which prime lens?

[camera obscura]

If you wanted to take outdoor photos at night with a tripod but without flash, which lens would you buy?

In order of cost:
Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens $120
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens $193
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens $435

I'm leaning toward the 35mm because I have a DX camera, and the cost is about what I can afford. I've read almost all the comments/reviews at B&H and am just really confused. Some questions...

What is the difference between D and G (please don't say E and F :mrgreen?
Is 1.4 better for low light?
Do I really need a prime lens (I know I don't but I'd like to hear anyway)?

Any help appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Jcampbelll]

The 50 1.8 will have an aperture ring but the 35G and 50 1.4G won't. D = ring G= none.

Prime is where to go if you want to take low light pictures. Don't forget the 50mm 1.4D. Only $270-ish. I have the 35mm and has been my most used lens. I am thinking about getting the 50mm too.

 

[o hey tyler]

I got a 50mm f/1.4 and I love it. While I am using it on a DX body as well, I find it to be a bit tight (get it right, get it tight, etc) at times. However my girlfriend just picked up a 35mm f/2 which is great, and wide for a walkaround prime indoors. However, if you want more stops of light, go for the 50 1.4

 

[taraj_00]

Does the D50 have the internal focusing motor? If not, you'll want to go with the 35mm AF-S. The 50 1.8 isn't AF-S so needs that internal motor.

 

[Geaux]

Hate to break it to you, but doing GOOD night shots with a 1.8 isn't as easy as you would think, I would still suggest a tripod or flash (depending on subject)

I have the 35mm 1.8 but still need a VERY steady hand for night shooting and moving people? forget about it haha.

 

[Dao]

As far as field of view goes, which one you prefer, 35mm or 50mm? Especially for the type of photos you are planning to take.

 

[Jef.Friday]

Get that 35mm.

 

[Dor]

I have a 50 mm 1.8 and a 35 mm 1.8, but I prefer the 35mm

 

[KmH]

What is the difference between D and G (please don't say E and F :mrgreen?

Here is the breakdown on Nikon glass nomenclature: Nikkor Lens Information by Thom Hogan

 

[molsen]

It's hard to beat the 50mm 1.8 for its price/performance ratio. The 1.4G is great too, but the 1.4D, although cheaper, is not a very sharp lens unless stopped down past f/2.2 or so. There's no reason to buy the 1.4D.

That being said, the 35mm might be a little easier to hold steady because it's not as long. The focus is also quieter on the AF-S lenses.

Yes, the D50 has internal focus

-edit- sharpness comparisons of some primes mentioned in this thread:

 

[o hey tyler]

It's hard to beat the 50mm 1.8 for its price/performance ratio. The 1.4G is great too, but the 1.4D, although cheaper, is not a very sharp lens unless stopped down past f/2.2 or so. There's no reason to buy the 1.4D.

Not a Nikon owner/user, but this doesn't sound accurate.

I have the 50mm f/1.4 for my Canon. I've also used the 50mm f/1.8. The 50mm 1.8 renders some pretty ugly and jarring bokeh due to the geometric shape the aperture blades give, it's also not anywhere near as sharp when stopped down.

The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper at f/2 than the f/1.8 lens. No question. I don't see why Nikon would be any different. The extra money you would be paying for the f/1.4 probably also goes to the build quality and general reliability of the lens. As most 100 dollar lenses feel like toys. I'm also not sure how Nikon constructs their lenses either, but I know the canon f/1.4 is much sturdier than the 1.8 version. I've heard of the f/1.8 falling apart into two pieces.

Edit: Saw the links you posted. Interesting stuff indeed in terms of sharpness, but I still think some of the points that I raised in my post are valid.

 

[Derrel]

The new 50mm G-series tests out quite a bit better than the older 50mm designs, which date back to the early 1980's.

 

[KmH]

The 50mm 1.8 renders some pretty ugly and jarring bokeh due to the geometric shape the aperture blades give, it's also not anywhere near as sharp when stopped down.

Edit: Saw the links you posted. Interesting stuff indeed in terms of sharpness, but I still think some of the points that I raised in my post are valid.

The Canon f/1.8 only has 5 aperture blades which hoses it's bokeh. Nikon's nifty, 50mm f/1.8 has 7 blades.

DP Review claims the sharpness of the Canon 50 f/1.8 improves markedly from being stopped down. Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Lens Review: 5. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review They really pan the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II's build quality.

 

[molsen]

It's hard to beat the 50mm 1.8 for its price/performance ratio. The 1.4G is great too, but the 1.4D, although cheaper, is not a very sharp lens unless stopped down past f/2.2 or so. There's no reason to buy the 1.4D.

Not a Nikon owner/user, but this doesn't sound accurate.

that should be the end of your comment. The Canon and Nikon lenses are completely different.

I have the 50mm f/1.4 for my Canon. I've also used the 50mm f/1.8. The 50mm 1.8 renders some pretty ugly and jarring bokeh due to the geometric shape the aperture blades give, it's also not anywhere near as sharp when stopped down.

The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper at f/2 than the f/1.8 lens. No question. I don't see why Nikon would be any different.

Because it's a different lens. HELLLLOOOOOO

The extra money you would be paying for the f/1.4 probably also goes to the build quality and general reliability of the lens. As most 100 dollar lenses feel like toys. I'm also not sure how Nikon constructs their lenses either, but I know the canon f/1.4 is much sturdier than the 1.8 version. I've heard of the f/1.8 falling apart into two pieces.

Edit: Saw the links you posted. Interesting stuff indeed in terms of sharpness, but I still think some of the points that I raised in my post are valid.

Mmmmm, maybe the build quality point, but I don't know any Nikon 50mm 1.8 owners who have had ANY issues with their lenses falling apart (nor have I had any issues). The 1.8 is made of great quality poly carbonate and mine has survive a drop or two onto concrete without any ill effects.

Again, they're completely different lenses so I don't know how can offer any helpful experience here. No offense, but come on...

 

[Darkhunter139]

I have the 35mm F1.8

Its a great lens and you can't beat the price, id go with that one.

As for the question, do I really need a prime lens?

I don't use mine nearly as much as my 55-200 or 18-55mm but it is nice to have in certain situations. It really depends on what you shoot.