Kim Letkeman
Forum Pro
Get the 50 1.8 for low light and the 18-200VR for everything else. That's a very versatile kit.
YMMV
--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
YMMV
--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Newbie Help--D50 First Lens
- Thread starter CatsMeow
- Start date
brokenz
Veteran Member
My opinon on this...
If I had to have a kit then I'd get the 18-55 instead. I've tried multiple copies of the 18-70 and haven't bought one yet. I've got two copies of the 18-55 right now (one for my son's constant use and one for my own.) It's a pretty amazing optic even if sold for much more IMO.
--
This space for rent.
The ultimate solution that will work on the D50 IMO. A good focal length for a DSLR, very useable even at f/2, and keep in mind that at f/2.8 even the 17-55 won't exceed it for image quality.
Again and again and again I see the resports here of bad samples or poor durability. If you are prepared to go thru a few then it seems a good choice. Honestly though I had alot of hope for this lens when it was first announced but the constant reports of quality control issues has really killed my enthusiasm. Also I find 1.4 at 35mm (close enough to 30 to compare) pretty hard to consistently hit exact focus placement with a FF viewfinder much less the viewfinder of the D50.
I'd live without the convenience of zooming so I could have more situations where I could shoot natural light, have better image quality at 35mm, and be able to do shallow dof when I want.
If I had to have a kit then I'd get the 18-55 instead. I've tried multiple copies of the 18-70 and haven't bought one yet. I've got two copies of the 18-55 right now (one for my son's constant use and one for my own.) It's a pretty amazing optic even if sold for much more IMO.
Alot of folks seem to love this lens. I can't comment on it from personal use though. I will say that 2.8 just doesn't seem "fast" to me now that I've become accustomed to 2.0 or 1.4 at will.
No such thing as a dumb question other than the question never asked.
There was a prime vs. zooms thread recently. You might want to read it. I skipped it myself. My reasons for what I do are pretty much set in stone. As good as the best (and I do mean best in optics and also the ones that command the big money) zooms are, they don't quite equal most primes still. The gap is close but it's still a gap. If you are shooting a DSLR then I think you are the type of person looking for that last possible bit if image quality you can get from it. That means primes. There are times where I find for my own use the zooms I have more appropriate. Never the better optics though.
I think that's what motivates most people here trying to help. Alot of people have given me free advice over the years that I found pretty helpful. I hopefully can do the same occasionally.
--
This space for rent.
Hi Cats
let me spend a word for you:
I had the 18-70 DX with the d70s and it worked very well. Sharpness. colours and contrast were really nice with that lens. Even better than my actual 18-200VR So, you should take it, if you want to save money and buy some primes. If you go for the 18-200 you will still need primes, especially for low-light. VR works well and allows you to take safe shots at unbelievable low times (until 1/2 - 1/3s in my case at 200mm) but if you have to take some special portraits (that is working with depth of field and bokeh) you should get - from your own shooting style - a 35 (larger) OR 50 (narrower) AND 85/105 lens for tighter head portraits. Good choices we often hear for the price are the Nikon 85 F1.8 or the Tamron 90 F2.8 which is also a macro lens (always useful). I'd suggest one of them plus a 35 or 50 depending on how large you use to frame pictures. Another good (better: excellent) walkaround lens for the buck seems to be the 28-75 Tamron which has a constant F2.8 aperture but you will miss wider shots. I don't know the lens performances but in such conditions, to cover a wider view you could ask for the Sigma 15-30 or some 12-24 from Tokina (surely good)
Then, (I have it) I'd suggest you to take an external flash like the sb600 or so to enhance portraits shooting against the ceiling rather than criminal-looking shots with the built-in flash that is to be used only in some cases.
All the best.
Photography is the most beautiful way to discover God around us in little and simple things.
