Anyone Got A Nifty Fifty For D40?

Steven001

Steven001

Messages
1,531
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning!

Just wondering if anyone has one of these for the D40? I'm just wondering what the manual focus is like? I never use manual focus myself but was thinking of getting one to give it a go. The only thing is I can imagine me missing a lot 'in the moment' shots.
 
Just get the AF-S version and it will autofocus on your d40 :D
Manual focus is fine on the one i have but mines an old manual focus only one, its not as easy on the d40 due to the viewfinder being a bit cramped and smaller than the d2hs.
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
Just get the AF-S version and it will autofocus on your d40 :D
Manual focus is fine on the one i have but mines an old manual focus only one, its not as easy on the d40 due to the viewfinder being a bit cramped and smaller than the d2hs.
Click to expand...

The AS-F version only comes in the 1.4 does it not? I was actually thinking of saving for the 35mm f/1.8 instead - it's well priced.
 
Ahhh yes sorry i had a bit of a tard moment there :D, the 35mm is regarded as a better choice on crop from what i have heard as 50mm can be a tad limiting.

The 1.4 is brilliant if you can afford it if not go for the 35mm 1.8, you gain auto focus and theres nothing stopping you using manual focus should you wish, i only bought the MF version as i wanted the lens for a play around rather than a serious use, however im sure it will prove to be an expensive mistake as i now want a 1.4
 
I have both the Nifty Fifty and the 35mm f/1.8 (DX), which I have used on my D40.

Although it's easy to manually focus on static objects with the 50mm (provided that you remember to flick the switch on the lens to Manual ;)), as the green focus light will come on in the viewfinder, I really find it a lot harder to use with dynamic subjects :|. In fact, I've given up trying with it on the D40 and just use an f/2.8 AF zoom instead.

The 35mm f/1.8, on the other hand, was probably designed with the D40 in mind, since it is motorised and is an obvious (cheapish) useful companion to the D40's kit lens. I find mine to be sharp, but I really can't shoot (in colour) with it wide open, as there appears to be a huge amount of colour fringing. I often switch to b&w when I make portraits with this lens, largely for that reason. Still, you can get software to reduce this, or you can stop down to about f/2.5 and it's gone! That's been my experience anyway, YMMV ;).

The 35mm currently costs around 170-190 quid (depending on where you go). It's a lot more than the 50mm, mostly due to the inclusion of the SWM (motor), but I'd say that it's a more useful lens on a DX body :shrug:.
 
I have both the non AF-S 1.8 and AF-S 50mm f1.4 for my D40 and the AF-S does make life easier. Practically all the shots on my flickr account are with one of them, the more recent ones with the f1.4. I love it... The 35mm is a bargain though. I can't say I have missed the extra width though personally.
 
The 35mm is the way to go for an all-rounder - can look slightly wide or slightly tele depending on your compositional skills. The 50mm is only useful for shallow depth of field portraits when mounted on a crop sensor. Too long for general purpose in my opinion.

Manual focusing on the 35mm is pretty much obligatory if shooting at f/1.8 for depth of field. The autofocus may not put the plane of focus exactly where you want it, so manual adjustment is often required. It can be a bit difficult to see the results in the viewfinder, I often just take a shot and chimp the results, adjusting two or three times to get the plane of focus just right. Or move in and out a bit.
 
The 50mm is only useful for shallow depth of field portraits when mounted on a crop sensor. Too long for general purpose in my opinion.

Munchkinn said:
I don't agree with that, and I think my shots on flickr prove it... ;)
Click to expand...

That's the main reason to buy the fifty - its USP if you like. If you've already got it, of course you can use it for lots of other things.

I suppose you could say the 300mm f/2.8 lens is great for landscapes because you've taken some landscape shots with it. Yes, but I'd never advise someone to buy one for landscapes. There are other options which make more sense if starting from scratch.
 
Yes, but previously you said it was only (in bold) useful for shallow depth of field portraits, and I was just pointing out that isn't true... :D I use mine for everything practically, but everyone is different... ;)
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
Ahhh yes sorry i had a bit of a tard moment there :D, the 35mm is regarded as a better choice on crop from what i have heard as 50mm can be a tad limiting.

The 1.4 is brilliant if you can afford it if not go for the 35mm 1.8, you gain auto focus and theres nothing stopping you using manual focus should you wish, i only bought the MF version as i wanted the lens for a play around rather than a serious use, however im sure it will prove to be an expensive mistake as i now want a 1.4
Click to expand...

Thanks - The 1.4 is more than I can afford (or will be able to afford, wouldn't like to spend much more than £170). You probably wouldn't loose much if you sound your f/1.8 and could put that towards to your 1.4 fund :)

Naboo32 said:
I have both the Nifty Fifty and the 35mm f/1.8 (DX), which I have used on my D40.

Although it's easy to manually focus on static objects with the 50mm (provided that you remember to flick the switch on the lens to Manual ;)), as the green focus light will come on in the viewfinder, I really find it a lot harder to use with dynamic subjects :|. In fact, I've given up trying with it on the D40 and just use an f/2.8 AF zoom instead.

The 35mm f/1.8, on the other hand, was probably designed with the D40 in mind, since it is motorised and is an obvious (cheapish) useful companion to the D40's kit lens. I find mine to be sharp, but I really can't shoot (in colour) with it wide open, as there appears to be a huge amount of colour fringing. I often switch to b&w when I make portraits with this lens, largely for that reason. Still, you can get software to reduce this, or you can stop down to about f/2.5 and it's gone! That's been my experience anyway, YMMV ;).

The 35mm currently costs around 170-190 quid (depending on where you go). It's a lot more than the 50mm, mostly due to the inclusion of the SWM (motor), but I'd say that it's a more useful lens on a DX body :shrug:.
Click to expand...

I thought that myself, would I just be wasting my money and buying it for the sake of it? I think I'd get much more use out of the 35mm due to the focal length and AF. I hadn't heared about the colour fringing before, I'll need to look into that :thinking:

I was thinking the most sensible option would be saving for the Tamron 18-50mm f/2.8, but like I say it's more than I would want to spend and not as fast as the 35mm.

:bonk:
 
Munchkinn said:
Yes, but previously you said it was only (in bold) useful for shallow depth of field portraits, and I was just pointing out that isn't true... :D I use mine for everything practically, but everyone is different... ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed. I hardly ever use the 50mm - I know it's more limiting in terms of the focal length, so when leaving the house it's the 35mm all the way. However I do appreciate how having limited options for composition can change the style of one's shooting, and help to see shots that wouldn't have been apparent with a zoom or one's usual lens. So I might choose the 50mm next time, for a change.
 
Steven001 said:
... I hadn't heared about the colour fringing before, I'll need to look into that :thinking: ...
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps you should take what I said with a pinch of salt ;). "Huge amount" of colour fringing really translates as, "There's some colour fringing, which I really notice when I blow the image up to 100% and cast my paranoid eye over it" :D!

With some subjects, it hardly shows, but where you have areas of high contrast (especially where the lighter area is whitish), then I think it's pretty bad at f/1.8 :(. The trick, I suppose, is to try not to automatically shoot with it set to f/1.8 all the time. Just as the 50mm f/1.4 tends to look it's best after around f/2, this lens needs a little stopping down too, IMO.

Try and find some reviews though and see what the experts say :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top