Pulling my hair out.

[cailinp]

I'm seriously going to pull my hair out. I want a prime lens and I want one bad. Problem is I am endlessly stuck between saving a buck or two and getting the 35mm with AF for my D5000 or spending more dough and getting the 50mm 1.4. I am noticing about a $200 price limit. I could always get the less expensive 50mm 1.8 but the AF won't work on my body. I don't know how big of a deal that will be to me or not.

The thing is If I get the cheaper lens...(the 35mm or the 50 1.8 without AF) I can also squeeze in a 55-200mm lens without my husband going nuts. Trying to keep myself below a $500 purchase here.

I love, love, LOVE shooting portraits and facial close-ups. With that all being said, What in the world should I do. Help me before I go bald.

 

[sleist]

I love, love, LOVE shooting portraits and facial close-ups.

Based on this, I would go with the 50mm f/1.4. The 35mm f/1.8 is a nice lens and sharp but not the best choice for portraits.

Otherwise, I would go the 35mm plus 55-200mm route. These plus the 18-55mm kit lens will give you a prime plus coverage from 18-200mm. Then start saving for a better portrait lens.

HTH

 

[NWK04]

I don't think you'll be happy with the 50mm 1.8. Not because it's not a good lens but because of the manual focus. I recently upgrade to the D90 and now love my 50mm 1.8. I rarely used it on my D3000.

Just my $0.02

 

[Geaux]

I have the 35mm 1.8, and that lens has not left my d3000 since I put it on. Just did two sessions in the past week with that lens alone. One portrait, one engagement. Pics came out excellent.

 

[Robin Usagani]

when I spent money on my canon 50mm f/1.4, it felt like it was sooo much money and I had a buyer remorse, but now I am really glad that I bought it. I pretty much use this lens 90% of the time and it has been giving me really good results!

 

[TiCoyote]

I can't imagine not having AF. I think that would make me tear my hair out.

 

[Derrel]

The 50/1.8 AF or AF-D Nikkor has remained optically unchanged since the mid-1980's. The earlier AF model (not the later D- model of the early 2000's) was made by the hundreds of thousands, and can sometimes be found on eBay or other auction sites,paired with old,junky Nikon AF bodies like the N4004 or N6006,etc, for really good prices....buy the camera, throw it away, keep the lenses...

While the 50mm 1.8 Nikkor lenses will not autofocus on a D5000, they will mount, meter, and have fully automatic diaphragm control, AND you will get the AF Confirmation focusing system, ie "the green dot" focus confirmation signal at the bottom of the viewfinder screen. For manually focusing when doing portraiture in the 3 to 15 foot zone, the 50/1.8 focuses pretty well both by eye, and by "dot". So, consider shopping around for a good deal on a 50/1.8 that can be found paired with an older, junker body of of eBay,etc. Then you can buy a new 35/1.8. Unlike a 50, a 35mm is harder to focus by eye, so you definitely want an Autofocus 35mm lens.

 

[KmH]

I can't imagine not having AF. I think that would make me tear my hair out.

Those of us that learned photography before auto focus (or auto anything) existed have a skill (manual focusing) most new photographers today will never learn.

Unfortuantely, the gear today is not designed to accomodate manual focusing in any event. Cameras don't have the right kind of focusing screen and the lenses no longer have fine enough manual focus adjustments.

There are many shooting situation where auto focus cannot do the job, and manual focusing is your only option.

How, do you plan to cope with those situations?

 

[Robin Usagani]

Plus if you look at the kit lens, the grip area where you turn the lens to focus is sooo tiny. Harder to focus!

 

[caged]

my 50mm 1.8 rarely leaves my d3000 body.

 

[mrshaleyberg]

I have a 50mm 1.4 and if I would have known about the whole motor in the lens thing before I bought my D60, I would have gotten a D90 instead..The AF lenses are cheaper..I accidently bought a 50mm 1.8 because I had no idea about the whole motor deal, and the manual focus was a b*tch! It's worth spending the extra money to get the AF-S..It's just an arm and a leg. I'd look on ebay to see if anybody is selling one.

 

[KmH]

The AF lenses are cheaper.

There are a couple of exceptions like the AF 50 mm f/1.8D, but otherwise AF LENSES ARE NOT CHEAPER:


AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G - $200 ......... AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D - $390

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - $200 ......... AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED - $670

AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED - $250 ........AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - $1225

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED - $460 ........ AF Zoom-NIKKOR 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF - $745

 

[ababysean]

I think it depends on who you are shooting also, are these adults that will stay still or kids that will not?

 

[Aayria]

If you choose the 50mm 1.4 AF-S you will be SO glad you did. I have both the 55-200 and the "more expensive" 50 1.4, and I very rarely use anything but my 50.

You cannot go wrong with the 50mm, especially for the kind of work you described. It's also VERY sharp. I've found myself so in love with the sharpness of this lens that I can't stand to put my other lenses on any more.

 

[crimbfighter]

I would go for the 50 1.4 AF-S lens w/o question. I am shooting with the same body, and for a while, I was trying desperately to get sharp photos with MF on my 50 1.8. After pulling my hair out, I posted a thread asking for tricks to better my MF skills. The overwhelming consensus I got, was don't do it... As was mentioned above, modern DSLR's, especially consumer level like our D5000's, don't have the proper focusing screens, rings, ect. to do it well. I eventually gave up. I also picked up a 35 1.8 AF-S, and I love it, buuuuut, given the choice, I'd go with the 50 1.4 AF-S (just didn't have the money at the time). I've also noticed some distortion in portraits when close up with the 35mm, forcing me to back off several feet, then crop the frame quite a bit. Just a lot of wasted space in the frame...