My kits under my profile
http://italy74.smugmug.com
http://it.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dlb74pr/my_photos
let me spend a word for you:
I had the 18-70 DX with the d70s and it worked very well. Sharpness. colours and contrast were really nice with that lens. Even better than my actual 18-200VR So, you should take it, if you want to save money and buy some primes. If you go for the 18-200 you will still need primes, especially for low-light. VR works well and allows you to take safe shots at unbelievable low times (until 1/2 - 1/3s in my case at 200mm) but if you have to take some special portraits (that is working with depth of field and bokeh) you should get - from your own shooting style - a 35 (larger) OR 50 (narrower) AND 85/105 lens for tighter head portraits. Good choices we often hear for the price are the Nikon 85 F1.8 or the Tamron 90 F2.8 which is also a macro lens (always useful). I'd suggest one of them plus a 35 or 50 depending on how large you use to frame pictures. Another good (better: excellent) walkaround lens for the buck seems to be the 28-75 Tamron which has a constant F2.8 aperture but you will miss wider shots. I don't know the lens performances but in such conditions, to cover a wider view you could ask for the Sigma 15-30 or some 12-24 from Tokina (surely good)
Then, (I have it) I'd suggest you to take an external flash like the sb600 or so to enhance portraits shooting against the ceiling rather than criminal-looking shots with the built-in flash that is to be used only in some cases.
All the best.
--
Photography is the most beautiful way to discover God around us in little and simple things.
My kits under my profile
http://italy74.smugmug.com
http://it.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dlb74pr/my_photos
Agree 100%
Hey brokenz are you genoese????
--
Photography is the most beautiful way to discover God around us in little and simple things.
My kits under my profile
http://italy74.smugmug.com
http://it.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dlb74pr/my_photos
For candid street shots, the 50/1.4D and 85/1.5D both work well.
Nikkor 50/1.4D
Nikkor 85/1.4D
--
dgjean
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgjean/
Nikkor 50/1.4D
Nikkor 85/1.4D
--
dgjean
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgjean/
Lonely Raven
Senior Member
I should clarify something. My comment about repeated composition it specifically for the dynamic party scene. Because everything is moving and changing your shots would have to be timed well and/or the shame shot pretty much.
Typically I feel that primes force me to compose better, and create difference points of view by moving me around. Something that's not always possible in a dynamic situation.
Again, choose your weapon depending on the scene, not the other way around.
Don't get the idea that primes are limiting. Many here would say just the opposite, and I completely agree!
The Lonely Raven
Jack of all Trades,
Master of None
KC9KCZ
Typically I feel that primes force me to compose better, and create difference points of view by moving me around. Something that's not always possible in a dynamic situation.
Again, choose your weapon depending on the scene, not the other way around.
Don't get the idea that primes are limiting. Many here would say just the opposite, and I completely agree!
--
The Lonely Raven
Jack of all Trades,
Master of None
Kim Letkeman
Forum Pro
So what you are saying is that incredibly expensive prime lenses do a decent job ...
They are nice photos .... but who could expect anything else from those lenses?
--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
I appreciate your advice. I'll definitely check pbase prior to making my final decision. I was unfamiliar w/ that site prior to you mentioning it.
Thanks again!
Lori
Thanks again!
Lori
FrithjofA
Senior Member
good choice.
good choice. and I would also add the f1.8/50mm. This is a wonderful light portrait tele usable from f2.2, very good already at f2.5. It will give a view on a DSLR similar to the 85mm on a 35mm film body. It was my first Nikon lens, I bought for my D200. Excellent lens, very cheap and you cannot go wrong with it.
good option, but as somebody pointed out already, don't by the 50mm! Otherwise you will be spoiled and disappointed with that zoom. I bought the 17-55mm afterwords and had a touch time at the begining with it. The 50mm is a notch better.
Zoom's a very convenient. But if you a an absolut beginner, and have some ambition, a prime lens has advantages. You will concentrate on your motive and do not spend all the time in finding "the optimal focal lenght". There are too many other things to learn. Speed, aperture combination and their influence on the picture, finding the correct focal point, composition, colors ... you name it.
yes, you might be interested in an f1.4. However, even the f1.8/50mm has a very shallow DOF at close distance at f2.2 so that you would not get a sharp image of complete head of a person. Focusing onto the eyes will start bluring the nose..
Have you used a analog SLR before?
Frithjof
My only use of an analog SLR was back in high school photography class--15+ years ago. It was my grandfather's Canon AE (or something like that), but it has been so long that I'm really starting from scratch.
