Help me choose a lens

[yeoo_andy_ni]

Hi,

I have the D3000, but want to get a new lense for doing portraits and sittings in my shed/studio. I've put the two down that I'm thinking of, just want to know what the more experienced photographers think.

Nikon 35mm f1.8 G AF-S DX

Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF Lens

I've not got a budget as such, but don't want to spend too much money, for obvious reasons.

I'm in the UK by the way.

Cheers!

[Malisk]

For portraits mostly just covering the face, I would recommend the Nikon 50/1,8, and for more "environmental" photography covering the face at least down to your subject's neck, I'd recommend the 35mm/1,8. I've mostly moved from 50mm to 35mm here because I find 35mm being more flexible. I wouldn't say the difference is too big outdoors, but indoors I frequently lacked space with using 50mm on a non-full frame camera like my Nikon D90. It's annoying to not get the shots you wanted (i.e. getting too close-up) just because there's no more room behind you. Not really surprising in hindsight, since a 50mm corresponds to 75mm, short telephoto, on a cropped body like mine and yours.

From a normal shooting distance (a couple of meters), I'd say the difference between the two would look something like this:

50mm on a cropped camera body:

35mm on a cropped camera body:

So in the end, it depends on your needs. For portraits especially focusing on a person's emotions / facial expressions etc, a 50mm is great. On the other hand, 35mm can be better if you want to catch more of the environment, the person's clothes, etc. Something to frame the face with.

Of course, you can absolutely get more close-up photos with a 35mm; it's just that you have to move closer to your subject. Which may not be a problem if photographing your partner or family members, but another topic if you don't know the people as well and want to catch candid shots.

Edit: Btw, I'd also recommend a 35mm over a 50mm for group shots.

[Argote]

What Northgrove mentioned is basically spot-on. Do you currently have the D3000 and the 18-55 kit lens only? What other gear do you own? What is your shed/studio setup like?

[crazzy88ss]

35mm f1.8 because you won't have AF on the 50mm D.

[remus_lupin]

35mm f1.8 because you won't have AF on the 50mm D.

+1, great point, and Northgrove's response is very detailed (and accurate)

[witalit]

+1, great point, and Northgrove's response is very detailed (and accurate)

I have the 35mm 1.8 myself, great lens super quick focus but I would say bit pricey for that it is..

It don't really have the best reviews

[threetonesun]

A 50mm on a DX body is about the right range for portrait photography. As noted above, it is a bit close when indoors. In reality, one of each would be good. On a budget, I'd recommend the 50mm 1.4G AF-S. It's better than either of the two listed.

[Draconian Guppy]

^^ But double the price.

[crazzy88ss]

On a budget, I'd recommend the 50mm 1.4G AF-S. It's better than either of the two listed.

the AF-S 1.4 is a pro lens and is $450. I wouldn't call that a "budget" lens, especially when comparing to the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm.... *rolls eyes*

[threetonesun]

the AF-S 1.4 is a pro lens and is $450. I wouldn't call that a "budget" lens, especially when comparing to the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm.... *rolls eyes*

In the realm of camera lenses, I would. Buy the right one the first time. Also, he said he had no fixed budget, which brings the 1.4 within the realm of possibility.

I don't feel the 35mm is worth $100 over the 50mm unless you really don't have the room to shoot with the 50mm.

[crazzy88ss]

Also, he said he had no fixed budget

"but don't want to spend too much money" Doubling what he had in mind falls out of the range of "I don't want to spend too much money."

I don't feel the 35mm is worth $100 over the 50mm unless you really don't have the room to shoot with the 50mm.

He has a D3000. Autofocusing lens is definitely worth $100 over the 50.

[Argote]

"but don't want to spend too much money" Doubling what he had in mind falls out of the range of "I don't want to spend too much money."

I'll have to agree there.

He has a D3000. Autofocusing lens is definitely worth $100 over the 50.

It's a shame Nikon cripples their lower end bodies like that.

[crazzy88ss]

It's a shame Nikon cripples their lower end bodies like that.

It is, but it was a move to "catch up" to Canon, who already had smaller bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon removed the AF motor from all bodies in 5-10 years. As far as I can tell all of Nikon's new lenses are AF-S.

[Argote]

It is, but it was a move to "catch up" to Canon, who already had smaller bodies.

How big can an AF drive motor for an entry-level camera be? It doesn't add much to get smaller bodies.

[crazzy88ss]

How big can an AF drive motor for an entry-level camera be? It doesn't add much to get smaller bodies.

There is no AF drive motor in the bodies. So.. zero :p It's in the lenses. That's what AF-S lenses are. Look at a canon or a D3000 or a nikon AF-S lens; there's no AF screws to focus the lens.

[Argote]

Yes I know. What I mean is that your justification for Nikon to remove the motors from their entry-level bodies was that it reduced the size of the body; I believe that adding an AF drive motor to the body is not significant in terms of size/weight.

