Nikon lens question

[TheGoofster]

After reading many posts here on the DIS, I can see the importance of having a good quality low light lens (especially for capturing shots on dark rides).

As I begin to look into these lenses, I can see a big difference in price in even what appears to be a very small change. So I was wondering if somebody could tell me if there is that much of a difference between these 2 lenses to justify the big difference in price. BTW, I am shooting with a Nikon D5000. On Amazon they have:

1) a Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for 319.95 (new)

and

2) a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for 124.88 (new)

(the used prices are only a couple of dollars cheaper in each case).

Is there really that much of a difference between these 2 lenses to make the price different worth it. Keep in mind, I am still only an amateur and would be interested in such a lens for dark rides and for shooting indoor sporting events (from a pretty close distance) like my daughters gymnastics classes.

As always, thanks for any info or advice.

 

[shawn68]

I have your number two lens. Got it from my MIL for Christmas, and it has turned into my lens of choice. I have the Nikon d60, and it is a manual focus lens on anything less than the d90 I believe. So if focusing manually is something you are not into, you might want to go with number one.
I really do love mine though, and manually focusing isn't that bad at all really.

 

[TheGoofster]

I have your number two lens. Got it from my MIL for Christmas, and it has turned into my lens of choice. I have the Nikon d60, and it is a manual focus lens on anything less than the d90 I believe. So if focusing manually is something you are not into, you might want to go with number one.
I really do love mine though, and manually focusing isn't that bad at all really.

Actually I do a lot of manual focusing. Whenever I do shoot low light or action shots I find that manual focusing works much better for me.

 

[annnewjerz]

Unless you have plans of upgrading to the D90 or higher sometime soon, I would suggest Nikon's 35mm f/1.8. At $200 it's right in between the price of those two lenses, the 35mm focal length will probably be a little better for indoor shooting (especially if you are in a tight space) and it will autofocus on your camera.

Even if you do manual focusing a lot in dim lighting, don't forget that this lens is one that will give you a nice shallow depth of field (subject is nice and crisp and background is blurred) if you use it in regular daylight---so having the ability to manual or autofocus on your camera will probably be a nice feature to have.

 

[dmccarty]

I have the 50mm F1.4 lens. I bought it a few years ago to use at WDW.

I think I have to lean towards agreeing with Ann's advice for the 35 F1.8 or maybe a 35 F2.0. The F1.4 is really short on DOF. I used the 50mm at a very low light show at my kids school. I had to open the lens to F1.4 and the kids next to my daughter were out of focus due to the shallow DOF but that was the only way to get the photo. A 35 F1.8 would be better. The lens sharpness on the 50mm at F1.4 is not very good but most lenses have problems wide open.

This site has good reviews of lenses at various F stops.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=1

I think the 30mm F1.8 is a DX lens so if you are thinking you might move up to a full frame camera in a few years keep that in mind.

At WDW I carry a small holster camera bag with my camera with the 50mm and 24mm lenses. Its light and covers most of what I want to photograph. A 35 F2.0 might just might allow me to carry one lens. Maybe. The 24mm lens is VERY good at taking photos on the rides like EE and Thunder Mountain. The wide angle allows you take pictures of the person next to you. The 50mm is a bit too long for this. I am using a D700 full frame camera so a DX camera makes a wider lens more important. The 35mm would work better than a 50mm on a DX camera if trying to get the photo of the person next to you. 24mm would be better.

So which is more important wide angle or low light?

The 35mm could be more useful in the gym as would a 24mm or 28mm since you are on a DX camera. It is better to frame the shot looser rather than tighter. You can always crop the photo when processing.

Later,
Dan

 

[PhotographyDR]

Basically the difference it 2/3 of a stop. Which means 2/3 more light will enter on the f1.4. As said above the DOF will also be shallower on the 1.4 (of coarse you can shoot the f1.8 on the 1.4 lens but not the other way around). My advise (same as Scott Borne) is buy the fastest glass you can afford. The price difference is not major enough to be hung up on a ~$200 considering the lower you go the price usually goes up exponentially.

I also agree if you are going to shoot Dark Rides to go with a 35 or wider (especially on a crop sensor). I have the 50 f1.8 and on the Haunted Mansion ride I could only get 2 of the hitch hiking ghost in frame. The 50 basically has a 80 mm view angle. The 35 would bring you more in line with a 50mm view angle. Also wider would increase your DOF a little more as well with the same f number. Which is why I really want the Nikon 28mm f1.4. (Very pricy). Anyways I agree with Dan and Ann. I think the 35 f1.8 would be your best bet.

 

[TheGoofster]

Thanks everyone for the great advice!

It looks like I'm going to start saving my pennies to try and get the 35mm 1.8.

The 1.4 does sound better for lower light, but I think I'd get more use (especially with the sports shots) out of the 1.8. I hadn't really considered the DOF, but what you all said makes a ton of sense.

If anyone else wants to add something please do. I always learn so much from your comments.

 

[Evad]

+1 for the 35mm lens.

I have the 50mm 1.8 and though I do really like it I find it to be a bit tight on a cropped body. I will most likely be picking up the 35mm and trading in my 50mm.

Good luck with your choice!!

 

[handicap18]

Thanks everyone for the great advice!

It looks like I'm going to start saving my pennies to try and get the 35mm 1.8.

The 1.4 does sound better for lower light, but I think I'd get more use (especially with the sports shots) out of the 1.8. I hadn't really considered the DOF, but what you all said makes a ton of sense.

If anyone else wants to add something please do. I always learn so much from your comments.

For low light, they are both going to do well. The f/1.4 will be slightly better,,, the 2/3's of a stop from 1.8 to 1.4 is the equilivent of 1/40th to 1/60th. The 50mm f/1.4 will help on a few shots in that regard, but you will do well with the f/1.8.

Overall, the f/1.4 lens is built better than the f/1.8. It is slightly heavier (8.08oz vs 5.54oz) and its optics has 7 elements in 6 groups vs 6 elements in 5 groups. This does give the f/1.4 better bokah (more pleasing out of focus background/foreground) than the f/1.8.

As others have already stated,,, for the D5000, your probably better off with the 35mm f/1.8 as it does have the focus motor in the lens to auto focus on that body. Relatively speaking, its not very expensive either.

 

[BernardandMissBianca]

Thanks everyone for the great advice!

It looks like I'm going to start saving my pennies to try and get the 35mm 1.8.

The 1.4 does sound better for lower light, but I think I'd get more use (especially with the sports shots) out of the 1.8. I hadn't really considered the DOF, but what you all said makes a ton of sense.

If anyone else wants to add something please do. I always learn so much from your comments.

I'm not really a camera person DH is, but we have the 35mm 1.8 that we took to Disney for the first time. All I can say is wow!! We love love love this lens. We shot 99% of our 10 day trip with this lens.

here is a photo I took on the Great Movie Ride with it.

buzz

Osborne (hand held)