Is a nikon 50mm F1.8 a good start?

I have a D70s, up until now I've only been using the kit lenses... which are not the best quality and not the fastest... and they are not macro or anything special either. They have been ok though(a 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 // and a 70-30mm)... but I want to buy a good versatile lens... I've read pretty good reviews about the 50mm 1.8 , is it really considered like a "must have" for photography? I like the 1.8 aperture... sounds awesome, but do you think it would be better to save some more and buy an 85mm F1.4 or something like that... I love the depth of field... but I am not sure what would be the best... I like portraits, and I enjoy doing street and candid photography

 

For a little over $100 brand new, you can't go far wrong.

Fast, light, fast focusing, sharp as a razor blade, it is the best "bargain" in the Nikon lens line for portraits, IMHO. Just remember you are talking about a short telephoto lens for your D70 here... the 35mm film conversion equivalent is 75mm in length... which is a shooting length that many of the best portrait people have used for 40 years.

My advise? Just go buy one.

 

Yes!

Also look into a F2.8 28mm or a 24mm used for street photography. You can set them to a hyperfocal easily or just rely on auto focus and they are closer to a wide to normal lens. The 50mm is more of a short telephoto on a Dx sensor.

 

Sharp only when stopped down. Note that at f/1.8 it's a horrible lens, sharp as a tac in the centre but visibly unsharp even on a 6x4 print towards the edges. That said I think it makes it awesome for portraits. But seriously $100 you have no excuse not to own it.

Infact go buy it. Now.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikkor-Nikon-50...ryZ30067QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Cheap, sharp, light, fast, and if the lens body is better built then it's a perfect package. But, that's not a major issue and always the optic that produce image not the "casing".
I would say go for it.

 

Too nice and cheap not to have. Got mine at ePhotoCraft in VA. just over $100 and no NY sales tax........

 

does any one have any sample pics with the 24mm 2.8 lens and the 50/1.8 lens?

 

Id buy the 50mm f/1.4 just for that little extra light.

 

85mm f1.4 is the next lens on my hit list, but the 1.8 is still pretty good.

 

I bought one about a week ago and I don't think I've used my 18-55 since. I like it because you can 'zoom with your feet' and it makes you focus more on how your going to frame the shot. I think zoom can make us lazy. I'd recommend it to anyone, and if you look around you can get them for less than $100. Sure it doesn't have that extra stop that the 1.4 has, but going from 3.5 to 1.8 is pretty nice.

 

I don't think the nifty-50 is a requirement for photography. I usually use my 80-200 for the portrait because I like how shallow the bokeh is, and it creates distance between me and my subject so that they don't feel cramped, and I can still get the headshot.

If I want 50mm, I use my 17-55. I did a comparison on my D70 and 55mm f/2.8 wasn't really THAT much different than f/1.8 when doing headshots from about 5-8 feet away. closer in, you'll see more of a difference, or if you include more of the background. It's a subtle difference though. Bout' the only time I use the 17-55 for portraits is when I want to include the environment or do full body shots. Then it's at either end of the extremes, and usually at f/2.8.