Do I need 50 mm 1f/.8 if I have 28-75mm f/2.8

[dmitriy_dribinskiy]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am going to travel and need an advise - would you recommend to add to my kit a Nikon <a name="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html"></a>Normal AF 50mm f/1.8D Lens if I already have Tamron <a name="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284402-REG/Tamron_AF09NII_700_28_75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html"></a>28-75mm f/2.8? I realize the difference between 1.8 and 2.8, but is it worth the investment? <br>

P.S. My another lens is Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6, shooting with Nikon D7000. THANK YOU!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you need to ask, the chance is that you don't need any 50mm/f1.8, but if you get one, I would get the AF-S version.</p>

<p>If there is any lens that is missing so that you have a hard time shooting certain subjects, it should be clear to you. That is why I think since you need to ask, no such need is necessary at this time.</p>

<p>BTW, if you need one faster lens, perhaps the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S would be a better option on the D7000 than the 50mm.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd agree with Shun. If you have to ask, you probably don't need it.</p>

<p>I carry the 50/1.8D because it's small and light, but seldom use it. The very good 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor covers that focal range and speed reasonably well. And the f/1.8 maximum aperture turned out to be redundant - I already had the 50/2 AI. I might have gotten more use from the 50/1.4D.</p>

<p>Since I use a DX dSLR, I'd get more use from a fast 28mm or 35mm, preferably an f/1.4.</p>

[gsbhasin]

<p>Not really.</p>

<p>If anything get the 35/1.8 for a light extremely sharp lens.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I, too, have the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D and rarely use it - partly because I don't really like normal focal lengths (I shoot FX - it would be a inconveniently-short telephoto on DX) and partly because the performance is awful wide open. Stopped down it's extraordinarily sharp, but you don't have to stop down far before in overlaps with the 28-75. I've used it in very dark conditions when I've not had an equivalently fast prime available - blurry is better than no image at all - but otherwise I've only really used it when I wanted a really small lens. And for that, I've been considering an E-series 50 f/1.8 AI, which is more or less a pancake (my first reaction to the 50 f/1.8 is "why is the front element recessed so much?" - on an E-series, it isn't, so the lens is much shorter).<br />

<br />

I recently got a 50 f/1.8 AF-S, which is much sharper at larger apertures - but it's also significantly larger and more expensive. Double price and weight again, and you get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, which is clearly distinct from what the 28-75 can do. These days, to me, the 50 AF-D falls between two stools - it's neither tiny enough nor high-end enough.<br />

<br />

Not that I plan to get rid of mine. It's still a convenient small, cheap, lens - and on the rare occasions when I need multiple full-frame Nikons shooting in the dark, I may need it. But then I don't have an f/2.8 normal zoom.</p>

[Two23]

<p>No, you don't need it at all. Simply dial up ISO on your d7000. The fewer pieces you take while traveling, the better. I do have to ask though, how the heck you get by with no lens wider than 28mm. I couldn't do it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i have those same two lenses. the 50 is only marginally sharper at 2.8, so it's really only good for when you want to go stealth. of course the tamron is fairly compact in the first place. i'd go for the sigma 30/1.4 or the nikon 35/1.8 instead, or maybe an ultrawide if you're shortest focal length is 28mm.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I don't see the point. I do own a 50/1.8 AF D, but that is because it was cheap and my 28-70/2.8 is actually quite big. I didn't buy it for the f/1.8 aperture as I don't usually shoot wider than f/2.8 anyway. This fad about wide apertures, mostly instigated by film-makers, is quite obnoxious, I think. The widest I have needed with modern digital cameras would be f/2.8. Occasionally I may have wished for f/2.0.</p>

<p>I used to lust after the 200/2.0, just as I used to lust after the Noctilux. No longer. I even have a 105/1.8 Ai-S but in hindsight I should not have bought it, even though it was not expensive.</p>

<p>Today's digital cameras have made progress. Take advantage of the fact that you don't need super-fast lenses anymore.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I have both a 35mm f1.8 (DX) and the 50mm f1.8D. The 50 was so cheap I keep it, but I rarely use it. The 35 gets regular use.</p>

