not extend so far as to include a chorus line of dancing girls, one of which is wearing a plexiglas pyramid on her head. I would appreciate your efforts to educate me.

So I reiterate: "What the h*ll is that?"
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2007, 11:17 AM   #36
Senior Member
mtclimber's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143


Thanks a lot. Now I get the joke!

Yes, those are pretty goofy outfits aren't they. They are from a dream sequence.

Thanks again for letting me in on the joke. I guess I think too much about the technical/photo details.

mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:31 AM.