n00b needs a lens!!!!!!

Gaerek · Jun 3, 2009

itznfb said:
i actually wasn't able to find many examples on here. just the suggestions here and there. i can't see how a 50mm lens would make a great portrait lens on film and full frame but a 35mm on DX would not considering they are basically the same focal length when adjusting for crop factor. you figure Nikon made the 35mm DX because of these reasons.

obviously there is no definitive right or wrong answer. this is one of those situations where what works best for you works best for you. in my opinion though i just see the 50mm f/1.8 being used as this catch all suggestion just because it's been around forever and it's cheap, when in real world scenarios it isn't that useful.

She has a D60. That's a DX camera. That means that the 50mm becomes ~75mm equivalent. The 35mm becomes just over 50mm equivalent. A lens that is DX only just means that it works only with DX cameras. An FX lens can be used on both, but if it's used on a DX camera (like the D60) you have to figure in the crop factor. In other words, the 50mm FX lens and the 35mm DX lens are not "basically the same focal length when adjusting for crop factor." There is a considerable different between them.

Anytime you put a lens on a cropped frame sensor, you have to take into consideration the crop factor. To recap:

50mm "full frame" lens on a full frame camera = 50mm equivalent
50mm "full frame" lens on a cropped frame camera = ~75mm (for Nikon, anyway.
35mm "cropped frame" lens on a full frame camera = will not work, or severly reduce your working megapixels
35mm "cropped frame" lens on a cropped frame camera = ~50mm equivalent

Most people will tell you that good portrait focal length is between 80 and about 120. That puts the 50mm on her camera closer to portrait length than the 35mm.

itznfb · Jun 3, 2009

Gaerek said:
There is a considerable different between them.

Most people will tell you that good portrait focal length is between 80 and about 120. That puts the 50mm on her camera closer to portrait length than the 35mm.

i explained the crop scenario in my post and 2~3mm is not a considerable difference. DX lenses are not adjusted for the crop sensor in terms of designated focal length. a 35mm DX lens will be about 53mm just like a standard (fx) 35mm lens.

80-120mm is good portrait for head shot portraits. if you're trying to fit their whole body you're going to be standing 20 feet away. the 50mm on a crop sensor doesn't really fit well into either the headshot or full body category. it's in between optimal focal lengths. i would much rather have a 85mm 1.8 for headshot portraits and 35mm 1.8 for full body.

breemcmahon · Jun 3, 2009

could i ask what you would suggest for now?
is it better to go with a 50mm f/1.8
or perhaps something different?

as of now i still don't understand entirely the benefit of the 50mm, wouldn't something like... and 18-200 lens with a lower fnumber be more helpful? i'm assuming that would be more costly but at this point i'm starting to throw cost out the window. [granted anything too pricey is asking to much of my funds...]

Sherman Banks · Jun 3, 2009

breemcmahon said:
as of now i still don't understand entirely the benefit of the 50mm, wouldn't something like... and 18-200 lens with a lower fnumber be more helpful? i'm assuming that would be more costly but at this point i'm starting to throw cost out the window. [granted anything too pricey is asking to much of my funds...]

You aren't going to find a faster version of the 18-200 lens (lower f-stop) than what is available. The primary benefit to the 50mm 1.8d is the speed. At f1.8, you'll be able to shoot in low light with a shutter speed adequate enough to prevent motion blur from camera shake. The depth of field at this aperture can be extremely shallow as well which attracts a lot of people to it. I have it, I think it's a good portrait lens as it has pretty minimal distortion. For the $100-$130 you pay for it, you'll be getting lots of lens for your dollar.

If you're throwing cost out of the window, look into the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8. Buy one for me while you're at it. :thumbup:

itznfb · Jun 3, 2009

breemcmahon said:
could i ask what you would suggest for now?
is it better to go with a 50mm f/1.8
or perhaps something different?

as of now i still don't understand entirely the benefit of the 50mm, wouldn't something like... and 18-200 lens with a lower fnumber be more helpful? i'm assuming that would be more costly but at this point i'm starting to throw cost out the window. [granted anything too pricey is asking to much of my funds...]

i didn't use my 50mm 1.8 that often for reason i've already gone over and since i've purchased the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 i haven't used the 50mm at all, nor do i see myself ever using it.