Prime Lens question (maybe I am stupid)?

I have not done too much photography with my Nikon D40x since a trip to Disney World a year. The pics I have taken are just family stuff outdoors and indoors. I finally started looking at my pictures from a year ago (long story and very bad family problems from back then). What I noticed is my indoor pictures with no flash allowed and other night time shots are not too good. So, I have been pointed towards that new 35mm/f1.8 lens. This is where my stupidity comes in:

Does the lens only have a single aperture size of f1.8? If so, how can daytime shots look that good if it is so wide open for light in prime conditions?

BigRedNole said:

Does the lens only have a single aperture size of f1.8? If so, how can daytime shots look that good if it is so wide open for light in prime conditions?

Click to expand...

The 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor may be closed down as far as f/22, although you would hardly ever want to do that.

What may have misled you is that many zoom lenses are specified as something like "f/3.5-5.6". That's not the total aperture range, it's just the largest aperture available at different focal lengths. On an 18-55, for example, you can open the lens up to f/3.5 when it's set to 18mm but only f/5.6 when it's set to 55mm. Intermediate focal lengths will have different maximum apertures. But you can stop the lens down to f/22 at all focal lengths.

--
Leonard Migliore

What lens where you using before and what ISO etc? You might be better off with a Image Stabilized lens over a 1.8 prime depending on what you are trying to get pictures of. keep in mind that 1.8 is a pretty narrow depth of field and often lenses like that are not very sharp across the frame wide open anyway. I usually get better shots using my 18-55 IS lens over my 50 1.8 in low light conditions with no flash. unless you are trying to stop movement like sports or something then you could do better with a faster (read larger max aperture-smaller f#) lens and just bump up the ISO to get faster shutter speed.

Hope that helps a little bit.

The f1.8 refers to the maximum aperture of that lens. All prime lenses only have one maximum aperture but can be stopped down to usually f22 and less.

Cheaper zoom lenses usually have a maximum aperture range . For instance, a 50-200mm zoom lens may have a stated range of f3.5--5.6. This means that the maximum aperture at 50mm is f3.5, but when you zoom to 200mm, the maximum aperture is only f5.6.

The more expensive zoom lenses will have a constant maximum aperture so a 50--200mm f2.8 lens would be f2.8 whether at 50mm or zoomed to 200mm.

Generally, prime lenses can have much larger apertures than zoom lenses which is probably why the 35mm lens was recommended to you for low light shooting.

HTH,
Marion

BigRedNole said:

I have not done too much photography with my Nikon D40x since a trip to Disney World a year. The pics I have taken are just family stuff outdoors and indoors. I finally started looking at my pictures from a year ago (long story and very bad family problems from back then). What I noticed is my indoor pictures with no flash allowed and other night time shots are not too good. So, I have been pointed towards that new 35mm/f1.8 lens. This is where my stupidity comes in:

Does the lens only have a single aperture size of f1.8? If so, how can daytime shots look that good if it is so wide open for light in prime conditions?

Click to expand...

Thank yo for the feedback. I am not sure of what to get. For some reason I thought the new Nikon 35mm lens had IS in it because it goes with the D40/x/D60. It may be that I am confused. I was told that having a lens with a larger aperture would help tremendously with the low light, no flash issue in many places at Disney World.

This is the lens I was looking at.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html#specifications

I think Nikon uses the term Vibration Reduction so the lens would say VR. I don't think the lens there is VR.

The 1.8 will let more light in(at the wide open end) that will allow you to take pictures at slightly faster shutter speeds. but keep in mind what I said before at 1.8 your depth of field (area in focus) will be fairly shallow. So if you are taking a picture of one person it might be fine but if you are taking a group, you might only get the people in front in focus. But the VR will allow you to take pictures and still get good results with slower shutter speeds. So its kinda two diff ways of going about it. That is why I said It depends what you are taking a picture of. If its your kids posing and holding still you might like the zoom with VR better. If its something moving where you have to have faster shutter speed to stop motion blur then you will need the faster shutter speed the VR does nothing to help motion blur if your subject is moving.

