DSLRUsers.com

I have 12-24 DX, 24-120 VR and 70-200 VR as my main lenses.

I'm about to take the plunge and buy my first prime and want to get something that's pretty versatile. I generally take landscapes with the 12-24 (doh) and the 70-200 VR has been serving dual purpose for getting close to distant objects and for pseudo macro close up shots of flowers. I"m thinking a prime for close up work will be better.

I've narrowed it down to the following Nikon glass:

• 50/1.4 - fast in low light and pretty wide
• 50/1.8 - cheaper but not as good in low light
• 85/1.8 - similar price to 50/1.4 but not as wide

Any comments from owners? Anything I've missed? PS And yes birddog I want to have it to use in the Caves

Peter - I can’t answer your question but have decided on the 12-24 and the 105 macro for the caves - I think the 12-24 will give amazing shots.

sirhc55 wrote:Peter - I can’t answer your question but have decided on the 12-24 and the 105 macro for the caves - I think the 12-24 will give amazing shots.

Yes, it's for the 12-24Dx, but with no one of the narrow platform in the caves, if you have a group of 10 then the wide end will have many human life in the pics.
The 105mm is overkill

Hanging to hear some more responses as I have been thinking about this as well. I have actually asked Birddog for the 50/1.8 but not sure if my emails are making it to him.

Mal wrote:Hanging to hear some more responses as I have been thinking about this as well. I have actually asked Birddog for the 50/1.8 but not sure if my emails are making it to him.

I replied your email from my Outlook. not from Redbacks. If problems is the bouncing mail back to you, PM Gary please.

I have voted for the 50mm f1.8. This lens is worth it's weight in gold to me, and get's used alot at weddings.

The reason I didn't say the f1.4 version is due to price. the 1.8 works a treat for me and i couldn't justify the extra cost for the extra stop.

cheers

Price has nothing to do with the question... which is why I voted 50/1.4

For the following reasons:
It can be a 50/1.8
It is tiny and its a question of "why not pack it" rather than "why pack it"
50mm is, on a film camera, normal field of view, ie close to a human eye, on a digital it is slightly off...

the 85mm lenses are great lenses but are really only a head and shoulders portrait lenses... the 50mms can be used, with a bit of foot zooming, to get groups..

Stubbsy, with your already excellent lenses, the 50 1.4 would be a great low light lens at a most reasonable cost compared to 85 or 28 1.4, with only a $200 premium over the 1.8. If I was you that would be my first prime. Don't worry if you cant get it before the caves, borrow mine.

The 50 1.8 is the best value Nikkor by far at $200, but with your collection I would go the 1.4, you will always think could I have got the shot with the 1.4.

The 85 1.8 is a fantastic portrait lens, Jordan P and Matt K both have one, 80% of the king, the 85 1.4 for 50% of the cost. It is a portrait lens length and requires a bit of working room.

The 45P 2.8, best build quality of the lot, great optics, best bokeh of the lot (Ron Reznick rates it the equal of the 85 1.4 for bokeh between 3 &10 feet). Disadvantages, only 2.8, manual focus and a little more than the 50 1.4 in price. Very small, so can be slipped in the pocket when the 70-200 is on to give a 2 lens kit.

I own all 4 lenses and would rate the 45P top of the pile for quality and usefulness, the 50 1.4 next especially for low light, the 85 is a a beautiful portrait lens but not used as much because of the focal length (which is what made me search out the 45P, great bokeh in usable focal length) with the 50 1.8 runner up in this company, but that is like bronze at the olympics, still bloody good.

Have a look at these lens reviews:
http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html


Good luck

MHD wrote:Price has nothing to do with the question... which is why I voted 50/1.4

For the following reasons:
It can be a 50/1.8
It is tiny and its a question of "why not pack it" rather than "why pack it"
50mm is, on a film camera, normal field of view, ie close to a human eye, on a digital it is slightly off...

the 85mm lenses are great lenses but are really only a head and shoulders portrait lenses... the 50mms can be used, with a bit of foot zooming, to get groups..

This is for shooting inside the caves:
The 85/1.8 or 1.4 is perfect lenght.
The 50/1.4 is ok with low light but short, (The 50/1.8 is plasticky built and its look is not impressed me much).
Out door or portrait shoot upper half body is excellent, the 50/1.4 can't gain the clarity and sharpness as the 85/1.4 same as the 85/1.8.

Glen

Thanks for the info. I'd already read the stuff on the Bjørn Rørslett site, but the digital images one is new to me so I'll go have more of a read. Always like to get my research done before I buy, not after

Peter, digital images is Ron Reznick, member here and well respected world reknown photographer. He has a few more words on lenses in his book.

Sirhc55, if Stubbsy doesn't borrow the 50 1.4, feel free to borrow it.