I honestly think that the 50MM 1.8 is the way I'll end up going. You, and others, have pointed out the advantages of learning w/ a prime lens. It's also a lens that I don't think that I'll regret buying in the long run . . . not to mention that it's inexpensive and leaves $ left over for a flash and a zoom once I have a better idea what the heck I'm doing.
Thank you so much for your time and insight. I am so impressed with the way people on this forum take their time to help even the newbies. I know that some of our questions can be really annoying sometimes.
FrithjofA
Senior Member
You cannot go wrong with this decision. No matter which route you go.
Just remember, the quality of the lens is fare more important than the body. In my opinion, it makes more sense to by a D50, as you did, and combine it with excellent lenses that buying a D200 and cheap low quality zooms.
You are more than wellcome. Even though I have a 20 year history of analog SLR cameras (I still own 2 Contax SLRs) I have been new to Nikon and their lenses myself. I learn quite a lot though this forum, I guess like many others here, too so that I am more than willing to share my opinon and some of my experience.
best
Frithjof
revdhd
Well-known member
When I first bought my kit, the 50mm 1.4 was one of several lenses I purchased. I loved it from the first, but got drawn into the zoom thing. When I finally got serious about images, I decided to buy the 18-200mm VR and I have played with that for several months. In the meantime, to help finance the 18-200, I sold the 50.
A month ago, I bought another 50 1.4 because it is simply one of the most fun lenses I own. I now have sold the 18-220 and have two zooms, a 17-55 and a 70-200 and the 50 1.4 prime. I still reach for the 50. Every time I use it, I learn more. And everything I learn is slowly being applied to using the zooms... and vice versa. I don't think you can go wrong with a 50, 1.4 or 1.8. It's a lens you will grow with. And if you're smarter than I am, you'll never sell it.
--
Doug
My Life in Two Words: Chromatic Aberration
A month ago, I bought another 50 1.4 because it is simply one of the most fun lenses I own. I now have sold the 18-220 and have two zooms, a 17-55 and a 70-200 and the 50 1.4 prime. I still reach for the 50. Every time I use it, I learn more. And everything I learn is slowly being applied to using the zooms... and vice versa. I don't think you can go wrong with a 50, 1.4 or 1.8. It's a lens you will grow with. And if you're smarter than I am, you'll never sell it.
--
Doug
My Life in Two Words: Chromatic Aberration
After so many weeks of absolute analysis paralyis (I've literally dreamt about lenses, etc. for the last 3 nights!), I truly do feel comfortable with the D50/50MM decision. I'll definitely add a good zoom later, though. And hopefully I will have unencumbered sleep tonight! : ) . . . And hopefully my obsessive/compulsive tendencies will eventually translate into fabulous photographs.
Thanks to everyone for their help!
Thanks to everyone for their help!
FrithjofA
Senior Member
CatsMeow wrote:
. . . And hopefully my obsessive/compulsive
. . . And hopefully my obsessive/compulsive
I can relate to that. I am the same. Is't that great to use the wisedom and knowledge of the forum to find clarity in your desicion. It offers you to cut some corners by using the experience of others. An this corners can save you hassle and money because to slowly learn and buy the right equipment for you needs right way instead of falling for some "bargins" or conveniences which will not deliver what you acctually wanted.
Robert Morgan
Active member
Your original post was to take family shots indoors as well as out doors, and now you've decided to buy a 50/1.8. A nice lens and wonderful value for money, but completely useless on a DSLR if you're trying to take group / family shots indoors. It is nowhere near wide enough.
If you've decided on a prime, at minimum choose the Nikon 35/2, which is equivalent to the 50mm on an SLR. But even that's not wide as I mentioned when I talked about the 35-70/2.8
If you really don't know what to get, start with the kit 18-70.
If you've decided on a prime, at minimum choose the Nikon 35/2, which is equivalent to the 50mm on an SLR. But even that's not wide as I mentioned when I talked about the 35-70/2.8
If you really don't know what to get, start with the kit 18-70.
jonzrm12
Member
This is good advice. a 50 1.8 is 75 in a D50, not for family/group shots. More for single subject shots/portraits.
Richard Fossum
Senior Member
I bought my D70S with the kit lens, and it's been with me on travels and on regular occations. Soon I made made the mistake and sold it - I didn't think I would miss it. The fact is that the 18-70 is a fantastic lens!