[Draconian Guppy]

@ Argote, completely agree, because:

There's a big discussion on dpreview regarding nikons neutered entry level cameras, some go as far as saying that most of the parts needed for in body focusing are already in the camera by default and there's enough space within existing cameras to avoid adding bulk, so it's not a size issue and then when regarding price, there was some other fellow who said that if mass produced the part wouldn't cost more than $35-50ish at most(and probably less). In the end the thread boiled down to "nikon did it, to better define, entry, mid and high end" and make consumers pay. ie. Entry = neutered, Mid = features, High end = features galore.

Shame I can't find the link, it was a really good read.

[crazzy88ss]

there was some other fellow who said that if mass produced the part wouldn't cost more than $35-50ish at most(and probably less).

Holy hell, somebody thinks $35-50 is cheap for 1 part? Please let that be a typo! That's over 10% of the RETAIL price of a D40+kit lens when it was new, let alone their actual cost. $50 for a single part is insanely expensive, especially in something that costs probably $250 to manufacture.

Yes they made it worse due to marketing, but I don't think it really matters. The success of nikon's latest entry level bodies proves that. Anybody who actually knows/cares about the differences typically isn't in the market for a starter kit.

Yes I know. What I mean is that your justification for Nikon to remove the motors from their entry-level bodies was that it reduced the size of the body; I believe that adding an AF drive motor to the body is not significant in terms of size/weight.

Oh... ok. nvm then :p

[Draconian Guppy]

Actually I typed $35-50ish because I don't remember the exact amount the guy posted, he tore a part a d90 and made up a list of the AF parts,but did not post teh sum, which is why I don't remember, when you can't remember, ALWAYS exaggerate. Still, c'mon crazzy if it were $35 for AF builtin body, i'd pay!

[TAZMINATOR]

If you can not afford to get a lens that you wanted, because it is out of your price range. Then, buy an used lens. No problem.

I have an used 105mm VR lens. No problems so far. Also, I have an AF-S 35mm 1:1.8 G... it works great.

If you are not able to get an used lens due an expensive price or can't find it anywhere (such as sold out), you can always rent a lens for a couple of days.

[Argote]

Well, what is an AF drive except a motor, something to control its movement and a drive shaft? I doubt that's $35. Plus, midrange and highend cameras usually have faster, better AF drive motors.

Sony has cameras with AF Drive in the body selling at $399 with a kit lens that also comes with its own AF motor, if it were so expensive I doubt they'd include it.

[crazzy88ss]

Actually I typed $35-50ish because I don't remember the exact amount the guy posted, he tore a part a d90 and made up a list of the AF parts,but did not post teh sum, which is why I don't remember, when you can't remember, ALWAYS exaggerate. Still, c'mon crazzy if it were $35 for AF builtin body, i'd pay!

Most people wouldn't. They buy a D40 because of it's rock bottom price of $399.99. Think of this from a marketing/sales side. We're now at the point where DSLRs are becoming main stream and that means lower prices. It's part of the natural Product Life Cycle. They had to cut cost somewhere, and $35 is a huge chunk and something that was easy to do.

Think of it this way. Let's say it's low, only $10 reduction in cost per camera. Their Cost Of Goods Sold on the body is ... we'll say $300 with the AF motor, $290 without it. How many do they sell? Maybe a few million? See how that quickly translates into a lot of money. That's a few million in profit right there, at $10.

Now lets say including the AF body makes them increase their MSRP to $449.99. Now it's $50 more expensive than the Sony mentioned above. Profit margin is down AND sales volume is down.

I don't even know why it matters at this point. Most all new lenses for nikon mount are compatible with AFless bodies!

[Argote]

I don't know how far back the current Nikon mount goes, but support for older used lenses is a major consideration.

Sure Nikon obviously prefers that you buy a shiny new lens from them but having a relatively large used market where you can get high-quality glass for "low" prices which is fully functional (including AF) is a selling point for your system and could be something that tips the balance in favor of choosing the Nikon system for end users.

[Draconian Guppy]

Most people wouldn't. They buy a D40 because of it's rock bottom price of $399.99. Think of this from a marketing/sales side. We're now at the point where DSLRs are becoming main stream and that means lower prices. It's part of the natural Product Life Cycle. They had to cut cost somewhere, and $35 is a huge chunk and something that was easy to do.

Think of it this way. Let's say it's low, only $10 reduction in cost per camera. Their Cost Of Goods Sold on the body is ... we'll say $300 with the AF motor, $290 without it. How many do they sell? Maybe a few million? See how that quickly translates into a lot of money. That's a few million in profit right there, at $10.

Now lets say including the AF body makes them increase their MSRP to $449.99. Now it's $50 more expensive than the Sony mentioned above. Profit margin is down AND sales volume is down.

I don't even know why it matters at this point. Most all new lenses for nikon mount are compatible with AFless bodies!

I completely agree, however if it didn't matter that much, then why no just cut AF from all bodies? Low mid or high?

I don't know how far back the current Nikon mount goes, but support for older used lenses is a major consideration.

Sure Nikon obviously prefers that you buy a shiny new lens from them but having a relatively large used market where you can get high-quality glass for "low" prices which is fully functional (including AF) is a selling point for your system and could be something that tips the balance in favor of choosing the Nikon system for end users.

Older lens are supported, just no AF.

[Argote]

Do they have AF on bodies with a motor? (I suppose the answer is yes).