Fast focusing standard prime

Hello, I use the Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.4 G on a D700. I love it: it's my standard "zoom" and walk-around lens.

The problem is that when I shoot candids of my 4 months-old son the autofocus is too slow (it's just ok for static photos, but so-so with movement).

I've been considering other "standard" primes between 35mm and 60mm with a better autofocus speed:

• Nikkor Micro AF-S 60mm f2.8 (It is my best bet)

• Nikkor AFD 35mm f2.0 (I like the wider Focal Length, but dislike the AF noise)

• Sigma HSM 50mm f1.4 (I'm not sure that I want another 50mm prime, I prefer the Nikkor because it has better corners and more precise AF ...)

• Other??? (Maybe the rumored Nikkor AFS 35mm f1.4)

Any opinion???
Thanks in advance

--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...

SMV78 said:

Hello, I use the Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.4 G on a D700. I love it: it's my standard "zoom" and walk-around lens.

The problem is that when I shoot candids of my 4 months-old son the autofocus is too slow (it's just ok for static photos, but so-so with movement).

Click to expand...

Nothing immidiately comes to mind unfortunately... The 24-70 f2.8 is focussing really fast though.

I sold my Nikon 50 1.4G for the Sigma HSM and find it the superior lens (IQ and focussing). Unfortunately , Sigma QC might be as bad as people claim... I needed two bad copies, before I got the one I have now (not only AF problems mind you).

Waiting for the 35 f1.4 might be your best bet after all, but I fear the price tag :S

Well, if you are trying to stay close to a "normal" viewing range, then with the D700, you might not want to use the 35mm (normal for DX).

I do like the 50mm F1.8 from Nikon. It's inexpensive and it's fast enough there is little I can not capture with it.

The 60mm Micro is also another good choice. I can't speak for the Sigma as I don't shoot with one at that focal length.

The other issue on the table is the candids.

Shooting candids, especially of the very young can be a frustrating experience as it can be very difficult to anticipate facial expressions, movements, etc. All of my kids, when they were under a year old were taken with film, as digital did not exist on the consumer side and would not for years. A motor drive helped in some situations, but it was practice that made the biggest difference.

You have a distinct advantage in that with Nikon's cheapest DSLRs you can far outstrip the exposure curve of Ekatachrome, Kodachrom, and Trx-Pan emulsions. Plus, with the built in multi-exposure feature, it's like having a fast motor drive that will yield excellent results. All this really winds up with the camera being able to get "out of the way" and letting you take the picture.

I would suggest that with one so young that you look at your AF settings on the camera.

I have found that the "fastest" settings for a subject like this, are the same or close to for sports action. I would suggest you set the AF to ""S" on the front so when you depress the shutter button as part of a pre-focus exercise that the camera does this one time rather than setup to possibly "hunt" with "C" for continuous. Also set the number of focus points to 21 or 9 points rather than 51 or 3-D. the fewer the points, the faster the AF will work. This will also be the case for the 50mm 1.4G. Nikon's AF system is among the best and learning to adapt it away from some of the automatic settings will yield some spectacular results.

50mm 1.4/1.8 AF-D?

I've used both on my D700 and they focus quite quickly (yes, you'll have to deal with the noise).

Another option (I know, not a prime and it's heavy) is the 24-70mm. This focuses about as fast as any lens I've tried and the IQ is excellent.

Here's something that has not been considered yet: give manual focusing a try. With auto focus you often miss shots, but with manual focus practice, you can focus quite quickly and accurately.

If you think it's tough now, just wait two years till the running starts.

Peace
Peter

http://www.peteranthonyphotography.com

With Manual focus, the OP should also learn to use the hyperfocal point and slower apertures to set the range where he can minimize having to focus so often.

Old school, but never fails.

Hyperfocal is maybe not so good in doors. You haven't mentioned where you are trying to take pictures.

I suggest the cheapo 50/1.8 and see if it helps. It will be your absolute cheapest AF option which you could try then ditch without even breaking a sweat.

Another small advantage of the 1.8 over for example the old f1.4 is that it is soo far recessed it won't catch finger prints from a child like the f1.4 which has it's front element right in front just waiting for kid's fingers. (I imagine the new f1.4 is the same.

If you are having problems with AF then I would imagine that f1.4 wouldn't be of any help anyway, so if you have to stop down then you are in the range of the 1.8.

Even though you already have a 50 it seems strange to get another Especially if it cots a lot, so the cheapo 50/1.8 is a no brainer. Especially since you are trying to localize your problems. Changing focal length would only add another variable.

Guy Moscoso

If you haven't tried yet, you need to try 35mm on people up close. You might not like it. I am shooting the 35/1.8 DX on my FF D700 and it's a little tricky getting faces near the edge of the frame. I use it in very low light and the vignetting creates it's own "charm" If I were a little more serious about the 35 range, I would/should slap on my noisy (AF wise) 35-70/2.8 and have the ability to get 35 but not be trapped in it and have 50 and 70mm at my disposal. If I were having depth of field and AF problems I wouldn't stay near f1.4 or f1.8 so f2.8 and smaller like f4 would be at my fingertips with this lens.

