Good prime lens?

[b_jordan_munsayac]

The 50mm f/1.8D is the first lens I bought for my D40 after a little over a year using the 18-55 kit lens, and I love it!. You can count my vote for this lens as well. I bought mine used for just under 90$ in mint condition and I regretted not getting it earlier than I did. Although this lens does nto have AF suport on my D40 it was still worth the money, not to mention that you can't go wrong with the "fast" aperture at 1.8, for those shot when you need to open it up a little more for dim situations.

 

Unlike Beshr above, I found the optical quality was apparent right after my first shot, most noticeably in the sharpness and clarity. To me it would make sense that prime lenses would output better quality only because they are built with less amounts of glass than zoom lenses, but I could be wrong.

 

For what my amateur opinion is worth, in regards to your issue with catchlights in the eyes, I found that having a good light source helps in bringing the eyes out. Alot of people seem to use post processing to sharpen the eyes out a bit and make them "pop" - which is fine, but I also found that a little bit of timing (when the eyes are wide open), as well as placement of your subject in relation to your light source, and how tight of a will have a lot to do with the final result. I hope this helps- what are you waiting for go get your lens!

 

-B

[ilkka_nissila]

Unfortunately, Nikon's current wide angle primes are out of date, so you're pretty much out of luck if you need autofocus. For wide angles, I use manual focus primes, they're really good, and there are even better Zeiss versions. Starting from 50mm up, all the current autofocus primes are excellent.

[eric_arnold]

hi jennifer,

 

in this case improving your technique will help more than a new lens.

 

looking at this pic (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/jynn10/layne.jpg), it appears that the hand is in focus,

not the eyes. shooting active kids is tricky because they move around so much. looks like you need a higher shutter

speed and/or a greater depth of field (bigger aperture number). if you shot this with matrix metering, you might also

want to use spot or CW metering and concentrate on the eyes. if they are in focus the rest of the pic will look

clearer, as the human eye naturally looks to the eyes of a subject in a photo first.

 

feel free to ignore arthur's suggestions that you need to purchase a $1200 or $1700 lens to get sharp pictures. he's

obviously trying to justify all the expensive stuff he bought, but he also seems to have overlooked your budgetary

requirements of $200.

 

the 50/1.8 would be perfect for you. the price/quality ratio is the best you can do, period. it will surpass your 18-135

optically at most apertures, but also allow you to achieve narrow depth of field by using larger apertures (smaller

f/stop numbers). this is what makes subjects 'pop' in photos where the subject is in crisp focus and the background

is out of focus, otherwise known as bokeh.

 

the 50 is great for portraits since it behaves like a 75mm lens on a DX sensor, but too long for walkaround use (for

which your 18-135 is better-suited). it's also way better in low light than a kit lens, which is great for no-flash, natural

light pics.

 

if you want detailed eyes, though, narrow DoF is not your friend. shooting at max aperture with the 50mm (f/1.8), it's

possible to get one eye in focus and one out of focus, depending on how close you are. that's when you want to stop

down to f/4 or 5.6, maybe even f/8.

 

the 50/1.8 works great on a d80 and makes the camera very inobtrusive, which is good for candids.

 

now, about that 18-135. while optically more complicated and therefore not as crisp as a fixed-focal length lens

(aka "prime"), you can still get good, crisp, detailed shots with it. i'd try using (A) perture priority mode, which allows

you to set the aperture while the camera controls the shutter speed. if you're in bright lighting, use a low ISO value;

indoors or in poor lighting, set Auto-ISO to 800 or 1250, which is about the max. on a d80 without significant noise.

generally, best results will be obtained by stopping down 2-3 clicks on ANY lens. so for a 5.6 max aperture at

135mm, you should stop down to f/11; at 18mm and 3.5 max aperture, you'll get better sharpness by stopping down

to f/7.1 or f/8.

 

of course, if you still have problems like a hand in focus instead of an eye, you might have to bump up the shutter

speed as well. starting in A mode is still a good idea, but pay attention to the speed the camera sets when you

review your shots in the LCD. now switch to (M)anual mode, dial in your desired aperture, and bump the shutter

speed one click. repeat until desired effects are achieved. you might also have to tweak the ISO unless you are in

Auto-ISO mode when increasing the shutter speed and/or decreasing the aperture.

