In need of recommendation for a good lens please.

[doghouse_reilly]

I have a N75 Nikon body (budget compromise) with the 28-80mm that

come with it. I am an amateur photographer. I specialy like to photo

people (portrates and generally), landscapes&nature when i am on

trips.

I am asking you good guys on this forum, to help me choose a good

lens, because the 28-80G is a bit dark and I am a bit disapointed

from its results. Before i had this camera I had an old Minolta 3xi

body with a new 28-80 Minolta lens that was better than this one. I

eben had a dodgy 35-70 exakta lens that was better than the 28-80

nikkor.

I would also like to hear what you think about a good prime lens

(like 50/1.4) - is it worthy, will it make my experience with the

new Nikon body better?

 

thank you for helping.

[arnabdas]

Joseph,

 

If I were you I'd do this --

 

1. Get rid of the 28-80 lens.

 

2. Get a 28-105 nikkor

 

3. Get a 50/1.8 (*not* the 50/1.4) AF-D nikkor

 

4. Shoot happlily until I maximized on these two lenses' capabilities

 

Hope this helps,

[arnabdas]

And I'm assuming you already have a good tripod

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"I specialy like to photo people (portrates and

generally)..." --Joseph Shelnutt<br>

</em><br>

Since you put this first in your list of interests I think the

choice is quite simple: buy an AF 85/1.8D Nikkor. Later you might pickup a AF 50/1.8D and a AF 24/2.8D.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[jbq]

First, you need a 50/1.8, because it's a crime to not have a 50mm prime (seriously, it's fast, sharp, light, and cheap) ($100). I loved mine.

 

Going against the common practice, I'm not going to recommend any other mid-range zoom. You're going to spend $300 on a lens that's not gonna be any faster. Your 28-80 is OK on the wide end, it's actually reasonably fast (f/3.3 at 28mm).

 

If you want a faster wide-angle, your only reasonable choice will be the excellent 35mm f/2 ($225). Skip the 28/2.8, which is only marginally better and marginally faster than zooms, and the next good stop is the very good 24mm f/2.8 ($240). Avoid buying a 28/2.8 or 35/2 used, older versions of the 28mm were less sharp than the current version, and older 35mm may have trouble with oil on the aperture blades.

 

One the long end, the 28-80 isn't quite as good. It's slow at f/5.6, and it has an absolutely awful background blur so that it's pretty much unusable for portraits.

 

I was actually very happy with my 70-300G. It's f/4 at the wide end, one full stop faster than the 28-80. I shot a number of portraits with it, wide open, and I was always happy with the results, with a superbly smooth background blur (just don't push your subject too far in the corners). Maybe I was lucky and got a good sample. One the other hand, that lens is just bad beyond about 180 or 200mm. Think of it as a decent 70-180 f/4-5. ($125).

 

Disclaimer: I've switched from Nikon to Canon.

[jbq]

Oh, I obvisouly forgot, Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 is also excellent, fast, sharp, and in the range traditionally used for portraits ($305).

[lachaine]

I bought my first F80 as a kit with the 28-80G lens. I wasn't very impressed with it. The pictures just couldn't compare with those taken with the prime lenses I had used on my Pentax cameras for 30 years prior to that. Having nothing but a slow zoom lens on the camera when having been used to fast prime lenses is pretty limiting. The other problem with the 28-80G is that the distortion is wicked.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the kit zooms that come with cameras nowadays are very much like the plastic pedals that come on otherwise fine, expensive bicycles - just something to pedal with until you can exchange them for quality clipless pedals. The kit zooms get you taking pictures, but the quality isn't better than what you would get with bottom-of-the-line Point & Shoot camera, or an old Instamatic. This is one area where the equipment does make a difference.

 

I ended up with a 50mm 1.8D, then I added a 24mm 2.8D and an 85mm 1.8D. Now I have the pictures I thought I would have with a Nikon. I tried a 28-105D zoom for a while. It's better than the 28-80G, but it's still a slow lens. However, if you have to have a zoom, I do recommend the 28-105D, since it's well-built, and it has virtually no distortion. If you decide to go that route, you can still buy the 50mm 1.8D, which is a superb lens at any price.

 

My overriding opinion, which I'm sure many would disagree with, is that you completely negate the advantages of the 35mm format when you don't use fast, sharp lenses on it.

