[trevorlane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have no idea, but I tried that earlier this month at the Nikon booth at WPPI. Since then I've been lusting over it.

i almost jumped on a 28 1.4 a few months back, but decided against it and went with the PS-1. now i'm doubly glad i went that route. i was also tired of using 14-24 (im just not a fan of zooms at all)

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Too true. I would never choose a 50mm for my sole lens. It's just too limiting, especially on a crop body. People always just say, "well, step back" if you want more in the shot. 99% of the time stepping back isn't enough for me and to that point, there's usually a limited amount of room to "step back." Take an auto show for example, you step back just one foot and you now have 100 people blocking the subject, it just doesn't work.

Orz

why would you take a 50mm only to a car show... using primes doesn't mean you have to be stupid. you need at least 20mm wide on DX for a car show.

carry one prime only when you know exactly what you are shooting... nowadays i often carry a 20, a 35 and a 90 when I don't know what I am shooting at all. they are lighter than a 24-70/2.8 combined.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevorlane /img/forum/go_quote.gif i almost jumped on a 28 1.4 a few months back, but decided against it and went with the PS-1. now i'm doubly glad i went that route. i was also tired of using 14-24 (im just not a fan of zooms at all)

what's wrong with 14-24? i am thinking of selling my tokina 11-16 and get the 14-24. there is no sharper wide angle lens than the 14-24, not even a prime can rival that.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Orz why would you take a 50mm only to a car show... using primes doesn't mean you have to be stupid. you need at least 20mm wide on DX for a car show. carry one prime only when you know exactly what you are shooting... nowadays i often carry a 20, a 35 and a 90 when I don't know what I am shooting at all. they are lighter than a 24-70/2.8 combined.

Stating the obvious. I was addressing your post, not the issue of selecting primes in general. I recommended the 50mm f/1.8 as a supplementary lens, your argument seemed to pushing it as a primary lens, that was what I was disputing. The 50mm just doesn't make sense to me as a primary, walk around lens. For everyday shooting, I prefer either a 28mm or a 35mm, for portraits, an 85mm. YMMV.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the help guys. Yeah it seems the 50mm f1.8 is an incredibly popular lens, and so affordable too! I'll definitely have to get myself one of them. To be honest I'm still having difficulty with understanding focal lengths and such. For example what will be the difference between a 55-200mm and 18-200mm? I guess I have to do more reading but if someone could give me a simple answer, that would be awesome. Also, I've just realised VR lenses are a lot more expensive than non-VR lenses. Does VR make a huge difference? Is it still Ok to go with the non-VRs? Ohyeah I have a feeling I'll mainly be shooting portraits and some scenery.

Focal length is a funny thing, but basically the number translates into the field of view you get.

A wide angle lens, with a small focal length (~20mm, 94º), will have a wide field of view, let you get many things in the shot.
Ex:

A telephoto lens, with a large focal length (~200mm, 12º), will have a very small field of view and let you 'zoom in' on the subject.
Ex:

And of course, things in between are in between these extremes.

Basically, think of it in terms of field of view. Doing a google search or video search for camera focal length should give you a better idea.

So, a 18-200mm covers a range from wide angle to telephoto. The 55-200mm covers less of a range, say... normal to telephoto.

VR can help. You'll need to decide if you want it. Read up on what it does and when it helps.

Portrait and scenery are tough to say. Take portraits for example. Some people would use a wide angle lens, while others would want a telephoto lens. It's up to personal preference. For portraits you usually want a sharp lens that has good bokeh control.

For scenery shots, if you are talking landscape stuff, you're looking at wide angle lenses mainly. If you are talking closeups of flowers, you will want a lens that can zoom in and give you a good magnification.

 

[trevorlane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif what's wrong with 14-24? i am thinking of selling my tokina 11-16 and get the 14-24. there is no sharper wide angle lens than the 14-24, not even a prime can rival that.

That's pretty much it, the Nikon 14 prime doesn't compare to the 14-24, however it really is a beast to carry around. When I use it, it's locked at 14. Now with the 24, while others might not find it to be a usable focal length, I believe it very much is with the max. aperture at 1.4. Also I'll finally be able to use my 77 filters again.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Stating the obvious. I was addressing your post, not the issue of selecting primes in general. I recommended the 50mm f/1.8 as a supplementary lens, your argument seemed to pushing it as a primary lens, that was what I was disputing. The 50mm just doesn't make sense to me as a primary, walk around lens. For everyday shooting, I prefer either a 28mm or a 35mm, for portraits, an 85mm. YMMV.

Sorry if what I said seemed that way. I did said I sometimes take only the 50mm out, and sometimes only the 90mm, but on those days I know exactly what I am going to shoot.

