AF-S DX or AF-S

Hello All. I am not exactly a new photographer. I have used film (Nikon F, Pentax 1000, Minolta 7), and I have graduated to DSLR (Sony A230 and now a Nikon D3400). I know the camera I use now (Nikon D3400) is an entry level camera, but being as I am a teacher, I am on a budget.

 

That brings me to my question. I have the kit lenses for my camera, but I am very disappointing with their indoor performance (predictably). I am now in the market for a 50mm lens. I can get a new AF-S DX lens for about $250 or a AF-S lens (not a DX) for about $100. I know my camera can use the latter model, so my question is whether there is a great enough difference in quality. The AF-S is being sold by Adorama, so I believe they do a good job of inspecting the lens for defects.

 

Do I save the $150 or spend it?

There are 2 affordable 50mm lenses: the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G and AF 50mm f/1.8D. The first is typically around $200-250, the second around $100 less. The first will autofocus on your camera, the second will not. The first one is optically also a good step up. So, between those two, frankly the more expensive lens is worth it for your camera.

 

Since the D3400 has a sensor smaller than the old 35mm film, the angle of view you get from a 50mm lens is different than you had with the film cameras, so using a 50mm lens on the D3400, you will get an image that resembles using a 75mm lens on a Nikon F or Pentax K1000. I'm not sure if you considered this "crop factor"? If not, the better recommendation might be the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX lens, which sits around $200 and represents very good value for money. This lens will be very close to what you're used to as a 50mm lens on your film cameras.

 

(The DX designation is for lenses which cover only the smaller sensor like used in your D3400; there is no 50mm DX lens at present.)

How about use the lens from your Nikon F? But I guess you don't have it any more. You have changed from Nikon to Pentax, to Minolta then to Sony and now back to Nikon.

Since money is tight, reconsider! This Nikon falls into the compact digital category. This is an important fact to keep in mind when shopping for lenses. We fit lenses based on format size and the task at hand. Your camera sports a digital sensor that measures 15.6mm height by 23.5mm length. The diagonal measure of this rectangle is 28.2mm. It is industry standard to mount a “normal” lens. This will be a lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal measure of the image capture area. For this sensor, “normal” will be a lens with a focal length of about 30mm.

 

 

Please note, your kit lens covers the range of 18mm thru 55mm. It is no accident that the center of this span is approximately 30mm. If you mount a 30mm, the angle of view, with camera held horizontal, is about 45°. Additionally, the corner to corner angle of view is 53°, a perhaps useless value, but the one most often published (like TV sets being sold by their diagonal measure.)

 

 

Now the realm of wide-angle starts at about 70% of “normal” = 20mm or shorter. The territory of telephoto starts at about 2X “normal” = 60mm. Thus your existing kit lens spans the beginning of wide-angle – “normal” – the start of telephoto. Let me add, most authorities recommend that portraiture is best served by a lens 2 ½ X “normal” = 75mm. Keep in mind, the focal length values I have quoted are not engraved in stone; their origins are based on a final image with “correct perspective”. Since art has no tangible rules, you are free to follow your heart.

 

 

All that is to tell you that the Kit lens you own likely will be OK. The only rub is, the wide-open aperture is a bit reduced, and thus you will need to up the ISO to image under feeble conditions. Sounds bad, but modern photo software can mitigate the additional noise that results. Noise is a granularity similar to grain that stems from elevated amplification (gain) when the ISO is turned up.

 

 

In summation, why buy a 50mm when your kit lens, at maxim zoom, is operating at 55mm? You can up the ISO to handle feeble lighting conditions. If money is tight, buy a wide-angle or a telephoto -- or better, save and buy a lens with a greater zoom range.

Alan is right to check that you actually want a 50mm lens as it behaves on a "DX" camera body like the D3400. To paraphrase, since the sensor is smaller than a film camera, it'll give you the field of view that a 75mm lens would give you on a film body.

 

If you're after a lens that behaves like a 50mm "normal" lens on a film camera, it's worth checking out Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 prime lens, which is reasonably small and inexpensive, and works properly on a D3400. With the 1.5x crop of DX, that's pretty close to 50mm equivalent.

 

If you want a shortish telephoto lens (for example for portraits) on a D3400, a 50mm f/1.8 is a good choice - it's isolate the background more than the 35mm lens would, and it'll give you a tighter crop from a longer working distance, which is often more flattering (smaller noses...) - I'm assuming you've confirmed which focal length you want by zooming the kit lens to that length.