 

as far as a better zoom, i'd suggest something with a constant 2.8 aperture; anything else will be only a marginal

improvement on your 18-135. i personally like the tamron 17-50 and 28-75, which give excellent bang for the buck,

but both are way out of your current budget at around $400/$350, respectively.

 

you might want to see if amazon still has the sigma 24-60/2.8 for around $200. while probably not as good as the

$1700 24-70 arthur got so lathered up about, you dont need a lens that was designed for use on a $5,000 camera

(the D3); the 24-60 should work great on a D80.

 

one last suggestion: get "understanding exposure" by bryan peterson if you havent already. it's a great learning tool

which will allow you to take better pictures without emptying your wallet on new gear, which is useless if you dont

know how to use it properly anyway.

[johnw63]

To further comment on the last pictured talked about.... It does look like the child's hand and the leaf are in focus. They are also centered in the frame. I would guess you may have used the center AF point, which did it's job. The center is in focus. The problem is the kids face is OFF center. I think you can lock the focus and the face and then move the camera to get the composition you want. I know kids move a lot at that age, and you may just be shooting from the hip, but learning how the AF picks what to focus on may be helpful.

[Two23]

I'm not at all a fan of the single focal lenses. I have about four I'm selling, including the 50mm. I think they are WAY over hyped. They are now older lenses with the older pre-digital coatings. They aren't very flexible either--they can't zoom. What shutter speeds are you using? Do you use a tripod? Where are your AF focus points being placed? That's the place to start. I've come to think that a cheap lens on a tripod is sharper than an expensive lens that is hand held.

 

 

Kent in SD

[johnw63]

"I'm not at all a fan of the single focal lenses. I have about four I'm selling, including the 50mm. I think they are WAY over hyped. They are now older lenses with the older pre-digital coatings. They aren't very flexible either--they can't zoom."

 

I don't think primes are over hyped. They are often sharper than a zoom, simply because they are simpler. No moving parts, fewer glass elements. Well refined designs. The 50mm is quite probably the sharpest lens in anyones bag, for those reasons.

 

Older and without "digital coatings" isn't a problem for most good primes. In fact, some of the older zooms are still "pro grade" sharp lenses on dSLRs.

 

Yep. They don't zoom. Use them where their FoV or DoF or sharpness or SPEED are what you need to get. Fast primes are more flexible than a zoom, when you need a faster lens. Find me the f2.0 or faster zoom.

 

Given the original poster wants to do sharp portraits and wants to keep it under $200, I think a prime lens just might be what she needs.

[lorriman]

If you have some money then consider the 105mm/f2 DC AF Nikkor. It is expensive. It allows you to adjust spherical aberration to get perfect bokeh in all circumstances, which no ordinary lenses give, not even the supposed bokeh Kings one sometimes hears of. If you do a lot of people shooting then you may know the importance of the non-distracting background, and perfect bokeh is the route ot background heaven. It is also a pro level lens and built to last.

[charlie_meyer]

It depends on what you are 'prime'arily shooting.

 

OK, I'm a film rangefinder, specifically Leica, kinda guy. My camera world is pleasantly frozen round 1955 (IIIc/M3s). For street, I'm very fond of 35mm focal lengths. Wider lenses are much easier to focus. I generally don't go beyond 90mm. I have three of each. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome: I'm fighting the cure.) The 'normal' 50 is kept for available light where speed trumps the convienience of the wider lenses. I used my 135mm one day only in a football stadium. Bag weight.

 

Zoom lenses on the film SLR I have, I found to be sloooow and a terrible compromise. Were I digital, I'd think I'd be worried about noise from jacking up the ASA to make zooms usable.

 

Your mileage may vary...

[edwardchen]

I agree with Kent in SD regarding primes. I sold two primes because it is not right to my shooting. They are are not as versatile as zooms. And newer zooms lenses are optically good as well.

 

I also agree that 50/1.8 is overhyped. This lens is certainly not everybody. True, it is sharp, but only if you take it from f/2.8 and up. If you shoot wide open, (f/1.8-f/2.2) it loose its sharpness and contrast. But it is cheap and lightweight and sharp over f/2.8. So if you are in pursue of sharpness, you should "alter" you mind that you actually purchase a 50/2.8 lens.

[bambang indrayoto]

Ah masa sih ? 50 1.4 punya gue tajem-tajem aja tuh..