Does that clear it up any more?

You might ultimately want both the 35 1.8 and a small zoom with VR ( or IS for canon) that is what I did. Assuming your current lens does not have VR if you had those problems in the first place.

Look at your lens and see if it says VR in its model name, if it does make sure it is switched on and works. If they work similar to canon look through camera with it zoomed out so you can see things moving a bit from your hands not being still. Then push the shutter down half way and ( at least my canon is this way) then you can see the IS kick in and you will see the image go way more still than it was before. You can see this magnified if you have live view that you can zoom into also. Someone correct me if Nikon VR is not viewable like I described.

BigRedNole said:

Thank yo for the feedback. I am not sure of what to get. For some reason I thought the new Nikon 35mm lens had IS in it because it goes with the D40/x/D60. It may be that I am confused. I was told that having a lens with a larger aperture would help tremendously with the low light, no flash issue in many places at Disney World.

Click to expand...

Yes, a lens with a larger aperture helps in low light but there are limits. I was shooting a singer in a bar and got this with a 50mm f/1.8:



some flavor there from picking up the assorted light sources, but actually a pretty lousy image and I had to go to ISO 2500 to get a usable shutter speed.

Then I put the flash on and changed to a 16-85 and got this:



much better image quality (ISO 400) even though I was limited to f/5.6. Maybe a bit more sterile but tons more detail and contrast.

So your problems won't magically disappear if you get an f/1.8 or even an f/1.4 lens; they'll just be different problems.

--
Leonard Migliore

It depends on what you want to shoot in low light. If posed groups, then maybe you're better off with an IS lens because you'd want to stop down from max aperture for depth of field anyway. Despite all the benefits of in-lens IS/VR that Nikon & Canon tout, you don't get fast stabilized primes.

You've got a zoom. Is 35mm a desireable focal length ? Would you prefer a 50/1.8 or even face shots with an 85/1.8 ?

There's a rule of thumb for SLRs that says you should shoot at a shutter speed equal to or faster than 1/FL where FL is the focal length (for 35mm - for APS-C, use the 1.5x equivalent) for reasonably sharp (not tripod sharp) photos. In low light, wide open, at high ISOs, you're not exactly setting yourself up for critically sharp photos anyway, so 1/FL is fine. with a 35mm lens, that means 1/50s. 1/45 or 1/60 will do. If you can hold the camera really steady, you might get away with 1/30s. And down around 1/30s you're risking subject motion blur shooting candids of people - it might be fine if you're asking them to pose for a shot, but when I shoot candids, I try for 1/60s or faster. At 1/30s I know I'll have to toss some due to subject motion blur and any slower, I don't bother.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that for shooting people (candids) I much prefer a fast lens. I notice the benefits of IS more when shooting my 85/1.4 since it shows camera shake more readily between 1/30s and 1/60s than my 28/2. I appreciate IS with either when shooting subjects where I want to stop down for DOF ... but of course, you have that option with a fast lens.

One other possibility is a compromise. A fast lens that still gives you zoom capability, like a Tamron 17-50 or 28-75/2.8. Still not stabilized on Nikon/Canon, but faster than the kit lens while offering some range. Only one stop slower than an f/2 prime. (My 28/2 is f/2 anyway and my 85/1.4 I shoot down to f/2 because depth of field is too shallow at f/1.4). You'd probably be content to shoot the 35/1.8 wide open without worrying about DOF being too shallow.

So what are your expected low light subjects ?

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

To really complicate things, here's a post in another thread about picking a camera for low light shooting where I show a few of my high ISO existing light shots:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=33880681

The bottom 5 were shot with 85/1.4 at f/2 (so could have been shot with a less expensive 85/1.8). But the reason I say this complicates things is that the shutter speeds were all sluggish (except for 1, all were 1/40s or slower) and these shots benefitted from in-body IS. With a 35mm instead of an 85mm, you'd have to be closer and the compositions would be different, but the shutter speeds would have been manageable.

Maybe this is relevant to what you're looking to do ... maybe not ... but post more info about what you want to shoot in low light.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com