primes

goodoneian · May 18, 2008

so i've been looking at primes lately, especially the 50mm 1.4. my problem being though that i don't really use a 50mm focal length that often, so i found this

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/82946-USA/Nikon_1913_Super_Wide_Angle_AF.html

i'm not asking a "should i get this lens?" question, but just if anyone knows anything about this lens and if it's worth its price, etc

Battou · May 18, 2008

This is a semipopular question, the results you are going to get are likely going to lean toward get it or get the 1.8 if money is an issue.

50mm primes are prolly one of the most versital focal length lenses offered. Even if you don't currently use that particular focal length with much frequency, there will likely come a time when you find it to be a part of your everyday equipment.

usayit · May 18, 2008

Yes... I agree... but on a crop body some find the 35mm lens more useful. Street shooters often will go even slightly wider.

Battou · May 18, 2008

usayit said:
Yes... I agree... but on a crop body some find the 35mm lens more useful. Street shooters often will go even slightly wider.

Good point, I repetedly forget about the cropbody aspect.

goodoneian · May 18, 2008

Battou said:
Good point, I repetedly forget about the cropbody aspect.

yeah, my camera has a 1.5 crop factor.

what i'm asking really is would the 20mm prime produce significantly sharper pictures than my 18-200vr? since i almost always use that lens at between 18-24mm, i think that 20mm would work good for me. i don't want to buy an almost 500 dollar lens for not much difference results, you know?

TamiyaGuy · May 19, 2008

Well, both the 50mm and the 20mm produce some very sharp results, and both would almost certainly be much better than your current lenses (primes are always sharper than zooms). However, whether you'd actually find more use in the 20mm is really up to you. Do you do street photography, landscape or portaits? Because as wide a lens as 20mm would probably only be useful for landscape.

To be honest, I would recommend the 50mm f.1.4, simply because it's the right balance of price, zoom level, and aperture.

Bear in mind, however, that you will not be able to autofocus on any of those lenses with your D40x. All other modes, like metering, will be avaliable, just not autofocus. If you really want autofocus, then I would highly recommend the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM. It's more expensive, but if you're willing to pay...

JerryPH · May 19, 2008

For less than that, I would suggest that you look at the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 lens.

It is right in the range you are looking for and a much faster lens.

I just recently pulled it out to save me during an indoor (inside a house) shoot where I was asked not to use the flash. It worked great!

PushingTin · May 19, 2008

what i'm asking really is would the 20mm prime produce significantly sharper pictures than my 18-200vr

I dont know about the 20mm. But my 50mm 1.8 produces MUCH sharper images than my 18-200VR did so my guess is yes.

In fact I wasnt happy with th 18-200 sharpness at all, so i sold it.

goodoneian · May 19, 2008

PushingTin said:
I dont know about the 20mm. But my 50mm 1.8 produces MUCH sharper images than my 18-200VR did so my guess is yes.

In fact I wasnt happy with th 18-200 sharpness at all, so i sold it.

hmm well i think the 18-200 takes somewhat sharp pictures so if the 50mm is as good as you say i should be pretty happy.

i think i'm actually gonna go with the 50mm 1.4, since it's the cheapest of the 20mm and the 30mm sigma. plus it will force me to use a different approach to taking pictures since it isn't wide like i typically use.

b&h and adorama both don't have it in stock though :/

JerryPH · May 19, 2008

Lack of sharpness for me is not an issue with the 18-200... it is a pretty slow lens, though, and is best used in brighter situations, but its a wonderfully versatile lens.

PushingTin · May 19, 2008

They have the 50mm 1.8 in stock. Is there a particular reason you want the 1.4?

The 1.4 from what I understand is built alot better than the 1.8 (plastic) but for the money I think you cant go wrong with the 1.8

From what I believe the only differences is obviously the 1.4 and the build - image quality / sharpness is much on par? I dont know, I have only ever played with the 1.8 version.

I used to think the 18-200 was great until i started playing with primes and the 70-200. Just doesnt compete at all - except for versatility.

goodoneian · May 19, 2008

the main reason i want the 1.4 is because i've heard a lot of good things about it, such as it has superior build quality to the 1.8 which is pretty important to me. also i like the 1.4 aperture. not that i have heard anything bad about the 1.8 though, i just want to go with the 1.4. and it'll probably be 2 weeks or so till i have the money for it, so hopefully b&h or adorama will have it in stock by then

goodoneian · May 19, 2008

acually, i think i might go with the 1.8. i didn't notice it was only 109 dollars, so in my opinion you can't really go wrong with that. plus it stops down to f/22 which i like more than the 1.4's f/16

Rhubarb · May 19, 2008

If you spend most of your time in the 18-24mm range you may very well find 50mm way to tight.

I would suggest to spend at least a couple of days shooting with you 18-200mm on 50mm to get a first hand understanding of the FOV you are going to be locked in to.

Be disciplined and leave it only on 50mm, so you get the real experience of shooting with a prime.

You may find that 20mm or 30mm is much more suited to your style.