Nikon 50mm f/1.8?

[tyler_webb]

Is this a good lens for low light? Night time city scapes? I have a nikkor AF-S DX 18-70mm kit lens that came with my D70s. I have been

using that. Or does anyone have any good affordable lenses to suggest.

[Jerry_]

<p>You might just use <strong>a solid tripod</strong> and your kit lens for night-time images. A exposure of several seconds (or more) at f11 or f8 with your 18-70mm lens would not be vastly improved with the 50mm f1.8 lens at f11 or f8.</p>

<p> </p>

[nishnishant]

<p>At around 120 bucks, it's good value for money even if you don't use it *grin*</p>

[tyler_webb]

Well that's also what I need. I'm going to get a good tripod this month. Mine is not ideal. Is it a good lens for more portait

shots then? Or atleast to have in my kit?

[amin_siminati]

<p>it's a great lense to get. If you want to shoot portrait, night/low light, or indoor sports from close up , and it's an outstanding lense for the price. The images are prob going to be sharper to.. (haven't used the 18-70mm, but it's sharper than the 18-135mm.)</p>

<p>I love shooting wrestling, and basketball with it...</p>

[jorish]

<p>Yes to the 50/1.8, and yes to the tripod.</p>

<p>Though to be honest, I *do* use the 50/1.8, but never use the tripod as I always keep forgetting to bring it...<br>

Placing it on the ground, a bench, or holding it as still as possible against a tree or building, the 50/1.8 and 242.8 get me very nice nightscapes. The 50 also gets me most of my portraits, a lot of my theatre shots, and is just on my camera most of the time.</p>

<p>Now, until about a year ago I would have stopped here, but since then lot's of users have been pointing out the new 35/1.8. Haven't tried it yet, but it's definitely on my wishlist. Less tele than the 50/1.8 it's usually nicer for -scapes, but might be too wide for portraits...</p>

<p>Good luck spending your $$ ;)</p>

[rossb]

<p>I think both of those lenses are excellent. I have the 50mm f1.8 but I do not have the zoom your speaking of. I do not doubt the 18-70 lens would not work well. I would use either lens for night time city scapes myself. I would use a tripod, mini tripod, sand bag or whatever I could think of. It certainly depends on the scene and the effect your are using but I would probably shoot at f8 or f11 in order to increase the depth of field in your pictures. This would certainly require a tripod due to the longer exposure. But if the pictue/vision you see will work best with a wide aperture then of course use it. I have a normal bogen tripod and a bogen mini tripod that I use a lot. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>It's a good lens. Better image quality than the older 50/1.4 unless you want deliberately unsharp images (like I do sometimes). And especially with digital cameras, that half (or third) of a stop is meaningless.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I am mainly a night photographer. This time of year it is dark most of the time. If you don't have a decent tripod and head, that is absolutely your first priority. The head is more important than the tripod, too. A decent ballhead with quick release plates is the way to go. Put your money into that. Skip the lens. Without a tripod you'll just blurry shots.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Its a fantastic lens, but the 35mm f1.8 is way more useful on DX. In fact, since I got the 35, I have not used my 50 for one single solitary shot. It's REALLY nice for head-and-shoulders portraits, though.</p>

[reid_priedhorsky]

<p>Tyler, I think it's important to thoroughly identify your gaps before planning lens purchases. What are the flaws in your photography? What would you like to do that you can't do or it's difficult to do? Would more equipment help, or do you just need to work on your technique? If and only if the former, <em>then</em> consider what equipment to buy.</p>

<p>You seem to have done this a little, but I suggest you think more before looking at specific lenses.</p>

<p>Believe me, I've made this mistake several times and it cost me a bunch of money. :)</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Reid</p>

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>For $120, the 50mm f/1.8 is the only "bargain" I've experienced in digital photography. I love it for portraits and parties where everyone isn't too crowded in. It is great with kids because I can stay a suitable distance away and have a relatively small gear setup (the lense is small) so that they don't get freaked out, yet I can still get in tight enough and get terrific shallow depth-of-field. <br>

Lens is so light it makes me decide to take my camera sometimes when I'd otherwise leave it behind. FWIW, I also love my 35mm f/2 for many of the same reasons. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I agree it's an amazing and great lens, one which I don't use at all since I got my 35.</p>

<p>Anybody want one basically mint in box? email me with an offer.</p>

[pontus_wallst_n]

<p>I have been getting excellent night shots with my 18-200mm VR on my Nikon D2Xs, but with a tripod, and exposure times as long as 15, or sometimes even 25 seconds. But yes, as people have said, tripods are almost always a must to limit blurr at long shutter speeds.<br>

The 1.8 is probably good though. I have the 1.4 (50mm) and i find it excellent, although not so good for wideshots obviousely, as its 50mm and not 18....<br>

maybe rent the lens and compare it with your 18-70 or other lenses, shooting night shots.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>Somewhat OT but re: "forgetting a tripod." <br>

Used to do this all the time until I realized there was no point in storing it in a closet. Keep it in your car. If you have and regularly drive two cars, get two tripods.</p>

<p> </p>

[tyler_webb]

Haha thanks everyone. I think Reid's imput best applies since I'm impulsive. But I have a tripod. ALWAYS use it. I have

very shaky hands. I know what tripod I want. And have a birthday in January which I'll get it. I have Christmas money so

I've been looking on craislist. But I do see that the 35mm is on amazon for like $199. Is that a better investment for like

and extra $120 or so? I just wouldn't mind a good prime lens.

[lee_richards2]

<p>Every Nikon shooter should have the 50mm F1.8. It is soooo sharp. It is super at night but you will want a good tripod and head if you are going to shoot at night. Once you have that the lens choice is not much different than in the daytime.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Tyler writes [but I do see that the 35mm is on amazon for like $199. Is that a better investment for like and extra $120 or so? I just wouldn't mind a good prime lens.] The 35 and 50 are different focal lengths. The 50 is almost like a portrait lens and is pretty good at that on DX. The 35 is more like a standard and more useful, imho, for general photography.</p>