Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF D. OR 35mm f/2 AF D

LASTOLITE

LASTOLITE

No longer has 4 inches
Messages
2,617
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
Yes
As a standard lens for a D300 - for interior shots and some general walkabout street photography.......

I have a 50mm f/1.8 AF D and love it - But would the f/1.4 version be that much of a revelation?
 
I've owned the 50/1.8D and 50/1.4D, I'd say the different focal length is going to be more useful to you, but still may not be wide enough for interior shots (especially considering the crop factor).
 
So would you stick with what I already have or go with the 35 f2:thinking:

I would like to see what an f/1.4 lens operates like - never had the desire befor to be honest

What would be your choice
 
I have the 50mm f/1.4 and the 35mm f/2 but would use neither for the general purposes you mention (altho I'll stick them on if the frame suits). You'd be better putting your money into a mid f/2.8 zoom for a walkaround, and one that will let you go wider if you want to take interior shots. As for moving to f/1.4, I doubt you'll notice any difference unless you are planning to shoot at dusk or inside without a flash.
 
Personally I'd go with the 35/2 - unless you want to do people sort of stuff, I find a 35mm much more useful. It also focuses very close, so is nice for unexpected close-ups,

For value, the 50mm f/1,8 is hard to beat, both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 35/2 are much more expensive.
 
LASTOLITE said:
So would you stick with what I already have or go with the 35 f2:thinking:

I would like to see what an f/1.4 lens operates like - never had the desire befor to be honest

What would be your choice
Click to expand...

Sorry if my answer above was unclear, I wasn't answering your question on your terms as I don't think either the 50/1.4 or 35/2 will be ideal for interior shots. They're both fine for walkabout (50mm on a crop sensor is rather longer than is standard for walkabout...but I often use that combo), though for really general purposes a zoom is more flexible as mentioned above.

For the interior stuff you'd be better off with a tripod, a bunch of strobes, a narrow aperture and a zoom with a decent wide-end (say, 10-24, maybe 17-55).
 
There's also the sigma 30mm 1.4, which is rated pretty highly... I've just borrowed one from a mate and I'm not sure I'll be able to give it back without replacing it immediately! 50mm 1.4 or even 85 1.8 is nice for street stuff though...depends what kinda thing you're after... try out with a zoom lens maybe, spend half your time at 30mm and half at 50, and see how you get on?
 
I have a 50mm f1.4, a 30mm f1.4 and a 17-50 f2.8.

They all have their uses in different situations and are all very good lenses. As a general walkabout lens I'd put the 17-50mm on but if there was any kind of really low light then I'll use the 50mm or 30mm depending on how wide I'd need.

If you already have a 50mm f1.8 then I'd be tempted to go with the 35mm f2 as it give you something a bit different to what you already have.
 
I went from the 1.8 AF D to the 1.4 AF-S and definitely noticed the difference, it's an amazing lens the 1.4. I prefer it to my 30mm 1.4.

However, for some portraits and all street I tend to use the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, which is a cracking all round lens.
 
Dman said:
I went from the 1.8 AF D to the 1.4 AF-S and definitely noticed the difference, it's an amazing lens the 1.4. I prefer it to my 30mm 1.4.

However, for some portraits and all street I tend to use the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, which is a cracking all round lens.
Click to expand...

Same here, the 1.4 to me is better than the 1.8 and I also use a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which is quite a light lens.
 
I have a Siggy 30mm 1.4 and I love it...altho haven't taken many pics with it! The 50mm 1.4 I had just seemed a little too telephoto for everyday shots!
 
If you want to shoot interiors with a crop body then 30 or 35mm is not wide enough - barely wide enough on a full frame probably. You want to look at something like the Sigma 10-20mm if you're on a budget.
 
35mm f2 great little lens, with a really close focus distance about 8" in old money, mine spends a lot of time on the camera, more so than the 50mm.
 
Mud said:
...I'd say the different focal length is going to be more useful to you, but still may not be wide enough for interior shots (especially considering the crop factor).
Click to expand...

puddleduck said:
Personally I'd go with the 35/2 - unless you want to do people sort of stuff, I find a 35mm much more useful. It also focuses very close, so is nice for unexpected close-ups,

For value, the 50mm f/1,8 is hard to beat, both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 35/2 are much more expensive.
Click to expand...

Looking at lenses below 2.8, I'd echo the above comments; however, if you were going for a 35, I'd seriously consider the new AFS35/1.8 unless you really see yourself going full-frame very soon.

Remember there is the Sigma 30/1.4 and also their wider 1.8 primes.
 
acs said:
Looking at lenses below 2.8, I'd echo the above comments; however, if you were going for a 35, I'd seriously consider the new AFS35/1.8 unless you really see yourself going full-frame very soon.
Click to expand...

Having seen images from both, give me the 35mm f2 every time over the f1.8.
 
I had a conversation with a guy in a camera shop a few hours after my initial posting - He has said the same as

awp
I think you're asking too much from one lens.
Click to expand...

Martyn...
35mm f2 great little lens
Click to expand...

And before I spend my money he said just have a try with

Sigma 30/1.4
Click to expand...



I have a 17 55 f2.8 DX Nikkor that is on the camera alot - its just not fast enough for flashless indoor stuff

I think I will have a look at the Sigma - Is that for FX or is it a DX only lens? I would like to have a FF body in a year or two:thumbs:

Hope Springs Eternal:lol:
 
LASTOLITE said:
I think I will have a look at the Sigma - Is that for FX or is it a DX only lens? I would like to have a FF body in a year or two:thumbs:
Click to expand...

It is DX only, but so is your 17-55 .... the Sigma 30 f1.4 is a well regarded lens, and certainly fast enough to do what you want.
 
How did you get on?

Used my 35mm f/2 D for the first time today and wow!

Field of view and range to subject is much more natural and useful (on crop sensor) than 50mm length. Quality is so much better than my previous 50mm f/1.8 too.

That said I will be adding a 50mm 1.4 G to the bag at some point soon; the extra stop makes it worthwhile and whilst people gas on about DoF at f/1.4 I know it'll do me at the range I'll be using it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top