shydroxide Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hi, My kit right now includes a Tokina 11-16 and a Nikkor 105 VR on a D300. I'm looking for one more fast lens (1.4, 1.8, 2.0) somewhere in the middle of these two lenses. I'm wondering whether I should grab the 30mm f/2 (which gives an angle of view on DX similar to a "normal" 50mm lens) or whether I should grab a 50mm, maybe wait a few months for the new AF-S 50 1.4's. Can anyone weigh in on this? I _just_ got the 11-16, so I don't really need to buy anything within the next month or two at least, but it'd be nice to know what the better idea would be. As far as I can see, the 50mm is probably the best idea if I plan to move to FX in the future (though at that point I'd have to sell the poor 11-16 and pick up the 14-24. :P). Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daverhaas Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Steve - I haven't shot the 30mm but I do use the 50 mm F1.8 - It's an incredible lens for portrait work and gives you a 75mm view on the Dx sensor - Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 30mm, definitely. At 45mm equivalent, I think it's an even better "normal" than the 50mm lenses are on film. 50mm was dictated by economy, it's easier to make a fast 50mm on the 35mm format than it is to make a fast 45mm. The 50mm quickly became one of my least favorite lenses on APS digital, from Nikon D100 to D2X. It's only back in my good graces with D3. At 75mm equivalent, it quickly revealed to me why the Nikon lens lineup used to go up in 20-30 % jumps from 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, then took a flying leap of 70% from 50mm to 85mm, then back to 20-30% for 105mm and 135mm. So, it appears that not only did 75mm not "mesh" with me, but it didn't sit right with a lot of people. I loved the Sigma 30mm f1.4 on the cropped cameras. Now, what is this about a 30mm f2.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shydroxide Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share Posted October 24, 2008 Oops! Duh, I meant the 35mm. Hurr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_worth Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I agree with Joseph above. I have the 30mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4 Sigma for my D200. The 30 is the one that I keep coming back to for all sorts of uses. The 50 is incredible for portraits, but that is about it. Every time I pull it out for general use, I end up switching to the 30 or a mid range zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rffffffff Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I like the 35 f/2 a lot more than the 50 on DX. I like the price of the 50 1.8 a lot more than the 35 price. If money is an issue, go with the 50 1.8. If money isnt a big issue, go with the 35 f/2. If money is no issue at all, go with the 85 1.4 or 24-70 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 or 200 f/2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Another vote for the 30/1.4. Great lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acbeddoe Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM on my D300; excellent normal lens. I use the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 for portraits.<P> I also have the Nikon 35mm f/2, but haven't used it much.<P> However, I most often use the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shydroxide Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share Posted October 24, 2008 The problem I have with the 17-55 is that it's DX only, which means I couldn't use it later on an FX body (well, I could, but probably only at 55mm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I really like the Sigma 30mm f1.4 on my D300. I keep finding more uses for it as Stephen mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvin_lim5 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 The Nikon 35mm f2 is a little gem and I really love it. If you are intending to upgrade to full frame and share the lenses, the 17-55mm is definitely out. If you are fine with something wider, you may want to opt for the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 or the older 20-35mm f2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_worth Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 You can use DX lenses on FF bodies. They just shoot crop. Just as useful as on a crop body. Personally, I'd rather buy a lens I can use the hell out of today than to worry about some theoretical camera I might own in the future. My D200 is plenty of camera to last me for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studor13 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Steve, FWIW, I think you are getting way ahead of yourself. A few years ago I bought the 35mm f/2 AIS. It still sits mostly unused. It has taken me well over 2 years to get on top of the 18-70mm DX (on a D70) and about the same time to really get to know the AF-D 50mm f/1.8. I also have the MF version and it also sits mainly unused. And now that I've upgraded to a D300 I have to start all over again. If I were you I would be overjoyed with the 11-16mm and spend a good year or two with that. However, since you are asking about a 50mm, I would get the new AF-S. I have no doubt that this is going to be THE lens that all others are referenced around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il_poveropiero Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Buy the 50mm 1.8 AND a used nikkor 28 AF 2.8, this lens is very cheap and really not bad (for street etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyMiller Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 How about neither - you speak about moving to FX in the future so why not a 17-35 f2.8 or the 35-70 f2.8. Both are excellent lenses and are made for FX format and the future way you intend to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_margolis Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Funny, I had both the 50mm and the 35-70. Dumped both of them with the switch to digital. Whenever I do the switch to FX, both would be excellent lenses. Today with DX, neither works for me. I have the 35mm f/2 but the 30mm f/1.4 looks pretty neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen_omeara Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Steve: I have the 50mm f/1.4 and it almost never comes off my d300. I have no plans to switch to the FX format for the near future but if I did the same lens would work beautifully. It is razor sharp and the colors and contrast are fantastic. I understand that the 1.8 is excellent as well and quite a bit cheeper. -Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuo_zhao Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 The 30mm Sigma or the 35 AF-D Nikkor would more or less function as normal lenses on DX. While the 50 become "75mm like", which makes it usable as a portrait lens. This is probably one of the DX format's adventages since fast 50mms are usually much cheaper than fast 85mms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_manessinger Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Some people seem to dislike 50mm on DX for general work, I don't. I also have not waited for the AF-S 50/1.4G, but instead have bought the Sigma 50/1.4, which is a fantastic lens with incredible bokeh, and I can't see the Nikkor possibly being any better. We'll see. I also have the Sigma 30/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.8. Both can't compete when it comes to bokeh, but both are very competent lenses otherwise. Around f4, out of focus highlights near the edge of the frame become triangular on the Sigma 30/1.4, and the Nikon 50/1.8 generally has a slightly harsher bokeh. In general, almost all fast primes produce pleasing bokeh wide open. Why not? At maximum aperture they all are no more than tubes with a lens, i.e. the aperture is round. It's slightly stopped down, where it gets interesting. Finally it all depends on what you want to shoot. If you want to shoot in good light, wide open and at close focus, all three lenses produce stunning results. At low light stopped down, at night out on the streets, I would prefer the Sigma 50/1.4. That's exactly the case where you frequently have point lights near the edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmulcahy Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I've been using a Nikon 50mm/1.4D and a 28mm/2.8D and I love them both. I paid $200 for the 50mm and $85 fro the 28mm. For portraits I'll usually go w/ the 50mm, but I usually keep my 28mm on the camera at all times as my walk around lens. 50mm can be too long when indoors, in smaller rooms. (on a DX format of course) not the greatest examples but portraits using both lenses: 28mm/2.8D- #1 - http://www.photo.net/photo/7858827 #2 - http://www.photo.net/photo/7858839 50mm/1.4D #1 - http://www.photo.net/photo/8029853 #2 - http://www.photo.net/photo/7859039 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now