[david_h._hartman]

Here is an article you might like reading...<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten-lens.htm"

target="_new"><u>Article: The Forgotten Lens</u></a><br>

<br>

A lot of this article applies to the 85/1.8 as well as fast 50mm

lenses. If the AF 85/1.8D is too much right now the AF 50/1.8D is

an excellent choice. Its as sharp and contrasty as you

could want. The sharpest Nikkor Ive tested is the 50/1.8 AI

and the AF-D version is likely virtually the same in optical

design.<br>

<br>

Here is a good place for subjective Nikkor lens reviews...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Click "Lenses" on the left once your in. <br>

<br>

The AF 28~105/3.5~4.5D is a nice lens though its a little

more prone to flare and ghost than some zooms. It really needs a

lens hood and the hood is quite big. The maximum aperture of f/4.5

at 105 (actually its 29~100) is not large enough for me

especially since the lens should be stop down 1 stop or 2. I had

one an let it go because of the speed issue. Combined with a 50/1.8

it can be a good travel lens. The AF 28~105/3.5~4.5D has quite low distortion for a zoom lens and it's quite well built.<br>

<br>

The really choice AF zooms are very expensive.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[at]

I 2nd David's recommendation....A 24mm f2.8 a 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm

f1.8. That is one great lens line up. It should carry you far as you

perfect/explore your photography. I also agree about the f1.8 vs. the f1.4 type lenes. The 85 f1.4 is way too expensive and the 50 f1.4 is inferior to the 50mm f1.8.

 

And yes a tripod is a must.

[EricM]

Joseph,

 

The three focal lengths typically used for portraiture are 135mm, 105mm, and 85mm. The 85/1.8 is awesome for the price, they are more common and cheaper than the other two primes. The 135/2 and the 105/2 are beautiful and expensive. If you are not satisfied with your 28-80, and still wish for a zoom, then for sharpness and happiness, you might have to get the f2.8 constant zooms.

[jason_au]

Hello everyone,

 

May I join? Like Joseph, I am looking for good AF lens. Often, I thought that 24/2.8, 35/2 and 85/1.8 are suitable. But most of you suggested 24/2.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.5. It made me to think over. I agree and it makes sense.

 

It surprised me that 50/1.8 is better than 50/1.4. Often I thought wider aperture is better. It seems I am wrong.

 

In fact, I have my AIS 50/1.2. I love it so much because it is fast and also it gives me sharp photo. I used it often. This was why I thought of 24/2.8, 35/2 and 85/1.8.

 

Thank you in advance.

[jbq]

Jason - either 24-35-85 or 24-50-85 leaves a big gap in the lineup. I you really must work with 3 lenses, go for 28-50-85.

 

35/2 is about as hand-holdable as 50/1.8, I find it more appropriate for shots inside churches or museums.

 

In theory, lenses with smaller apertures can be made to be better that lenses with larger apertures. One the other hand, when a manufacturer makes two lenses at the same focal length, the one with the larger aperture is often meant for professional use and targets a much higher price point, so that the materials, techniques and build quality can compensate for the larger aperture (think ED glass and aspheric elements in a metal barrel).

[jason_au]

Hi Jean-Baptiste. Actually I have my AIS 28/2. I am not sure if it is worth for me to buy another 28, isn't it? I am trying to balance out the lenses.

[jbq]

Jason: I can't decide for you. You may decide that a 28/1.4 is better wide open (watch the price), or that a 28/2.8 is sharper at the apertures you shoot, or that you want auto-focus.

 

Or you may decide that you want more focal lengths, that you like the region "around" 28mm but that it's sometimes a bit too long and sometimes a bit too short, and end up with 24-28-35.

 

I'm not quite in a situation where I'm wondering whether I should get multiple lenses of the same focal length, I have quite some ideas of lenses to buy before I reach that point.

[jason_au]

Jean-Baptiste, of course I understand that you can't decide for me. I am just figuring which focal length lenses are good and useful for me. Thank you for your time and feedback.

[dougs]

i have the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AFD, how come no one likes this lens, beautiful sharp clear pictures, i could shoot a black cat in a coal mine with it....i have the 50mm AF 1.8, 28mm 2.8 AFD, 28-105mm AFD, and th 70 300mm AFD, but the 50mm f/1.4 is always on my camera, to me, it gives me the best results, clarity and speed, why dont you folks like it?

[bokeh man1]

Hi! Jason I have the 50 f/1.2 as well. My opinion is the the lens is

super sharp. Lots of people disagree but most of them have

never even seen this lens let alone mounted it on their cameras.

Only fault with it is the weight so if I am going light and there is

enough light I take the 50mm f/2. If I dont mind the weight I also

carry my 105 f/1.8 and 24mm but 50s are so useful I hardly ever

use the other two. 85 is sometimes a bit long for indoors and a

50 can be hand held at a slower shutter speed. By the way on

the sharpness issue the reason big apertures make people

think they are unsharp is because the light gathering area is so

big. Imagine if the moon was ten times the size (about five

degrees of arc) thats about how big the front element is when

focused at the minimum distance. Now imagine half the moon

(lens) is below the horizon and half is above. This means only

half the lens can see the subject and the part that cant leaves an

out of focus blur superimposed over the sharp image. This

happens to the edges and rounded objects in the scene. Take a

picture of something flater and the sharpness is superlative.

[jason_au]

Douglas, well actually I do not have these AF 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. Again, I always thought that 1.4 is better than 1.8. Most people praise 1.8 better than 1.4. You are the only one who praises 1.4 that I hear.

 

Bokeh, I love my AIS 50/1.2 too. Actually that weight does not bother me at all because it always gives me the best results and speed.

[brandonhamilton]

I don't know any specific numbers, but apparently in bench mark tests, the nikkor 50 f1.8 produces a shaper image to the 50 f1.4. Another reason the 1.8 is more popular, is because it is much cheaper, and usually 1.4 produces too short of a DOF anyway.

 

Anybody have any specific numbers or examples? I personally have:

 

nikkor 50 f/1.8

sigma EX HSM 70-200

sigma EX HSM 15-30

sigma EX HSM 14

[tony bell]

I'll second the very first answer: get the 28-105 and a 50 1.8. With this you get a very good flexible zoom for the price and a great low light option in the 50 1.8. I also have an 85 1.8 and love it but I'd first take care of what I think is essential which is a wide range with a much improved zoom over the one you currently own and a standard length lens for low light.

[raymond bradlau]

and a 3rd for the forst answer

[bill_hayes1]

The first answer is good, but I'd suggest:

 

24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S and 105mm f/2.5 AIS

 

The first is about as good optically as the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF and the extra width is useful for landscape.

 

The second is a legendary portrait lens.

[sb_smith]

Bill,

I was thinking along the same lines. However, I believe the N75 will not meter with AIS lenses. It will work with AI-P.

[doghouse_reilly]

Wow... Yesterday I asked for help and before I blink all these answers. I thank you all. I think I'll purchase the 50/1.8 for a start and roll on with it. Since, a good fast and sharp lens seems to be important for start specialy for my photo objects.

 

The price is also a factor, ofcourse.

 

Anyone try that one - 50/1.8 - on the N75 body?

 

Truely yours...

[david_h._hartman]

Joseph,<br>

<br>

The 50/1.4 AIS, AF and AF-D are great lenses. Because of the

speed there are some compromises elsewhere. There is some

internal flare when wide open, there is some barrel distortion

and its not as sharp when focused close. Many feel the 50/1.4

has harsh unfocused background rendering.<br>

<br>

The 50/1.8(s) generally have lower internal fare, distortion is

neutral and they are suitable for close-up photography and copy

work.<br>

<br>

The question is how often will you shoot wide open? Its

only 2/3rds of a stop but sometimes that 2/3rds stop is crucial.

Do you need it?<br>

<br>

If the price is right you many as well buy both. I paid $50.00 (USD)

for my 50/1.8 AI and $89.00 for my 50/1.4 AIS. I also have an AF

50/1.8 that I think I paid $67.00 for. These were all clean used

lenses.<br>

<br>

Since you said "(budget compromise)" you dont

really need to think this over. Get an AF 50/1.8D as it will out

perform the AF 50/1.4D is most but not all situations.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"i have the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AFD, how come no one likes

this lens..." --Douglas Swinskey<br>

</em><br>

Bjørn Rørslett and David Ruether both think well of both lenses

(see the links above). These lenses have different strengths and

weaknesses. Bjørn Rørslett put both the 50/1.8 AIS and AF 50/1.4D

in his "Best of the Best: A not-so-serious compilation."

I believe Bjørn is referring to the early aluminum barreled 50/1.8

AIS rather than the later plastic barreled 50/1.8 AIS as he

complains a bit about the plastic build of the AF 50/1.8D.<br>

<br>

I own the 50/1.8 AI, AF 50/1.8(non-D) and 50/1.4 AIS. I usually

carry the 50/1.8 AI but I sometimes carry a Nikon FM2n with only

the 50/1.4 AIS and no flash. The 50/1.8 AI will not auto focus so

I bought the AF 50/1.8 for use with AF bodies. <br>

<br>

Cheers!<br>

<br>

Dave.<br>

<br>

Postscript: I didnt put those links above so here they are...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

hope this helps.