If I want to push someone onto believing there's a primary lens on DX, it will be 35mm. (which is the equivalent of 50mm on FX)

 

[choka]

I am in no way pushing 50/1.8 as a primary lens for everyone. I am saying it is a no-brainer because it is so sharp and so cheap as well. It CAN be a primary lens only if you are shooting portraits. I am more of a landscape guy. The 50/1.8 is not my primary lens.

I also mentioned that the 50/1.8 has some flaws of its own. When wide open, the bokeh can be disgusting on some backgrounds. That prompted me to get a 50/1.2 as a result.

 

[bigshot]

The primary reason to use a prime instead of a zoom is speed. Primes are usually a stop or more faster than zooms. This can make a big difference in dark situations. The other time when a prime is called for is for formal portraits on a tripod. You set up your lights and camera and shoot from a fixed point, so there is no need for a zoom.

I always try not to change lenses in the field. It's a pain in the rear to stop and rummage through a bag and balance two lenses as I transfer the caps. Also, in Southern California, there's always stuff blowing around in the air. I'd be cleaning my sensor all the time.

I usually just carry two lenses... the one I think will cover everything I need, and a different lens for a backup. For instance, if I am shooting general walkaround stuff in full daylight, I'd bring a midrange zoom plus an ultrawide in case I want to do landscape. For people, I'd take a midrange zoom and a fast 50 prime in case I want narrow depth of field. For travel, the 18-200 VR do-it-all lens plus the 30 1.4 in case I run into low light inside a museum.

Two lenses are plenty to cover the range of options if you know how you shoot. I would much rather be focused on my subjects than constantly having to think about what lens I need.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would much rather be focused on my subjects than constantly having to think about what lens I need.

IMO, the ability to use different lenses and choosing what to use in what situation is one of the MAJOR FUN FACTOR in using a SLR. If I am unwilling to change my lenses, I don't think I'd continue to want a SLR.

Whenever someone tells me they want to buy a DSLR with a 18-200 so they don't have to change their lens at all, I just tell them what they need is actually a P&S superzoom.

There is actually not much to argue here. We are just different people with different preferences. Like, I drive a stick shift. I enjoy it that way. Shifting is FUN to me. Many of you guys will say I am totally stupid. That's fine. I know what I want and what I am doing.

I am in Socal too. Not much problem with sensor dust. I change my lenses A LOT. You need to point your camera body downwards when the lens is off the body.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am more of a landscape guy. The 50/1.8 is not my primary lens.

I'll also agree that it's perhaps not the most practical lens, but I've had a fair amount of success with the 50mm F/1.8 with landscape/architecture:

etc etc.

Bokeh does leave a little to be desired at times, sadly.
Either way, great lens, and a steal at the new price!

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll also agree that it's perhaps not the most practical lens, but I've had a fair amount of success with the 50mm F/1.8 with landscape/architecture: Bokeh does leave a little to be desired at times, sadly. Either way, great lens, and a steal at the new price!

great shots.

and, again, at that price, no reason not to buy that lens.


Sadly, there is not a single perfect 50mm on the market. 50/1.8 has bad bokeh wide open. 50/1.4 is not as sharp. 50/1.2 is manual focus. Zeiss 50/1.4 has worst bokeh. The 58mm from Cosina also has less than desirable bokeh. The new 50/1.4 G lens is better, but without aperture ring, can't use on my FM2.

Even if you look at Canon, their 50mm offerings leaves a lot to be desired. Their 50/1.8 is fragile like a toy. 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 also has problems (which my Canon friends are ranting to me at times, but I don't remember them because I don't shoot Canon).

Why is such a simple lens so hard to make?

 

[dj_mocok]

I like the Noctilux. I think it is the perfect lens for me. I know it's not perfect, but damn! Pictures are awesome taken from that lens (as long as you know how to use it)

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The primary reason to use a prime instead of a zoom is speed.

AND shallow depth of field. It helps define the subject of interest.

Do not read it as me advocating shooting everything wide open for shallow depth of field. I did not say that.

Search for Audrey Woulard. I went to her talk with a few fellow wedding photographers at wppi. I was disturbed when she told us to shoot every single picture wide open. Shoot JPG. Blow out the background, she doesn't care. We were shaking our heads all the way... The world is not fair, some people can shoot stunning pictures even when they did everything technically wrong. Those are artists.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like the Noctilux. I think it is the perfect lens for me. I know it's not perfect, but damn! Pictures are awesome taken from that lens (as long as you know how to use it)

But that's a Leica lens... Can't connect it to nikon body without using an adapter with an extra glass element. Voigtlander also has a 50/1.1 that is stunning, but, again, for Leicas. I've thought about switching to Leica but I can't justify the price. Moreover, I can't go shoot a wedding with a Leica.