 

As Wouter says, the obvious Nikon lenses are the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S (which will autofocus on a D3400) and the older, smaller, cheaper, 50mm f/1.8 AF-D (which won't autofocus). The AF-S version behaves better at larger apertures and generally has somewhat better rendering; the AF-D lens is arguably a bit sharper if you stop down to f/5.6 or so. There are also a number of manual focus 50mm lenses, most of which have roughly the same optics as the AF-D - but they won't give you metering information on the D3400.

 

I have no personal experience of them, but Yongnuo have a couple of cheap 50mm lenses (f/1.8 and f/1.4) available for F mount that are "AF-S" and should autofocus with the D3400. Please check reviews, but if you're on a budget, they might be worth a look. Should you find a used one, I can also recommend the 50mm Sigma f/1.4 HSM, which is pretty good in the DX sensor region of the frame (the latest "ART" version is substantially better and pretty much state of the, er, art for a 50mm, but it's relatively expensive).

 

Best of luck!

I'm going to tag onto Andrew's post with a more specific suggestion-the DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G. This is a great little compact lens that is about $200 new, is fully compatible with your D3400, and gives a field of view roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. They can be had for ~$150 used with a bit of shopping, but honestly I just went ahead and bought mine new given the small price difference(one of the very few lenses I've bought new).

 

Its build quality defies its price, as for $200 you get a metal lens mount with a rubber seal(to help keep dust and moisture out) and "real" ring motor AF-S. The only thing really missing on it vs. higher priced lenses is a focus scale. It's a lens that I think everyone with a DX camera should have.

Both lenses you are talking about are FX. There are no 50mm DX Nikon lenses. The AF-S will focus on your camera. The AF-D will not.

Thanks all. I decided to purchase the AF-S DX 50mm lens. I'm not afraid to spend the money. It's just that if I can save somewhere, I will. My interest is to use my kit lenses outside, and I want to be able to switch to the 50 while inside and in lower light situations. As for the nomenclature if the lenses, I'm simply parroting what I have seen on some web sites. I have a few sources from which to purchase the lens.

I see that you want a lens with larger aperture but why the 50mm and not the 35mm? Do you really need the longer focal length. I think the 35mm f/1.8 G lens while cheap is very sharp.

I too would question the choice of a 50mm lens over a 35mm lens on a crop-sensor body if the objective is to get a "normal" lens.

 

I often use an 85mm lens on 35mm film/full frame for full body or waste-up portraits, but that's about the extent of my use for that particular focal length. I even find lenses in the 55-60mm range-again on full frame-to be uncomfortably long as a standard lens. On your camera, any 50mm lens is going to act like a 75mm lens on a full frame/film camera...

For my indoor low light lens I got the 35/1.8, rather than the longer 50/1.8. And it worked out, for me.

If your indoor shooting is at longer distance or smaller subjects, then the longer 50 makes sense.

I too would question the choice of a 50mm lens over a 35mm lens on a crop-sensor body if the objective is to get a "normal" lens.

 

I often use an 85mm lens on 35mm film/full frame for full body or waste-up portraits, but that's about the extent of my use for that particular focal length. I even find lenses in the 55-60mm range-again on full frame-to be uncomfortably long as a standard lens. On your camera, any 50mm lens is going to act like a 75mm lens on a full frame/film camera...

I use the 28mm on the D1x. It's perfect for normal lens but it's only f/2.8.

. . . I decided to purchase the AF-S DX 50mm lens. I'm not afraid to spend the money. It's just that if I can save somewhere, I will. My interest is to use my kit lenses outside, and I want to be able to switch to the 50 while inside and in lower light situations. . .

 

I hope that 'decided' is not past perfect tense.

Please add my caution to those above, be very sure that you have enough room to make indoor photos you want to make, using a 50mm lens on a D3400.

WW

BTW, I have a 17mm f/1.8 for my low light lens for my micro 4/3 kit.

The 17mm on m4/3 is like a 24mm on DX and 35mm on FX.

The logic was, if I am shooting in low light, odds are it will be indoors, where I probably do not have a lot of room, so a wider lens made more sense, to me. This was in comparison to a fast "normal" lens, 25mm f/1.8 for m4/3. So I got the 17mm f/1.8.

 

I tried to apply that same logic to my DX kit, but Nikon does not make a 24mm DX lens. And I wasn't about to drop $$$$ for a 24mm FX lens. So I had to settle on the "normal" 35mm f/1.8 DX, as the fast/low light lens for my DX kit.

Used D200 and D300 are available for very reasonable prices, and can focus with some lenses that other cameras can't.

 

Also, you can use manual focus AI lenses on them, and will properly meter.

 

I don't know how the sensors compare to the D3400, but they are nice cameras from not so many years ago.

 

Even for full frame, 35mm is always my favorite lens. You might find and AI 50/1.4 for a low price, when you need that, though.

Used D200 and D300 are available for very reasonable prices, and can focus with some lenses that other cameras can't.

 

As much as I love the D200, IMO it and virtually all other CCD cameras(Fuji S5, which is built on the D200 body) are starting to show their age.

 

I used a D300 as my main camera for a few months in 2017, and a D2X immediately before that. The D300 is a noticeable improvement over the D2X in a lot of ways, although its high ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired in comparison to newer cameras. It's a lot better than the D2X, though, which is a strong performer at base ISO but starts to fall apart rapidly past ISO 400. It's not like my D800, though, where I'll go to 6400 if the situation calls for it and still not lose too much sleep if I need to print an 8x10.

 

The D300s is worth a look also. I don't see any difference in IQ between it and the D300, but you get a couple of nice perks that you may or may not care about. Of note is that the D300s adds a second card slot-the second slot takes an SD card, which can be a big advantage to someone coming from consumer cameras.

Yes, I don't know how the D300 sensor compares to the D3400.

 

But there are many features on the D300 that aren't on some later models, such as the ability to use some AF lenses, and to use and meter with AI lenses.

Nikon doesn't have 50 mm DX lens, period. What are you guys talking about?

Thanks all. I decided to purchase the AF-S DX 50mm lens. I'm not afraid to spend the money. It's just that if I can save somewhere, I will. My interest is to use my kit lenses outside, and I want to be able to switch to the 50 while inside and in lower light situations. As for the nomenclature if the lenses, I'm simply parroting what I have seen on some web sites. I have a few sources from which to purchase the lens.

50 mm AFS lens will work with your camera, it will provide 75 mm lens view, good for portraits, not wide enough for anything else.

Yes, I don't know how the D300 sensor compares to the D3400.

 

But there are many features on the D300 that aren't on some later models, such as the ability to use some AF lenses, and to use and meter with AI lenses.

 

To be fair, the D7x00 bodies retain the ability to focus with "screwdriver" lenses, while all full frame bodies, the D500, and D7x00 bodies before the D7500 also retain the ability to meter with AI lenses. I actually prefer the method for entering non-CPU data on the D2 series bodies and D200 as compared to all later bodies, but that's mostly a consequence of the number of AI lenses I have.

 

Of course, newer bodies and all full frame bodies are getting into pretty decent money-even a beat, high mileage D700 might still bring $400.

 

The D300 image quality is nothing to sneeze at, and I still have some photos taken with mine that I love. I do think, though, that as I mentioned the D200 would be a big disappointment not just in terms of resolution but also dynamic range and color rendition for someone coming from a D3400. CCDs have fallen out of favor for good reason.

Nikon doesn't have 50 mm DX lens, period. What are you guys talking about?

 

This is a problem of working in a DX/FX world. I sometimes get confused between them.

Agree, I had to get a FX 50mm lens for my DX camera, because there wasn't a DX 50mm.

 

Now I don't know what lenses the OP is talking about.

Going on the Adorama site, I could not clearly back into which lenses he was referring to. I think they are:

- $250 AF-S DX, is a Nikon 50mm FX lens

- $100 AF-S (non DX), is a Yongnuo 50mm FX lens.

This is a problem of working in a DX/FX world. I sometimes get confused between them.

Agree, I had to get a FX 50mm lens for my DX camera, because there wasn't a DX 50mm.

 

Now I don't know what lenses the OP is talking about.

Going on the Adorama site, I could not clearly back into which lenses he was referring to. I think they are:

- $250 AF-S DX, is a Nikon 50mm FX lens

- $100 AF-S (non DX), is a Yongnuo 50mm FX lens.

He was probably talking about old D and new AFS lenses, old D has screw AF drive, will not focus on his camera.

Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX AF-s gives you a 'normal' angle of view on a DX camera. A 50mm lens will give you a more narrow 'portrait' AoV.

 

The 35mm f/1.8 goes used for well under $250. I bought mine for a mere £75 ( =about $110 US) from a pawnbroking type shop. It gives great image quality even wide open, and improves to excellent by f/2.8. Highly recommended.

 

Incidentally, I think $250 is too much to be paying for a used 50mm f/1.8(?) lens. Even with a warranty.

 

Another alternative might be to buy a speedlight with a decent amount of power and use it 'bounced'. YongNuo make a number of Nikon compatible flashes that won't break the bank. You should easily be able to cover a largish living-room with bounced flash at an aperture of f/5.6 and the camera set to ISO 400.

Edited November 7, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I think the 35mm f/1.8 DX new is about $200.

I think the 35mm f/1.8 DX new is about $200.

 

That's what my local store sells them for.

 

In fact, I paid $190 for mine since it was their "shelf" demonstrator model-they were out of unopened box examples the day I bought it.