Nikkor 35mm 1.8 AF-S or a Nikkor 50mm 1.4G?

[rsands]

<p>I'll add another $.02. I have had the Tamron 2.8 17-50 (non-VC) for over a year. Great lens, suits my purpose for group shots, portraits, and general walkaround travel lens, with one exception. Inside dim buildings, e.g. churches. Even with the D90 pushed to ISO800 and the lens wide open, shutter speeds are getting down to 1/20, which I can't handhold and even a monopod doesn't give me enough stability. So, for those situations, I bought the 35/1.8. Having another full stop and a bit has been very useful. <br>

Bad news; razor thin DOF. Not good for people shots at close distance (i.e. your objective). <br>

Good news; very sharp, even wide open, and weighs almost nothing extra in the bag.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>rick, with a d90 you should be able to shoot at ISO 1600 fairly cleanly. also, with a stabilized lens, 1/15 or 1/20 should be possible very easily. i can handhold with a non-stabilized lens at that speed, and i've gotten 1/25 on a 70-300 at 270mm with stabilization. of course a stabilized lens wont prevent motion blur, but it's nice for still lifes and posed portraits, where you can usually get away with 1/40.</p>

<p>brooke, a d7000 should be good for a full stop to stop and a half of high-ISO over a d90. so shooting at ISO 2500-3200 shouldn't be a big problem. be sure and post some pics with the tamron so we can see how you're doing!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric, I think your numbers are on the optimistic side. The D90 can yield decent results @ ISO 1600 and the D7000 @ ISO 3200, but those are at their upper ends and won't give anything near ideal results. (My rule of thumb is to avoid the top rated ISO on any Nikon DSLR.) So is hand holding at 1/20 sec; at such slow shutter speeds you have real concerns about subject movement.</p>

<p>If you have no other choice, those ISO and shutter speed combos are worth a try, and you want to shoot a few more samples so that you have a better chance to find one with decent results. Otherwise, I would highly recommend using a flash and/or tripod; again, for any group image, you don't want to shoot at f1.8 or even f2.8; you need depth of field to get everybody sharp.</p>

[flemming_nielsen]

<p>Good luck with Tamron's 17-50/2.8, Brooke.<br>

But bear in mind that at the wide end, your kit-Nikkor 18-55 is 3.5, so at that end, you are only gaining 2/3 of a stop for your investment.</p>

[flemming_nielsen]

<p>And you'll probably also be getting a sturdier lens, I might add, before the devoted Tamron-owners do.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>I own both the lenses you are asking about, and I'd have the say the 35 1.8 is a better all-around player. It's usually easier to step forward with the 35 than to back up with the 50. Keep in mind that there's more depth of field and 35 than at 50 on your DX camera at the same aperture. With the 35 I find myself shooting at 1.8 nearly always to make sure I'm getting enough background separation. My 35 seems to focus more consistently than the 50 and is noticeably lighter in weight. For strictly portraits I'd favor the 50, but for everyday shooting and for group shots like you're talking about, the 35 is a much better option. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, I think your numbers are on the optimistic side. The D90 can yield decent results @ ISO 1600 and the D7000 @ ISO 3200, but those are at their upper ends and won't give anything near ideal results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, of course if everything was ideal, we'd all shoot at ISO 100 all day. if that was the case, we could just use D200s and D2x's. but with the d90/d7000, you can get usable pics at those ISOs with those cameras, shun. i haven't shot with a d7000, but i've seen reasonably clean ISO 6400 pics with it. </p>

<p>i also am not recommending shooting people at 1/20--i clearly stated that 1/40 is about as low as i like to go, unless i'm using slow-sync flash. i just said 1/20 with a stabilized lens isnt out of the realm of possibility. if you have unsteady hands that's a different story.</p>

<p>i probably wouldnt shoot a landscape shot at ISO3200, but for brooke's situation, that should be ok in a pinch with the d7k. more critical is the tamron's performance at 2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But bear in mind that at the wide end, your kit-Nikkor 18-55 is 3.5, so at that end, you are only gaining 2/3 of a stop for your investment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> that's like saying half a loaf of bread costs $2.00. who buys half a loaf of bread? people buy 2.8 zooms for constant 2.8 throughout the range.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>shun. i haven't shot with a d7000, but i've seen reasonably clean ISO 6400 pics with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, the problem is that whether an ISO 6400 pic from the D7000 (or for that matter any high-ISO capture from any DSLR) is clean or not highly depends on the lighting for that particular scene. If the contrast for a particular scene is high, ISO 1600 from a D7000 can have a lot of noise issues in the shadow areas.</p>

<p>Last year, I pre-ordered the D7000 and received it from my local dealer pretty much as soon as it became available. Therefore, I have had one probably as long as anybody outside of Nikon. In my experience, 6400 is pushing it on the D7000. I certainly have had decent results at ISO 3200 from the D7000. I also have had really noisy images from the D7000 at ISO 800 and 1600.</p>

<p>ISO 3200 or even 1600 and shutter speeds as slow as 1/20 sec would be my last resort for group pictures.</p>