need a suggestion

<p> I currently have a Nikon D40 with the kit lens 18-55 and a 55-200. I am planning on getting a AF-S 50 f/1.4 or a AF-S 35 f/1.8 DX. If I choose to get the 35mm DX then I will also be purchasing a sb600 with it as well. I mainly do portraits and prefer natural light, but I wouldn't mind having a flash to expirement with. One of the main reasons for getting the 35mm DX or af-s 50mm f/1.4 is to take pictures of my newborn son, he is only two weeks old.<br>

I am just not sure if I should get the af-s 50 f/1.4 or the 35mm DX and the sb600. If anyone has any other opinions and/or can guide me to which one, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.</p>

<p>Is regular flash to such young infant healthy? I'm grown but I would be very annoyed by constant flashing bright light:)</p>

<p>The 35mm would probably be a little too wide for portrait work. You could try it out by setting your kit lens to 35mm and see what it looks like. If it wasn't for the need for AF-S, I'd say get the 50mm 1.8 instead so you could get the flash too. Have you looked into any third party 50mm lenses? The Sigma HSM lenses will AF on the D40.</p>

<p>lol, no, not the flash for the kid, haha. Deffinetly not using the flash for the kid, but for other portrait work. I will look into the sigma and the 50mm 1.8, thanks. I think I will go try a few shots at 35 and 50, and see what i come up with right fast :D</p>

<p>I would recommend 50 1.4 or even 1.8 as portrait.</p>

<p>35 is too wide for portraits.. as others said as well </p>

<p>With the D40 body, you need the AF-S type of Nikkor lenses if you want to use auto-focus....</p>

<p>The AF 50mm f1.8D Nikkor lens won't AF on a D40 camera.</p>

<p>Nikon makes af-s 50mm, its $440.</p>

<p>You have an 18-55 so you can see the perspective at both 35 and 50 -- see which one you like better and/or that you currently use the most. Also, adding an SB-600 for some fill (bouncing indoors) seems perfectly reasonable.</p>

<p>Yeah, thats what im trying to figure out now. haha. Id love to get the flash. The 35mm would mainly get used for indoor shots of the newborn in low light, like when he is in his crib or drinking his bottle, just close up shots like that, I just don't want the 35mm to make him look distorted or anything like that when trying to somewhat fill the frame up with him. So far, with 35mm set on the kit lens, they have all been great, none really distorted or make him look weird. Just wondering if anyone else had any problems at 35mm with a newborn or if it worked out ok for them.</p>

 

<p>

 

<p>Why would a 35mm lens, especially on a DX body, make someone look distorted? The 35mm f/1.8 has roughly the same perspective as a 50mm lens on a full-frame body, which is considered "normal". Even on a full-frame body the perspective of a 35mm lens does not have a particularly exaggerated "wide-angle" look. But the main thing is what you prefer. You can see for yourself what a 35mm perspective does with your kit lens!</p>

<p>Personally, I would probably prefer the 35mm lens on a DX body, but a fast 50 can make a good portrait lens. Don't worry about the maximum aperture of the 35/1.8 being f/1.8 and the 50/1.4 AF-S being f/1.4. Due to the difference in focal length, you'd be able to hand-hold either one at about the same shutter speed. Both are fine lenses.</p>

 

</p>

<p>You should probably take your kit lens and practice framing 35mm shots, and then practice 50mm shots, and see which one you're more comfortable with. Then buy that lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> So far, with 35mm set on the kit lens, they have all been great, none really distorted or make him look weird. Just wondering if anyone else had any problems at 35mm with a newborn or if it worked out ok for them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It won't make him look ridiculously distorted like a wide angle. It's just a different perspective compared to a 50mm (x1.5). The relative size of the nose vs. the ears will be ever so slightly different (more pronounced as you get closer). A far greater concern is your working distance, and how tight/wide you want the background. 35mm is fine for portraits, especially since babies aren't like people and don't get buggy when your camera is 3 ft from their face.</p>

<p> It depends on how close you get to the subject, in this case your baby (congratulations!). For, say a head shot of a baby with the 35mm on a Dx body, yes, you'd get what we used to call light bulb head. But then, babies already have very rounded heads. The 50mm would be a little more flattering, and what I would choose.</p>

<p>Portraits can be done with a variety of focal lengths. It depends on what you want. With the DX format of the D40 you will probably find the 50mm very versatile. I have also done portraits with the Nikkor 35mm f 2.0 lens. Here is one fairly close up of a little girl with this lens. I don't see any distortion. I've done portraits with the 28mm lens as well, but was a back a little and included some of the background. With a DX format I have used everything from 28mm to 105mm successfully for portraits. See my folders or website. I also use available light for most portraits.</p><div></div>

<p>Like Sam said, the 35mm on a DX body will have about the same perspective as a 50mm on a FF or 35mm body. While that is considered the "normal" lens in terms of perspective, it can distort the face somewhat in a tight head shot. As you can see in Steve's shot (great shot BTW) there is no distortion in a head and shoulders shot.</p>

<p>I would get the 35mm f/1.8 and the SB-600. All the pediatricians I've talked to and read say that the flash will not hurt the child. Just to be safe, I always stay back and use a short tele with the flash or use bounce flash. As far as the flash bothering the child, they get used to it very fast. Just don't stick it in his/her face.</p>