The 50mm f1.8

Mav · Mar 25, 2008

keith204 said:
New technology leads to new demands, and new demands lead to new competition.

Oh here it is!

D40, 50mm f/1.8 @ f/2.8, 1/60s, iso1400, baby gyrating back and forth, manually focused

Sissy :greenpbl:

keith204 · Mar 25, 2008

keith204 said:
New technology leads to new demands, and new demands lead to new competition.

Mav said:
Oh here it is!

D40, 50mm f/1.8 @ f/2.8, 1/60s, iso1400, baby gyrating back and forth, manually focused

Sissy :greenpbl:

Not sure what your point was, but I can guess. Anyway, here we go.

If you were shooting sports, it would be another thing. For instance, I did a basketball tournament this December. There were 10 players to a team, and I was selling the pictures to the parents. I tried to get 20 pictures per player, because that is what parents buy. So, you figure... I have to take 200 KEEPER images in 32 minutes. That's 200 where they are doing something cool, jumping high, juking around an opponent, etc. Why do I need 20 pics per player? Because that's what parents buy. When parents buy photos, they don't buy one or two like the newspaper does...they go all out and buy everything I have. My main problem is not having ENOUGH. Basketball is too unpredictable to require that many shots with MF in such a little amount of time. Any time I see a moment, i rely on mashing the button and a sharp image coming out, without having to spend the time and risk with MF. That's just me, because I am not good enough to use MF for all these shots, let alone MF with such a shallow DOF as f/1.8 provides. With a baby rocking back and forth, you bet you can guess where he's gonna go next.

What I'm saying is that some of your points aren't valid, and don't apply to everyone. What I'm also saying is that you are closed-minded to the situation and you need to understand that the D40 does have this limitation, and this limitation WILL limit SOME people (myself included).

So, is it fair to say that MF on a D40 and a non-AF-S WILL hinder SOME people?
Is it fair to say that the D40 is a BEGINNER's camera, and most BEGINNERS don't know the type of photography they'll get into?

This isn't about the D40 anymore. Just be careful how you're coming across, because you sound closed-minded - that "Nobody NEEDS AF". I am one who DOES need AF at times (sporting events), and whether a sissy or not, that's me. I'm sure more people are in the same boat.

Mav · Mar 25, 2008

Keith, where the hell did I say that "Nobody NEEDS AF". That's a bunch of crap and you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that period. All I'm saying is that you don't "need" AF "all the time". There are plenty of situations where having AF just isn't critical, and thus there's no reason that a D40/D40x/D60 owner should not go out and buy a 50/1.8 and have a blast with it.

More here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1080269&postcount=103

What did I say there?

Mav said:
You really DON'T need AF all the time.

Closed-minded are the ones who say you "cannot" use a non-AF-S lens on one of these cameras "period" even though you can get by just fine without it in "many" but not all situations.

Speaking of how one comes across....

keith204 said:
Nice shots. It shows that if all you have to shoot is a still book, then you don't need AF. You're right... who needs AF?

You wonder why I'm giving you smart-ass replies? It's because of smart-ass mocking posts like this one. I could not imagine whipping either of my cameras around at weddings snapping candids of people or nailing those money shots without AF but this is far beyond the BEGINNERS forum. If you just want to screw around with primes and see what they're like I'll say it once again, you don't NEED AF.

Socrates · Mar 25, 2008

keith204 said:
Not sure what your point was, but I can guess. Anyway, here we go.

If you were shooting sports, it would be another thing. For instance, I did a basketball tournament this December. There were 10 players to a team, and I was selling the pictures to the parents. I tried to get 20 pictures per player, because that is what parents buy. So, you figure... I have to take 200 KEEPER images in 32 minutes. That's 200 where they are doing something cool, jumping high, juking around an opponent, etc. Why do I need 20 pics per player? Because that's what parents buy. When parents buy photos, they don't buy one or two like the newspaper does...they go all out and buy everything I have. My main problem is not having ENOUGH. Basketball is too unpredictable to require that many shots with MF in such a little amount of time. Any time I see a moment, i rely on mashing the button and a sharp image coming out, without having to spend the time and risk with MF. That's just me, because I am not good enough to use MF for all these shots, let alone MF with such a shallow DOF as f/1.8 provides. With a baby rocking back and forth, you bet you can guess where he's gonna go next.

What I'm saying is that some of your points aren't valid, and don't apply to everyone. What I'm also saying is that you are closed-minded to the situation and you need to understand that the D40 does have this limitation, and this limitation WILL limit SOME people (myself included).

So, is it fair to say that MF on a D40 and a non-AF-S WILL hinder SOME people?
Is it fair to say that the D40 is a BEGINNER's camera, and most BEGINNERS don't know the type of photography they'll get into?

This isn't about the D40 anymore. Just be careful how you're coming across, because you sound closed-minded - that "Nobody NEEDS AF". I am one who DOES need AF at times (sporting events), and whether a sissy or not, that's me. I'm sure more people are in the same boat.