Peter, very interested to see your choice.

Peter,
Don't listen to anyone! track and get your self a Nikkor 58mm 1.2 Noct!
You won't regret with it.

Glen wrote:Peter, digital images is Ron Reznick, member here and well respected world reknown photographer. He has a few more words on lenses in his book.

Glen - realised that as soon as I started reading

Birddog114 wrote:Peter,
Don't listen to anyone! track and get your self a Nikkor 58mm 1.2 Noct!
You won't regret with it.

Saw the ebay thread on the nokt. Don't have that much to spend.

Generally I'm edging towards the 50/1.4, but then I read this on Ron's site which confused the hell out of me !

The only real issue with the 50mm lenses, besides the fact that they don’t do as good a job close-up as they do at medium-to-long distance (and it’s a small problem given the cost), is that they offer a rather mundane field of view and perspective for most people (most folks (including me) would rather shoot either a wider or longer lens most of the time) but for the utmost performance at the least cost (and definitely for a single-lens outing) the 50mm lenses are among the best lenses you can put on the camera (I owned the 50mm f/1.4D for 2 years, finally selling it to gain flexibility).

Then there will be you, me and Peter looking for one. Peter, they didn't call the lens Noct-urnal for nothing.

Keep us posted on your choice, Peter.

Stubbsy, Ron has a 28 1.4 (like Birddy) for low light, best there is but north of $2k. He doesn't need a 50 1.4 if he has that for low light.

Glen wrote:Stubbsy, Ron has a 28 1.4 (like Birddy) for low light, best there is but north of $2k. He doesn't need a 50 1.4 if he has that for low light.

28/1.4, pls. don't ask anymore! It's now similar to the 58mm 1.2 Noct!
Lucky if you can get hold of one new around the world, it's very high premium now!

Peter,
Discharge some part of your cellar raisng funds for the lust

Birddy, the value of the "assets" at your place is going up month by month, sort of like buying 1990 Grange. Maybe everyone should follow your lead and invest in collectable Nikon glass?

I'm thinking that anything longer than a 50 will be too long for shooting within the caves. Given the crop factor, I'm even thinking that 50 might be too long.

gstark wrote:I'm thinking that anything longer than a 50 will be too long for shooting within the caves. Given the crop factor, I'm even thinking that 50 might be too long.

Yes, exactly what my thoughts and I was there twice with the 50 and 28.

35 f/2.

It's the 50mm equivalent for digitals.

Also Stubbsy, dont rule out the 60mm micro (not for the caves) as another lens in that focal length. Probably a bit sharp for portraits, especially older ladies, but otherwise a useful all rounder with 2.8 aperture.




ps Onyx, what do you think of the 35mm F2?

This is tougher than I thought. Maybe I need to stick to my 12-24 for the caves and the 24-120 VR. Then after the caves sort out the best lens for my first prime. As an aside I note there are yet more filters needed since if I go 50mm they take 52mm filters and the 85/1.8 is a 62mm.

stubbsy wrote:This is tougher than I thought. Maybe I need to stick to my 12-24 for the caves and the 24-120 VR. Then after the caves sort out the best lens for my first prime. As an aside I note there are yet more filters needed since if I go 50mm they take 52mm filters and the 85/1.8 is a 62mm.

If that's the case then go for the 85/1.4, 77mm filter and always invest in 77mm filter size, the 85/1.4 will be no stock soon.

What may be replacing the king of portrait lenses Birddog?

Glen wrote:What may be replacing the king of portrait lenses Birddog?

dunno, perhaps a DX or AF-S

In my view, it's hard to go past the 50mm 1.4.

Versatility plus in the speed department. Wonderful bokeh, and superb resolution.

Also, when coupled with the no-cost accessory, foot power, it has an infinite number of focal lengths!

The 50mm is great and considering crop factor is at the start of good portrait range (75-105mm).

On a full frame camera the 85mm 1.4 is the king. IMHO. After having used Birdies 85mm 1.4 on the weekend at a wedding (Thanks again birdy) it was more useful on the F70 than the D70. However, that said, i still got some grat shots using it with the D70 but not as close to the subject as i would have liked. It seems a bit strange taking a head and shoulder portrait from across the other side of a room

I went for the 1.4 as the wider aperture is always going to make the lens more versatile. Mind you I love the 85 1.8

cheers,

Killakoala wrote:. It seems a bit strange taking a head and shoulder portrait from across the other side of a room

heheh... it is...
But it is great for natural non-posed expressions! Portrait by stealth!

JordanP wrote:I went for the 1.4 as the wider aperture is always going to make the lens more versatile. Mind you I love the 85 1.8

cheers,

welcome back craig....

Oh yeah! Thats right... How was your holiday?