Guy Moscoso

Thank you everybody.

I'm shooting at f2.8 and 1m/3ft, that's the reason I'm considering slower lenses. On FF I think that 35mm and 50mm have a FOV very similar, so both options seem good.

I've the 14-24 2.8 that focus very fast, and I imagine that the 24-70 2.8 focus at least as fast as this, but I'd prefer a prime lens, not a zoom.

I'd like to know if the micro 60mm 2.8 has a fast AF (I've the 105mm VR and is faster than my 50mm, but not too much because it has a long focusing thread).

I'd prefer AFS lenses because of the AF noise (it's quite annoying for candids), but I had to buy an AFD lens, I'd get the 35mm f2.0 because I'll get a different FL.

The Sigma is probably the fastest focusing 50mm prime, but I'm not willing to deal with the QC issues at least its AF is much much faster (with the same precision)

Thank you again.
--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...

Technique before glass...otherwise it won't matter how fast a lens will AF.

SMV78 said:

Thank you everybody.

I'm shooting at f2.8 and 1m/3ft, that's the reason I'm considering slower lenses. On FF I think that 35mm and 50mm have a FOV very similar, so both options seem good.

I've the 14-24 2.8 that focus very fast, and I imagine that the 24-70 2.8 focus at least as fast as this, but I'd prefer a prime lens, not a zoom.

I'd like to know if the micro 60mm 2.8 has a fast AF (I've the 105mm VR and is faster than my 50mm, but not too much because it has a long focusing thread).

Click to expand...

Yes, it is fast. Shot track and field with one - is that fast enough?
Again, technique first...

SMV78 said:

I'd prefer AFS lenses because of the AF noise (it's quite annoying for candids), but I had to buy an AFD lens, I'd get the 35mm f2.0 because I'll get a different FL.

The Sigma is probably the fastest focusing 50mm prime, but I'm not willing to deal with the QC issues at least its AF is much much faster (with the same precision)

Thank you again.
--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...

Click to expand...

Question: what do you love about the 50G if you want an alternative?

Just for the record, the 50/1.8 makes almost no noise even though it is a screw drive. Now if you want noisy then you can try the 35-70!

The 24-70 is a tank. If I remember, almost the size of my 80-200/2.8 push pull. I imagine you want something light and less conspicuous

Shooting track is much further than your normal distance so it doesn't seem comparable, but I could be wrong.

Guy Moscoso

SMV78 said:

Thank you everybody.

I'm shooting at f2.8 and 1m/3ft, that's the reason I'm considering slower lenses. On FF I think that 35mm and 50mm have a FOV very similar, so both options seem good.

I've the 14-24 2.8 that focus very fast, and I imagine that the 24-70 2.8 focus at least as fast as this, but I'd prefer a prime lens, not a zoom.

I'd like to know if the micro 60mm 2.8 has a fast AF (I've the 105mm VR and is faster than my 50mm, but not too much because it has a long focusing thread).

I'd prefer AFS lenses because of the AF noise (it's quite annoying for candids), but I had to buy an AFD lens, I'd get the 35mm f2.0 because I'll get a different FL.

The Sigma is probably the fastest focusing 50mm prime, but I'm not willing to deal with the QC issues at least its AF is much much faster (with the same precision)

Thank you again.
--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...

Click to expand...

I love:

• It's f1.4
• At 2.8-4.0 has an IQ comparable to 24-70 2.8
• It's inexpensive
• It's small and light
• AF is very precise and makes no noise
• Corners are quite good for landscape

I don't like:

• Focusing speed is not up to other AFS lenses, good for general photography, but slow for action or candids

--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...

Hello, I'm sorry but I don't know what it is "field & track".

I usually shoot at distances between 2 and 3 feet, using af-on for pre-focus and continous tracking AF (C mode). I've change to 9 points AF and using only the central point and the speed has improved a little bit ...

I don't know what kind of technique is able to improve my keeping rate with this subject.

At this distance with a 4 mo. old that is moving his head suddenly back and forth, it's very difficult to use manual focus (I've try and for me it's worse).

If I choose to shoot at smaller apertures (maybe f5.6 or f8) and hyperfocal distance then the background it's not blurred enough for a portrait ...

Any advice?

--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...

I've change AF to 9 points (using only the central point), and that has improved a little bit the focusing speed ...

Using S mode instead of C mode didn't work (at least for me), because my son suddenly moves and the AF doesn't follow the subject ...

Thank you

--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...

I've posted this on here before, but to illustrate - this was taken with 50mm f1.4G, wide open at 1.4. Could do with a touch more DoF, but the light was crummy and I didn't fancy flash...... Could be sharper. Overall though, the 50 works well for me for portraits of my son. He was 4 1/2 months when this was taken (this time last year) and now is running around.

I agree is is slow to aquire AF, but once locked on it tracks movement quite fast.

If you acquire focus and hold first pressure on the shutter button waiting for the right expression AF is fast
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

The 50mm f/1.4G element is very recessed. It startled me how hollow this lens was when I noticed I'd lost the UV filter.