Sissy!

keith204 · Mar 25, 2008

Mav said:
Keith, where the hell did I say that "Nobody NEEDS AF". That's a bunch of crap and you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that period. All I'm saying is that you don't "need" AF "all the time". There are plenty of situations where having AF just isn't critical, and thus there's no reason that a D40/D40x/D60 owner should not go out and buy a 50/1.8 and have a blast with it.

More here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1080269&postcount=103

What did I say there?

Closed-minded are the ones who say you "cannot" use a non-AF-S lens on one of these cameras "period" even though you can get by just fine without it in "many" but not all situations.

Speaking of how one comes across....

You wonder why I'm giving you smart-ass replies? It's because of smart-ass mocking posts like this one. I could not imagine whipping either of my cameras around at weddings snapping candids of people or nailing those money shots without AF but this is far beyond the BEGINNERS forum. If you just want to screw around with primes and see what they're like I'll say it once again, you don't NEED AF.

My bad. I didn't read the part you said 'but not all'. Most posts have given me the impression that you think nobody should care about AF, but now I know where you're coming from. For the Nobody Needs AF part, I shouldn't have put quotes around it, as that's not what I was saying. The Nobody Needs AF concept is the impression I got from many of your numerous posts regarding this. This was definitely not something you said, just an impression I got, and I apologize.

I agree that MF is fine for playing, as I do the same. Sorry to get so heated on you there. I have nothing against you. It all makes more sense now that you say the part in green. It's just that... I'm right, and you're wrong.

hehe...I just had to say that...only kidding of course. I wouldn't want this to get any more out of hand.

Socrates said:
Sissy!

I'm glad there's still humor in this forum

(I hope)

passerby · Mar 26, 2008

Sorry for not replying for the time being as I was busy trying to understand this lens so far.

I have no problem using manual focus since I do it every now and then with the kit lens. But this f1.8 seem different game altogether. I can't imagine maintaining focus manually with say 50mm f1.4 or faster when I am struggling with this one. Slight change with the focused object - need refocusing instantly. Even with f2.8 was a struggle.

I find it this lens is better than the kit lens I have - in it's image quality. It seems the results is a bit crispier. As by how much I don't know, but I love the speed really.

In the day time with f1.8 ISO200 and the SS 1/4000 still not enough?

. Shooting in the house with SS 1/320? Last night I outside I raised the ISO to 1600 with f1.8 and shooting the street light with 1/500?:hail:.

This picture below here taken this afternoon 2 hours ago with ISO 200 f2.8 with SS 1/4000 of a second. I will be back with more of these bees hopefully.

petey · Mar 26, 2008

It's fun focusing with your left finger and thumb.

Mav · Mar 26, 2008

keith204 said:
My bad. I didn't read the part you said 'but not all'. Most posts have given me the impression that you think nobody should care about AF, but now I know where you're coming from. For the Nobody Needs AF part, I shouldn't have put quotes around it, as that's not what I was saying. The Nobody Needs AF concept is the impression I got from many of your numerous posts regarding this. This was definitely not something you said, just an impression I got, and I apologize.

I agree that MF is fine for playing, as I do the same. Sorry to get so heated on you there. I have nothing against you. It all makes more sense now that you say the part in green. It's just that... I'm right, and you're wrong. hehe...I just had to say that...only kidding of course. I wouldn't want this to get any more out of hand.

:hug::

Mostly I'm just frustrated with all of the people that say you "can't" use a whole ton of good lenses just because of the lack of AF support when there's plenty of scenarios when having AF isn't even all that critical (macro, wide-angle, relatively static subjects, etc), and then you miss out on using some great lenses for the wrong reasons. So that leads to sarcastic comments and smart ass remarks. It's not unlike this growing myth I'm starting to see with people saying that you "can't" do something unless you have a VR/IS lens, which of course I commonly do all the time without it. Ugh. So apologies on my end for any misunderstanding. Yes, you most certainly do "need" AF for a lot of other situations, like trying to get a ton of good and in-focus BBall images of every player within the short span of a game. You're right. Time moves on, technology advances, and then people expect more, especially if you're doing it for money. Pretty soon no wedding photographer will be able to compete unless they can get crystal clear and sharp ISO6400 or even higher images in the church with no flash unless they drop 5-grand on a Nikon D3. Neat stuff, huh? But if you're just starting out and learning things, none of that is important either.

But I'm still right too. Dammit. :mrgreen:

Last night was a truly rare occasion that my daughter was sleeping on her right side facing the center of the room rather than her left side facing the back wall, which meant I ran back downstairs when I saw it and grabbed what? My D40 and the 50mm f/1.4D lens which only manually focuses on the D40. Why the D40? Because its shutter is much quieter than the D80's. It's so quiet that I can stick the camera almost right in her face and it won't disturb her. Good thing too, because my first couple of shots sucked, not due to focus issues but rather composition and noise. I turned it down to iso1600 from 3200, braced myself on the edge of her crib and managed to capture this at 1/25s and f/1.4, straight off the camera JPEG.

It was so dim in the room that I don't think AF would have even worked very well to begin with, so :greenpbl:. Auto what? VR/IS huh? :mrgreen:

My wife's reaction: aaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww :heart: :wink: