Here's an amateur question...

[way_the_keyed]

I have an N70 that I've been very happy with for a few years now. I

have two Tamron zooms that have suited me well, but I am starting to

feel like they are a bit of a weak link. This is my first set-up,

and the lenses are starting to get pretty beat up, which isn't

surprising considering that I take into the backcountry and up on

mountains and such.

 

Anyway, I have been looking into getting some new lenses that will

also be compatible with either an F100 or a D70. I have yet to

decide which. The age-old debate rages on.

 

I want to start shooting more portraits in addition to the action-

type outdoor stuff that I have doing. And so I was thinking about

getting a few primes, namely a 50mm f/1.8 and an 85mm 1.8.

 

So, two questions. 1) are these good sizes for my first two prime

lenses. 2, the amateur question) why are the 1.4's of the same sizes

SO much more money?. is 1/2 stop of light that important to warrant

3 times the price?

 

Thanks in advance.

[brandonhamilton]

Honestly, I think you already know the answer to all of your questions. I think the 50 and the 85 are fantastic choices if you are looking for a pair of nice fast primes. The 105 is also an option if you want more distance coverage, but the 85 is great, maybe the best portrait lens on the planet. Know that on the D70, these become 75 and 127mm lenses.

 

The 50mm f1.4 is more expensive then the 1.8, but not obsurdly so. Rather then ask why the 1.4 is so much more money, I would ask why the 1.8 is so much less! Plain and simple... it has a more plastic build, and its 100X more popular.

 

Either the 1.8 or 1.4 will work fine. If you wont be using that tiny bit of an Fstop, don't buy it. The 1.8 is cheaper, slightly lighter, and usually regarded as being slighly sharper.

 

Good luck.

[rick_twigg]

If you search some past threads on this topic, you'll see that basically everyone who has compared the 2 feels the 1.8 is a little sharper. I do a lot of lugging my gear around backcountry locations like you do and have found the weight savings of the plastic 1.8 a significant factor as well.

[mattalofs]

If we are lucky someone will post a lens test that shows that at 2.0 the 1.4 versions of those lenses are better than the 1.8 versions.

 

How about a 35 and an 85? A bit more spread there.

[huntrbll]

I have to agree with the suggestion of a 35mm, or perhaps even a 28mm, to go along with the 85mm. The 85mm would be a great portrait lens, and the moderate wide angle would serve your needs better in the mountains. If you are leaning towards a D70, with the so-called 1.5x multiplier effect on lenses, then I would definitely go for a moderate wide angle. On a D70 the 85mm would still be a good portrait length, and a 28mm would still give a somewhat wide-angle view.

[cooper8168]

I also agree with the suggestions of a 28mm or 35mm to go along with the 85mm. I

absolutely love

my 28 - it's my favorite lens on both my D70 and my Nikon film body.

[steve_muntz]

At least you spelled amateur correctly! :)

 

Both focal lengths are very useable on either 35mm or a D70, plus they're light, fast and sharp. But if you're in the backcountry a lot I would think you'd want a wide lens as well. Personally I'd consider a 24 or 28 along with the 85.

 

I chose the f1.4 versions of the 50 and 85, but the reasons are pretty subtle. Some times I shoot in very low light and the 2/3 stop does actually make a difference. If you don't need the extra aperture I'd stay with the f1.8 lenses - they're lighter, smaller and less expensive.

[susan_smith5]

Here are some Nikon lens links:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

 

http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon.html

 

http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/Nomenclature.htm

 

http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm

 

http://bythom.com/nikkordb.htm

 

http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/nikonfmount/lens2.htm

 

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/compatibility.html

 

 

I have the 24/2.8 AIS, 50/1.8 AI (what plastic?) and 85/2 AI - all are great. Others here don't think much of them, but its always a case of juggling needs and budget - do some homework and then go for it!

[loreneidahl]

Echoing what has already been said . IF you dont need the 1.4 get the 1.8

 

For me personally I need the 1.4 and even that is too slow some times. ( I wish Nikon made an 85 1.2 like Canon )

 

Outside of that the 50 1.8 is the sharpest lens. I love the 85 1.8 and it is my favorite outside of low light needs. The 85 1.8 for portraits is actually a bit TOO sharp.

 

Both of these lenses will work fine on your N70 ot a F100 I got one myself and it works great with these lenses.

[randy_skopar]

I was so happy with my 105 2.5 AI that buying the 85mm 1.4 ED was really an experiment. I thought I'd try the lens for a while and then sell it for what I had in it. However! I have found the 85 to be useful beyond my imagining. Having that level of speed with a medium tele opens a lot of possibilities. And the sharpness, color rendition, and bokeh of that lens are big bonuses. You might be perfectly happy with the 1.8 85mm, however: it is just as sharp as the 1.4, is a good bit lighter, and much less expensive. At the 50mm focal length, I'd recommend getting an AIS, either 1.4 or 1.8. They are both superb! At 28mm? There's only one choice: the 2.8 AIS. What a piece of work!!!

[raczoliver]

I think a two lens combo of 85mm and 35mm would be better than 85 and 50. They are just a bit too close I think. The 50mm in my opinion fits better into a three lens combo of 24 (or 28), 50, and 105 (or 135). These are the three focal lengths that I use, and I very rarely think I need a fourth lens, but when I do, it is a 35mm. If you use two primes, I think you'd often find yourself in situations when you'd need need a third one, so if your budget does not allow to buy three at a time, I would buy two that are further away from each other in focal length, and keep one of the zooms until I could save up on the third prime.

[b_b21]

Everyone has told you about their peculiar likings of such and such lenses. Everyone is valid and very true, diferent lenses for diferent situations.

 

For your " amateur question) why are the 1.4's of the same sizes SO much more money?. is 1/2 stop of light that important to warrant 3 times the price?"

 

Sorry to tell you but we don't live in a linear world. If you want to go in a car at 110mph you can buy your self New Beetle for $30,000 usd (give or take a few grand). If you want to ride a car at 220mph you would surely have to buy Porsche or something in the price range of $300,000 usd. So you see the same thing hapens with lenses. There is a point in technololgy that a marginal increment in performance gives you a huge increment in cost.

 

If you think a 50mm f1.4 is expensive take a look at Canon 50mm f1.0 to the best of my knowledge the "precious" little thing is worth $5,000 usd.

 

Take care and keep shooting.

[way_the_keyed]

Excellent! You are all great. Thanks a ton for your responses. I think what I am going to do is get the 50 1.8 first, since it's the cheapest, and then in a month or so, add something wide (24 or 28) and something longer (either 85 or 105). I could probably afford all of them now, but it would be tight. Plus, that might be a few too many new toys at once.

 

Thanks again, all.