In the wide end it's quite fast (f3.5). You have to pay a lot of money to achieve f2.8 through the range ($1000 ?)! Its focusing is very fast too! All in all, a very verstatile first-lens. I am sure you'll buy more zooms and primes as you go (we all do, especially when you start hanging out here), but this is the lens to start with.
I am sorry if I've repeated what was already in this thread, I didn't care to read them all.
Good luck, and don't forget to buy the 50mm 1.8.
Kind regards,
Rich.
In the wide end it's quite fast (f3.5). You have to pay a lot of money to achieve f2.8 through the range ($1000 ?)! Its focusing is very fast too! All in all, a very verstatile first-lens. I am sure you'll buy more zooms and primes as you go (we all do, especially when you start hanging out here), but this is the lens to start with.
I am sorry if I've repeated what was already in this thread, I didn't care to read them all.
Good luck, and don't forget to buy the 50mm 1.8.
--
Kind regards,
Rich.
I'll offer my 2 cent on this, just to try and keep you in decision-paralysis for a while longer. Buy used. That way you maintain a fair bit of flexibility to try different options and not lose much (if any) money if you change your mind.
I shoot with primes, and would suggest that for someone who is serious about learning and may not have the budget of a professional, it's the way to go. The ONLY thing you give up with primes is some convenience, otherwise you get unbeatable quality (at least as good as the pro zooms), fast focal lengths, and economy (especially if you buy used).
A lot of people have suggested the 50 and the 35, but why not consider the 24 2.8? I don't know if you'll see that much of a focal length difference between the 50 and the 35, and I find the 24 is pretty decent, and would give you an actual wide angle to work with (albeit not that wide).
I was thinking about hanging on to my 18-70 just for "snapshot" occasions, but ended up selling it with my D70 to a friend. Thing is, the 18-70 is pretty "thick on the ground" these days, lots for sale in the used market for a good price, so you can always grab one of these if you want a zoom at some point.
One final point that I don't think has been touched on, maybe it won't be that important to you, but I think that primes can be a helpful learning tool because you really get a chance to see how different focal lengths and field of view contribute to the look and composition of your pictures. I think this is not as easy to be aware of when you're working in one spot and just zooming to fill the frame and snapping.
You'll have to decide how much the convenience of something like the 18-200 is worth to you, but I think you could pick up a used 50 and a 24 or 35, and a used 18-70 or 55-200, and still come in under the price of the 18-200. Good luck with your decision.
I shoot with primes, and would suggest that for someone who is serious about learning and may not have the budget of a professional, it's the way to go. The ONLY thing you give up with primes is some convenience, otherwise you get unbeatable quality (at least as good as the pro zooms), fast focal lengths, and economy (especially if you buy used).
A lot of people have suggested the 50 and the 35, but why not consider the 24 2.8? I don't know if you'll see that much of a focal length difference between the 50 and the 35, and I find the 24 is pretty decent, and would give you an actual wide angle to work with (albeit not that wide).
I was thinking about hanging on to my 18-70 just for "snapshot" occasions, but ended up selling it with my D70 to a friend. Thing is, the 18-70 is pretty "thick on the ground" these days, lots for sale in the used market for a good price, so you can always grab one of these if you want a zoom at some point.
One final point that I don't think has been touched on, maybe it won't be that important to you, but I think that primes can be a helpful learning tool because you really get a chance to see how different focal lengths and field of view contribute to the look and composition of your pictures. I think this is not as easy to be aware of when you're working in one spot and just zooming to fill the frame and snapping.
You'll have to decide how much the convenience of something like the 18-200 is worth to you, but I think you could pick up a used 50 and a 24 or 35, and a used 18-70 or 55-200, and still come in under the price of the 18-200. Good luck with your decision.
Thank you for the great write up in answer to my dilemma. Based on the awesome feedback from this forum, I agree that a prime is probably the best way to learn. I, too, wondered whether the 50 and 35mm were too "close" in focal length to make a noticeable difference. I'll have be on the lookout for a used 24mm.
Thanks again to you and everyone else who has so graciously shared their time and talents with me.
Thanks again to you and everyone else who has so graciously shared their time and talents with me.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum