Focal range for a fixed lens? Nikon D50
Discussion
Wife has a Nikon D50 and gets some great results from her telephoto lens, but the 18-55 it came with is pretty crap.
I've heard about getting a single focal length (rather than a zoom) lens for better quality, but what would be a good choice for a Nikon digital?
P.S. I know the D50 isn't exactly the height of excellence, but she may get something better in future that works with her current lenses.
I've heard about getting a single focal length (rather than a zoom) lens for better quality, but what would be a good choice for a Nikon digital?
P.S. I know the D50 isn't exactly the height of excellence, but she may get something better in future that works with her current lenses.
35mm or 50mm Nikkor would be nice, but not particularly wide angle on the D50. You could also look at the Nikon 18-70 (f3.5-4.5) zoom, it's reasonably good in terms of image sharpness, although lacks a little contrast for my liking (subjective though).
If you want to spend a lot of money, the Nikon 17-55 (f2.8) is supposed to be superb, although I've not used it.
If you want to spend a lot of money, the Nikon 17-55 (f2.8) is supposed to be superb, although I've not used it.
HereBeMonsters said:
So you'd still recommend a short zoom instead of a fixed one?
Depends what you want. I like the flexibility of a zoom, but I also need fast lenses, so I have a fast wide angle (17-55mm f2.8). But that's the thick end of £1,000.If you want an ordinary-speed zoom try the 18-70mm as suggested, or if speed is more important than zoom, a 35mm or 50mm prime.
I was looking at something maybe like this?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00005LE71
(Would prefer to come from Amazon as I have a huge amount of vouchers for there).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00005LE71
(Would prefer to come from Amazon as I have a huge amount of vouchers for there).
HereBeMonsters said:
I've heard about getting a single focal length (rather than a zoom) lens for better quality, but what would be a good choice for a Nikon digital?
[Homer Simpson]Mmmmm - Primes!!!!
[/Homer Simpson]
You know, that 's a very, very difficult question
You know when you get in a car - and it's a manual gearbox - and you select a gear to do a particular job?
It's a bit like that (compared to a CVT box the covers a lot of eventualities)
I have a great love of Nikkors. Generally speaking, and if you look hard enough, you WILL see better quality, with some exceptions (a 180mm f/2.8AF I found not to be quite as a 70-200mm f/2.8AF-S but it was streets ahead of a 70-300mm f/4-5.6)
But trying to choose a focal length because it would be a "good lens" is like me saying you need a third gear because that's really good for overtakes or you need first gear for screaming up a hillside through hairpin bends.
Start with subject choices and work back to tools required....
Well she likes doing close-ups of naturey things, and has a little mini studio at home. But then also likes getting out and about with it and taking pictures of old buildings, the docks, people and stuff.
Basically, a sort of "catch-all" would be good. If you can get the quality with a short zoom, I'm fine with that, I just remember from my pre-digital days that all my "good" lenses were a fixed length. Then of course my Leica only had one option. If that's no longer the case then cool - a zoom maybe would be more flexible, if it can deliver the quality.
Basically, a sort of "catch-all" would be good. If you can get the quality with a short zoom, I'm fine with that, I just remember from my pre-digital days that all my "good" lenses were a fixed length. Then of course my Leica only had one option. If that's no longer the case then cool - a zoom maybe would be more flexible, if it can deliver the quality.
Well if you're comparing with Leica then you're going to have to beast the wallet.
17-55mm f2.8
70-200mm f2.8 (though 70-300VR might be acceptable)
And for dessert, would Sir care for a 'teeny waffer-thin' 105mmVR macro lens?
£3,500 in round figures for new Nikon stuff.
'But what is this? Does Sir no longer want such quality?'
17-55mm f2.8
70-200mm f2.8 (though 70-300VR might be acceptable)
And for dessert, would Sir care for a 'teeny waffer-thin' 105mmVR macro lens?
£3,500 in round figures for new Nikon stuff.
'But what is this? Does Sir no longer want such quality?'
HereBeMonsters said:
Well she likes doing close-ups of naturey things, and has a little mini studio at home. But then also likes getting out and about with it and taking pictures of old buildings, the docks, people and stuff.
I'd be liking a 55mm or 60mm f/2.8 Micro for the former and I like your 28mm for the buildings/docks, or might even go wider. For DX, a 20mm might be good for buildings/wider landscapes and groups. For people, if you mean portraits, the 60mm latest version of the Micro is quite good doubling up for portraits but 85mm f/1.8 or 105mm f/2 options would be even better. Or my current favourite to cover both Micro, some portraits and building detail is the 105mm f/2.8 AF-S Micro.... a lovely lens for the price; even used it for car panning shots recently.........Simpo Two said:
Well if you're comparing with Leica then you're going to have to beast the wallet.
17-55mm f2.8
70-200mm f2.8 (though 70-300VR might be acceptable)
And for dessert, would Sir care for a 'teeny waffer-thin' 105mmVR macro lens?
£3,500 in round figures for new Nikon stuff.
'But what is this? Does Sir no longer want such quality?'
Well this was a film Leica, years and years ago. Cost well under a grand, second hand of course. Sold it at uni for just over.17-55mm f2.8
70-200mm f2.8 (though 70-300VR might be acceptable)
And for dessert, would Sir care for a 'teeny waffer-thin' 105mmVR macro lens?
£3,500 in round figures for new Nikon stuff.
'But what is this? Does Sir no longer want such quality?'
Now I just have a Leica compact digital, and let the wife get on with all the advanced stuff.
I guess a short zoom could be the answer here. Let's say my budget is around £300. Is that enough for a decent one, or should I save up a bit more and get a more expensive one for her birthday at the end of Feb?
It's probably not worth spending thousands, as she's never going to have a camera body worth that much, but say she might spend £600ish on a body in future, something that would match that quality?
It's a bleedin' minefield this.
MysteryLemon said:
The 35mm 1.8 prime is a lovely lens. Cheap as chips too.
I have one, along with a 18-135mm kit lens. Find both very nice lenses. the 18-135 is very sharp from what i've found and is a great all rounder.
Oooh, these sound good. Could you please link me? I can't find either on Amazon.I have one, along with a 18-135mm kit lens. Find both very nice lenses. the 18-135 is very sharp from what i've found and is a great all rounder.
I think the 18-135mm is discontnued: www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-18-135MM-F3-5-5-6G-IF-ED-AF...
Remember you have to decide if you want the faster shutter speeds/shallower DOF of primes, or the flexibility of zooms. Do you want to have many focal lengths covered in one or two lenses, or do you want two or three fixed lengths but with fast apertures? Unless you really want f1.8, I'd stay with zooms.
Remember you have to decide if you want the faster shutter speeds/shallower DOF of primes, or the flexibility of zooms. Do you want to have many focal lengths covered in one or two lenses, or do you want two or three fixed lengths but with fast apertures? Unless you really want f1.8, I'd stay with zooms.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff