albert_smith

... And one more, where the wide f-stop allowed me to isolate the subject in a way that the zoom would not. This motorcycle was parked while I was out shooting, so I used the 50mm to snap it while softening the busy background with shallow DOF.<div></div>

Sharper than, better than your existing lenses? Try shooting them at f/1.8. At this aperture range, the contest is pretty one-sided.

 

If you want to control depth-of-field in-camera, not with some post-processing trickery, then at least one f/one-point-something lens should be in your bag, and at about 100 Dollars, it is hard to beat the 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor.

 

FWIW, I have about three decades of Nikon use, and every lens in the Nikon line-up from 20mm to 300mm for my film cameras. When I started to explore digital, I got the D40 and the kit lens. I was able to mount all of my lenses to the D40, but I had to meter manually, so I got a 50mm f/1.8 AF lens to have that speed over the kit lens. Even with this being my 5th 50mm Nikkor (behind all of my manual focus versions), it was more than worth it to be able to set my D40 to aperture priority and just shoot.

 

Much has been made of the manual focus "problems" with the (low-end) D-series cameras, but I have been able to get consistant focus via the in-focus dot with my D40, and your D60 is said to have a better electric range finder. You might not be shooting quick changing action shots with this set up, but it is effective for many subjects.

 

You asked for a photo, so here is one taken at f/1.8 from the 50mm lens. If you like selective focus and a nice compact package, this lens will deliver.<div></div>

I had the 85mm f/1.8 AF for over 15 years, starting with my N8008s, and now it is used on my DSLR. It is a good balence of size, weight and performance. The f/1.4 may be better, but the f/1.8 can actually be with you since it is small and easy to carry, and the best lens is the one you have with you.

 

You say that you don't use your lens wide-open, but I do very often, and at f/1.8 my lens does not let me down. A stop or two down, and it gets even better, so you should not have any problem with the f/1.8 lens' performance.<div></div>

<I>Is the newer 35-70/2.8d AF suppose to be a sharper/better quality lens than the older 35-70/3.5 fixed ais?</I><P>

 

Maybe it is. It is well regarded as a very fine lens. One thing to think about however is that it is optimized as a lens to be used on auto-focus cameras, and while it can be manually focused, the ergonomics are not the best. The manual focus ring is very far forward, so cradeling the lens (which is quite substantial) and spinning the focus ring is not as easy as focusing a true manual focus lens where the focusing ring is more close to the center of gravity.<P>

 

I tried this lens when it was introduced, but found the handling on my manual focus bodies to be less than ideal due to that far-forward focusing ring. When it comes to manual focusing, handling is everything for all but the most static of subjects. You might try this lens out on your FE before you commit to it.<P>

 

Good luck in your quest.

Isolation potential from f/1.8... 511 pixels are too few to see the clarity and contrast of the subject against the blurred background, so a frame filling 700 will come up with the link.<div></div>

... And a detail from that above shot. Not too bad for the weakest aperture.<div></div>

I have had the 85mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor for over 15 years, and since I got a Nikon DSLR, it has been employed quite a bit with good results.

 

The lens is used almost always at full aperture so that I can reduce the DOF and isolate the subject, and while on-paper the widest f-stop is the weakest, I can't find any fault when used at f/1.8.

 

I can't make a direct comparison with your Tamron lens, but I like selective focus, and that extra stop-and-a-fraction from the Nikkor is welcome even in good light for my use.<div></div>

<I>With a 50/1.4 you gain two stops over the 24/2.8...</I><P>

 

True in terms of mathematical speed of the apertures, but in terms of "hand-holdability", it is a bit closer to only one stop (or one shutterspeed), based on the focal length. You should be able to hold the 24mm for a longer speed than the 50mm based on the old "one-over rule", so that aperture gap might be a bit closer in real world use.<P>

 

I have settled on the 35mm f/2.0 AF lens for my digital SLR, since it gives almost the same hand-holdability as the 24mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4... based on the focal length.<P>

 

In the film days, a 35mm f/1.4 was on my camera most often, and I would love to have a similar lens for my DSLR. The f/2.8 of the 24mm is too slow (I own this lens from my film days) ,and 50mm is too long (with the 1.5 DX crop), so I live with the 35mm f/2.0 as a trade-off of all of the variables for a single lens to cover most situations. With your zoom, the 35mm lens should serve you well falling right in the middel of the zoom's range.<div></div>

FWIW... already having a 50mm lens, the 35-70mm zoom may look better on paper than in real life. Zooming to 35mm from 50mm, or to 70mm from 50mm is not that dramatic. For an increase in both size and weight, and a loss of speed (over the 50mm prime), you gain not too much in terms of span or reach. I went through this several decades ago, and found the fast aperture of the 50mm (or in my case 35mm) was better than a slower zoom that just went a bit wider or longer.

 

That said, if you want a zoom, and since it was already brought up by Gary, let me also recommend the 43-86mm f/3.5 (AI version). This is a good contemporary lens to the FE, and while not state of the art today, more than good enough for your camera. The build quality is better than anything out there today, as it was made before Nikon started to build down to a price.

 

The long end is better than 70mm for portraits, and wide open can give a good out-of-focus blur to make the subject stand out.

 

I'll also second gary's recommendation for the 75-150mm series E if you need some reach. My example now over 25 years old is still super sharp and mechanically sound, outlasting several AF Nikkors that I have worn out.<div></div>

<I>...should be easier to focus on because there is more depth of field at the larger distance, right?</I><P>

 

Well, not posted was the shot of the rear/left most CD which was also not as sharp as the center one. I tested all three points across the frame, but only posted the two above to make my point without clogging the thread with photos.<P>

 

<I>Also, the right hand CD seems to be on an angle,...</I><P>

 

The CD case may appear to be angled, but when I set up the test, I made sure that all of the case fronts were at the same angle, square to the film plane. You may be looking at the spine of the case which is angled, since the "V" shape of the slightly open case allows the case to stand. The front of all of the cases are all square to the camera.<P>

 

Again, this is all basically overthinking the potential (or limitations)of the lens. In the real world, we don't usually set up this perfect positioning of a subject. The 50mm f/1.8 is a fine lens for real subjects in an environment.

... And center point. The CD case sticker is very sharp, and can be read with ease when viewed at 100% magnification.<div></div>

<I>I'm curious if anyone else has noticed similar issues.</I><P>

 

Yes, but only in the worst-case situations. When I am in very close and wide-open, I get the same results that you have experienced. I don't know if this is from a conflict in the accuracy of the AF points, or it is from the lens itself, which may have some field curvature (while close-focused and wide-open), but I have been able to see this effect while I was testing my 50mm f/1.8 AF on a tripod with a multiple distance subjects.<P>

 

From my test, the center is sharper than the edges when trusting the AF points to confirm focus.<P>

 

In the real world, at moderate distances, hand-held, 3D sunjects, this is mostly a non-issue. I have many good shots with the lens used wide-open for off-center composed subjects.<div></div>

<I>Or switch to Pentax and get the 77mm f1.8 limited.</I><P>

 

Don't laugh, but I have actually considered this option. Besides the 77mm f/1.8, Pentax makes a 70mm f/2.5 that has been reviewed as being quite good. The thing with the 70mm is that it is tiny, just like a pancake lens.<P>

 

My other thought is to wait for the 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, which is said to have more rounded aperture blades for better bokeh and a 90mm (film) field of view.

Just my experience, but...

 

The 105mm f/2.5 has been in my top two Nikkors for over two decades. It is part of a two-lens kit (the other being the 35mm f/1.4) that has traveled all over the world with me and has never failed to get me good shots. It has just the right combination of tight framing, selective focus, and beautiful rendering of the parts of the scene that are not in focus. Operationally, the bright image in the finder along with the narrow DOF make manual focus quick and sure. It is a great lens.

 

Now as I explore digital with Nikon DSLRs, I have not been able to make the 105mm f/2.5 work as I have enjoyed it for the last 20-plus years. The 1.5X crop of the digital capture has made it too long for my normal way of using it. It is not bad, just different. Maybe if I have not had so much experience with it, I could enjoy the "new" angle of view, but I have from years of experience been able to move to just the right spot to make the 105mm on full frame work without even having to look in the finder... I had my "105mm eyes" on when ever that lens was on my camera. In short, the 105mm f/2.5 that I had enjoyed for so long on full frame (film) is not the same lens when I put it on my DSLR... in my opinion.

 

FWIW... I am still trying to find my medium telephoto for digital, one that gave me what the 105mm did on film. 70mm (on a zoom) gives the same field of view, but the DOF and Bokeh are not even close. My 85mm gives pretty good DOF selectivity, but it does not match the smoothness in the out-of-focus areas when compared to the 105mm f/2.5.

 

Yep, the 105mm f/2.5 is a great lens. I am holding on to mine waiting for the day when a full frame DSLR is offered at a lower price.<div></div>

Wow, sorry. this came up under "new answers" and I didn't see that the OP was over two years old. I thought it was current.

... and for what its worth,I use a 50mm f/1.8 AF on my D40 (manually focused), and find it to be a very good performer for the cost. Even though I have the f/1.4 (which won't meter on the D40), the f/1.8 is on my camera most often not only because it meters, but the results are what count, and this lens is very good.<div></div>

////<div></div>

A few years back, I tested all of my 50mm lenses (and my 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor) at full apertrue to see if the variations in f-stop would actually show up in photos as changes in DOF that could be seen.

 

I can post two photos from that test of the f/1.8 and f/1.4 so that you can see the background softness and the rendering of the background elements.

 

This is a full-frame test made on a film Nikon, so if you are going to use the lens on DX, mentally crop the image.<div></div>

<I>Just how long does it take you to get used to being manual EVERYTHING ?</I><P>

 

For years, I used old Leica M cameras that had no meter, and I also use an old Nikon F with the non-metering pointy prism. I have been able to do pretty good exposure setting based on the Sunny-16 rule and its variations for cloudy bright, hazy, overcast, etc.<P>

 

As long as the light is constant, no problem. With the DSLR, a test shot or two can get you to the right exposure, and then you can get on with the real shooting. When the light is in constant flux, say for example when clouds are moving in front of the sun in random intervals and durations, then adjusting the exposure settings can get labor intensive. While I have many AI/AIS lenses in my bag, I did buy two AF lenses for my D40 (a 50mm and 35mm) just so I could set the camera to aperture priority and just shoot while being only concerned with the subject.<P>

 

<I>Is the D40 really that hard to focus ?</I><P>

 

As I said in my post above, I get a very high percentage of my wide-open shots in focus most every time buy trusting the in-focus dot while holding the AF point over my prime subject. It is not "hard", but it is not as good of a finder as my F class film Nikons. After several months of using only the D40, I picked up my F3 and the finder was shockingly better. You can get use to the D40, but it is not a great finder compared to other Nikons. That said... it works.<P>

 

<I>Would working this way actually make you better at using any camera</I><P>

 

Yup. I can go from my meterless Nikons and Leicas to a medium format TLR with ease. Once you know what an f-stop and shutter speed are, a nd how they interact, there is no problem using any basic camera.<div></div>

/./.<div></div>

///<div></div>

I have over two-dozen AI/AIS Nikkors, from over two decades of film Nikon use, and I have also got a D40 to get my feet wet with a DSLR.

 

I was like a kid in a candy store when I first powered up the camera, playing with most every lens on the D40, and I can say that all worked well with a manual shutterspeed and manually adjusted f-stop. I used a Sekonic meter and it worked perfectly for the ISO that I had set on the camera. The lenses worked, but some of my favorite focal lengths were rendered as less than useful with the 1.5 crop factor, and the need to externally meter was less than speedy in some situations, so I got two prime AF lenses (which don't even AF, but do meter) as my everyday glass.

 

As for focus, I have seen it here in many posts that manual focus is hard with the D-series, but I have been doing very well with simply adjusting focus with the AF mark on the subject until the in-focus dot lights up and even at full aperture the focus is correct. The silky smoothness of the manual focus lenses is a lot better than the sloppy feel of AF glass for tiny adjustments of focus from my experience. I have come to trust the in-focus dot when my eyes can't assure the subject is in focus, and I am usually rewarded with a sharp photo.<div></div>

... And the 35mm AF<div></div>

<I>I also enjoy taking lots of flower photos (macro) when we visit Florida in the Winter. I would love the increased sharpness and low-light capability of a prime lens...</I><P>

 

Not on your list, but worth considering is the 35mm f/2.0 AF. It gives the angle of view of a 50mm (35mm equiv) on digital, so it would be fine for mid torso to head portraits. Additionally, it focuses very close, not true macro, but pretty tight. The aperture allows you to isolate, while still using the background to show the subject in context. As a supliment to your zoom, this can be a good prime.<P>

 

FWIW... I have the 50mm f/1.8 AF and 85mm f/1.8 AF for my D40, and like both. The 85mm on a full frame film camera is nice, but I find it a bit too narrow on digital, especially indoors with window light, so I find that I use the 50mm more, and even more so the 35mm f/2.0.<P>

 

I'll post two shots to show the difference between the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.0 in regards to their close-up ability. The 35mm, while wider, gets much more selective in close. If you like flowers, this lens can be effective.<div></div>

Out on the street at f/5.6...

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/00ONbD-41666984.JPG

">

</center>