File :-(, x, )
Fast 'natural' lens? Anonymous
Sup /p/:

I've got a Nikon D80 and am in the market for a fast, fixed lens to complement the 18-55 kit and 70-300 G lenses that I already have. I primarily want to use this new lens for portraits and food photography, meaning that the speed and, thus, the low-light performance, is important. From what I've read, 35mm lenses are about the sweet spot for a digital lens, since they're closest to the magic 'natural' focal length of 50mm on film cameras.

I'm also only interested in the Nikon lenses; no Sigma/Tamron/etc. for me.

This means I've really got two choices: the 35mm 2.0D or the 50mm 1.4D. The *ideal* one would be the 35mm 1.4D, but I don't have $1200 to drop on a lens.

What's your take, /p/? Are the light-gathering abilities really that different? Is the extra speed enough to compensate for the less-than-ideal focal length?

Discuss.
>> Anonymous
>>106890

Also, Nikon makes a 50/1.8. Why isn't it on your list?
>> Vincent
I vote for 30mm f1.4 AND a 50mm f1.8
>> Anonymous
OP here.

>>106890

I'm dismissing off-brand lenses because I have a set price-point in my mind, and I'd rather have the guarantee of quality than a couple of extra dollars in my pocket. As well, I'm not interested in the 50mm 1.8D because the 50mm 1.4D exists.
>> Anonymous
>>106894

the 1.8D is sharper.
>> Anonymous
>>106894

Let's keep the Ken Rockwell references away for now but would the 600$ you pay for the 18-200 VR from Nikon guarantee you anything more than a Sigma?

Just because it's Nikon doesn't make it better.
>> Anonymous
Oh yeah, what's your price point anyway?

You didn't say anything.
>> Anonymous
OP here.

>>106895

If the 1.8D is sharper than the 1.4D, then maybe it is worth it to consider that one too. Thanks.

>>106897

If there is a clear quality advantage to getting a Sigma, of course I'd consider it, but I'm not convinced, particularly when there isn't much a price advantage.
>> Anonymous
OP here:

>>106899

Good point; sorry about that. I'm aiming for the $300-$400 range.
>> Anonymous
>>106888

Zoom lenses are better for portrait shots. If you're too close, the face (primarily the nose) can become distorted, and make the model look completely different.

However, with my 50mm f/1.8 I've never had a problem, and it's a freaking amazing lens. Get it, only $100+
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106937

it's not necessarily zoom, but telephoto lenses. Long focal lengths in general are better for portraits. Teh 'classic' focal lenght being the 85mm
>> Anonymous
>>106897
I've heard too many sigma horror stories. Just because it's Nikon does make it better. The best reason to buy a nikon body in the first place is the nikon glass.

I have the 85mm f/1.8, it's pretty incredible for a $360 lens. I like that focal length better than "natural" for portraits.
>> Anonymous
As I've heard, Sigma has two major issues:
- Problems with compatibility (happen mostly to Canon mount lenses)
- Problems with QC (happen even to EX-series primes, so try before you buy or make sure the store has a decent return policy)

As for focal lengths, the "best" one depends on the kind of portraits one wants to take: 85mm is the most versatile, 50mm is more suited for full-body and family portraits, 100/135mm are better for faces. (These numbers are for 35mm film, so divide then by the crop factor for digital)
>> pskaught !!qifqbrqZZKu
sigma sucks.. cheap glass is cheap... and tamron too.
you pay for glass you don't have to pay for, enjoy your chromatic aberration.
>> Anonymous
Go for the 35 for nice full body shots. The 50 can work, but you're gonna be a full 3 to 4 metres away for a full body shot I think.

And yes, the 50mm f/1.8 is the sharpest lens they have, dpreview even use them for photographic tests over the 1.4 version.
>> Anonymous
>>107043
>enjoy your chromatic aberration.
Lenses exhibiting disturbing amounts of longtitudinal CAs are quite rare nowadays, and lateral CAs can be fixed quite neatly in most RAW converters. Bad/uneven sharpness and spherical aberration - those are the real problems.
>> Anonymous
OP here:

Am I going to be disappointed in the low-light abilities of an f/2.0 lens over that of an f/1.8 or an f/1.4?
>> Anonymous
>>107942
Not really. It's like a third of a stop slower than an f/1.8 lens, but it's also wider than the 50, so you can handhold it better. I'd bet you could get pretty reliable results at a 1/30th as opposed to a 1/60th with the 50.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Even for food and portraits you wont be near the level of light that requires you to use f1.4 for every shot, plus you will need the DoF that f2-3 gives you in order to get your entire subject in focus. Also you should be using a tripod for food photography so exposure time shouldnt be an issue.

What im saying is get the 35/2.
>> Anonymous
>>107948

Thanks for the advice. I think that's exactly what I'll do. I will say, though, that a lot of the food photography I plan on taking will be in restaurants, meaning no tripod ;)
>> Anonymous
Get the Nikon 50/1.8. Use the $1150 you save to move further away from your subject
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>107958
you forget to use your brain?
>> Anonymous
>>107043

Ah, yes, the classic first-party-glass whore. Great, let's see if we can find a current Nikon f/1.4 lens that is a normalish equivalent in digital... oh, look, there isn't one. Unless you pony up $2500 for a discontinued 24mm f/1.4, there's nothing. The Sigma is a very viable alternative and is well-liked by Nikon and Canon shooters alike.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>107968
>The Sigma is a very viable alternative and is well-liked by [...] Canon shooters
If by "well-liked" you mean "frequently complained about for focusing issues", then I agree completely.
>> Anonymous
Is Scott a tripfag now or is that an imposter?