<p>That said, these days, I mostly take family snaps, and the 18-70 zoom sits on my camera almost all the time.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I used to lust after the 200/2.0</blockquote>

 

<p>Lust after the 200 f/2 with impunity. I have one and it's sharp wide open (not <i>as</i> sharp as at f/4, but easily sharp enough for use), it has beautiful bokeh, it makes ugly backgrounds go away, and it has no appreciable LoCA (unlike most of the shorter fast lenses). All this, and it's good for your biceps. I'm not sure about the Noctilux - like most fast lenses it's a bit LoCA-prone, although I'd not turn one down if one were given to me (preferably with a new "M" to use it on).<br />

<br />

Both for subject isolation and to suck in a lot of photons, wide apertures can be very useful. I'm missing it a bit on my D800 - on my D700 I shot a lot wide open, but on my D800 I'm stopping down more to keep lens aberrations under control, especially with older lenses; still, sometimes losing an ugly background is more important than microcontrast, especially if you nail the focus. The 50 f/1.8 AF-D, being such a simple design, is particularly poor at wide apertures (though it can still be better than nothing) - we shouldn't judge all fast lenses by its performance.</p>

[pge]

<p>I guess I am going to have to disagree with everyone. I, Like Lex, have the 35-70mm AFD which I like, but it is quite a heavy lens. I use 8 lenses with my D700 and my 50mm is easily the lens that is on my camera the most. It is light and brilliant. <br /><br />I know you asked about the AFD which I have (and now use with my d200), but I also have the AFS and would recommend it.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Dmitry, I like having a fast prime on my camera. For an APS camera like yours, a 50 is a nice portrait lens and the AFS 35 is close to "normal."</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'd pack a true macro lens for travel. Forget the 50mm f/1.8, which you'll probably use all of two or three times at full aperture, and invest in a 60mm macro.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I'd pack a true macro lens for travel. Forget the 50mm f/1.8, which you'll probably use all of two or three times at full aperture, and invest in a 60mm macro.</blockquote>

 

<p>In that case, perhaps split the difference with a Tamron 60mm f/2 macro?</p>

[evannorth]

<p>the nikon 50mm f1.8 af-d is available new or used for next to nothing. light, sharp, and great bokeh. takes up very little room too. it also focuses closely and works really well with a raynox filter making it a very veratile bit of glass indeed!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Evan, I think you'll find that some of those on this thread might dispute "sharp" (except stopped down, when it admittedly is very good) and "great bokeh" (which I'll dispute under any circumstances, and not be alone in doing so). I'm not going to call it a useless lens, but as a complement to the Tamron I'd be inclined to save for the AF-S version (which is much sharper at the apertures which aren't shared), and which really <i>does</i> have nice® bokeh.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>For travel, you're fine with what you have and adding another lens would just be more to carry around.<br /><br />My recommendation for a basic lens kit is a 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200, preferably all 2.8 (although my 12-24 is a 4.0). That lets you cover about 90 percent of what most people shoot. Only after you've got that basic kit do I recommend adding specialty lenses like a super fast prime (for low light and extreme bokeh effects), a macro, etc. Your 28-75 covers the middle range of those three well enough. But your other zoom is on the slow side and you might want to replace with a 70-200 2.8 eventually.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>My recommendation for a basic lens kit is a 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200, preferably all 2.8</blockquote>

 

<p><i>Basic?</i> Each to their opinion. I don't have, or want, a fast normal zoom, and I acquired an 80-200 f/2.8 only fairly recently (and now I have a D800, it's not really "fast" by the time I've stopped it down for sharpness). It depends what and how you shoot - I've quite often done well enough with a good selection of primes, complemented by some slow (but sharp) zooms. I'm happy to shoot my 14-24 or a range of telephoto primes starting at 85mm, but I'm rarely "normal", as it were. (While I have both the 50 f/1.8 AF-D and AF-S, I don't expect to use my recently-acquired AF-S all that much.) But I'm not sure I'd recommend anything to anyone without seeing what they like to shoot - or at least what restrictions they run into most when using their existing kit. If you're not being restricted in a way that a new lens will fix, it's not a useful solution to you.</p>