File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I just bought a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and realised that it's not AFS, hence it won't auto focus with my D40.
Should I keep it? (Auto focus is pretty slow at times)
Or should I return it!
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.4Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2005:07:28 21:21:15Exposure Time1.3 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width340Image Height285
>> Anonymous
lol
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Keep it. Learn to manually focus. Eventually upgrade to a camera with an autofocus motor built into the body.
>> Anonymous
OP: Yeah I guess I could eventually upgrade to a new body. I could sell the D40 and the change cost wouldn't be all that much.
>> Anonymous
OP: But then again, a lot of photos I take will be out of focus.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>270868
see>>270858
>Learn to manually focus.
>> Anonymous
>>270868
Good thing that no photos were in focus before AF motors.
>> Anonymous
>>270854
I will buy it from you for 20 bucks.
>> Anonymous
Funny thing I just received mine today too. And I don't even have any Nikon body.

Keep it, it's a great lens. D40 (and any dslr, really) isn't the greatest for manual focusing, but it's still possible (it even shows you focus confirmation in the viewfinder). And the lens will serve you well when you upgrade to a real camera, like FM2 or D300.
>> Anonymous
Learn to manually focus. Shit will be more difficult at first, obviously, so don't use the lens for a shot you HAVE to get and don't be afraid to take a bunch of pictures and choose the sharpest later.

You can always sell your D40 body for $400ish and get a D80 for around $500 if you really just can't deal with focusing manually.
>> Anonymous
Do D100's have an autofocus motor in them? I've been thinking of buying one since they're pretty cheap now.
>> Anonymous
>>270886
It does?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>270890
>Do D100's have an autofocus motor in them? I've been thinking of buying one since they're pretty cheap now.
The only nominally autofocus Nikon cameras without an AF motor in body are the D40, D40x, and D60. So yes, the D100 has an AF motor.
>> Anonymous
OP: So if I sell my D40 and get a D80 that will only cost me 100-150? Sounds good to me, but I've held the D80 and it's heaaavy.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>270914
just masturbate more and your arms all be huge in no time!
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>270916
No no, he should measurbate. That way he'll improve forearm strength, wrist strength, and his photography all at the same time!
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
what's with all this talk about dslr's being heavy? if you don't sling them around your neck, you won't even notice. i carry my "heavy-ass" d300 everywhere and i never notice it.

wear your camera like a messenger bag. slung over one shoulder and under the opposite arm. works like a charm. only problem is that criminal scum might be ogling your camera from behind your back and you would never know.
>> Anonymous
Auto focusing with DX slr's sucks BIG TIME. It's so fucking frustrating to do it with shitty small and overbright viewfinder when I have access to the real thing.

Of course this doesn't stop you getting excellent pictures (like guy in http://www.flickr.com/photos/sikaheimo/ with his K 35/2 )..
>> Anonymous
>>270941

i've never found focusing with the dx cameras (D80 and up) a problem
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>270893
If confirming the focus is what you're asking about, then yes, verily.
>> Anonymous
>>270905
Okay, thank you.
>> Anonymous !nzFagDPRLs
>>270941
Im assuming you ment manual focusing?
>> Anonymous
>>270854
how about this, get rid of your shitty newfag d40 and buy a nice D90.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
I have the 50 1.4, honestly, its really too tight to use, just an awkward focal length except for faces, and then only from like 20 feet away. I and up using the tamron 17-50 2.8, which is usually plenty fast enough. I use the 50 1.4 all the time on my F3, but I really want something shorter. If it works for you, great, its a really nice lens. Focusing can be a little tricky, at 1.4 I miss the eyes and hit the ears or nose damn near every time on my d40. I love it stopped down to like 4 or 5.6, wide open is just about useless :/ YMMV
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
you should ALWAYS just treat 50mm (crop or not) as a short telephoto.

people get fooled by that old chestnut "50mm represents what the eye sees!" it's true in terms of perspective, but your eyes have a 180 degree field of vision. 50mm normal is the equivalent of making a frame with your fingers and holding it out about a foot from your face. try it, and you'll start to see what i mean.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>271126

oh, and logically, 50mm on a crop is about the same as making a frame about a foot and a half out.
>> Anonymous
>>271126

you dont know nothing... if people had 180 degree of vision, than you could see your shoulders...

dont mistake field of vision with brains memory capability... eyes are always scaning different parts and just one small part is in focus.... app. as 50mm
>> Mutt !!mIF4ZkWn+B/
>>270854
Keep it.
I have a D40 and I use my 50mm f/1.4s more than the kit lenses.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>271212
You know, I'm trying it right now...and I can see my shoulders with my peripheral vision when my head's looking straight forward.
>> Mr._Laugh_Out_Loud !!rc0QDfC1oX3
>>271215

i can't. so which one of us is the freak?

i think it's you.
>> Anonymous
>>271212
actually seeing something and having it "in focus" are two completely different things!
>>271215
so can I
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>271212
If you try your best to keep your eyes still, you'll still see more than a 50mm view - this is easily proved by using a rangefinder with a 1:1 finder and 50mm frames, as you can still see outside the frame.

What we tend to concentrate on and remember, though, is quite a bit tighter. Dunno if it's quite 50mm, but it's certainly less than the extent of everything we can see in one eyeful.
>> Anonymous
50mm = 75mm
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>271212

way to totally not try out what i just told you to try out and instead make some ridiculous, irrelevant argument. even if we could only see 45 degrees, it's still more than a 50mm.

on 35mm, a 50mm lens covers 39 degrees horizontally. ain't shit, and you have to shoot accordingly.
>> Anonymous
50mm relevance to normal view is about perspective. and it's still not 50mm. Field of View of our eyes is much wider. 2:3 35mm format is not compatible with human view.
>> Anonymous
If it doesn't auto focus its not that big of a deal
L2Focus manually
>> sage rage
>>271128
you know, that makes a lot more sense now. thanks fence!

>>271212
let me guess, you also believe people can't have better than 20/20 vision?
>> Anonymous
>>271126

42mm represents what the eye sees!
>> Anonymous
>>271294
This, with a caveat on the last part. I do think around about "perfect normal" (43.3mm on 36x24) with a 3:2 frame does roughly correspond to this:

>What we tend to concentrate on and remember, though, is quite a bit tighter. Dunno if it's quite 50mm, but it's certainly less than the extent of everything we can see in one eyeful.

Also, I really doubt someone's compositional skills if they can't work a normal (50mm or not) to include (like a wide) or select (like a tele); that they can do both is what makes them so fuckawesome and versatile and usable as an only lens. And of course all this is a gross generalization.