File :-(, x, )
Prime Lense for a D40 Anonymous
I've got a bit of extra cash and I've got nothing extra for my D40 except a abg and a tripod. I think a prime lense would make a good investment even though I'll have to manually focus it, I'm sure it will benefit me in the long run. However how better quality is the f/1.8 50mm nikon prime compared to the kit lense, and also would you advise spending the extra cash for the f/1.4?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern834Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:26 17:24:31Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return Not DetectedFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1603Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSaturationHighSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
See if you're willing to put down money for the 1.4, you may as well put that money down for a more convenient sigma 30mm.
>> Anonymous
>>264580
well ideally I'd want to get the most bang for buck, the f/1.4 is double the price of the f/1.8 but does it give double performance? I'f not I'll get the 1.8 and save up for a speedlight or something
>> sage
>>264585
I'm doing just fine with a 1.8 especially considering how little it cost me. If you shoot nothing but low-light or portraits you might find the extra money worth it.
>> Anonymous
>>264589
well I pretty much find my 18-55 covers everything i really need but looking back at a few photos they mostly range within 35-55 so I though a 50 prime would be a good investment, considering its only £70, anyone got any example pictures of it in action :3
>> Anonymous
get the f/1.8 50mm anyone that owns a nikon SLR should buy one of these, they are really cheap and give great results. DO IT.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Certainly don't get the 50/1.4 *right now*. If you can wait a bit, though, Nikon just announced a new 50/1.4 with built-in AF motor so it'll be fully functional on your D40
>> Anonymous
>>264636
fuck really? sauce?
>> Anonymous
>>264639
nevermind found it, so its out in december, what do you reckon the price will be? more than the current f/1.4
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>264650
My guess would be about the same as the current /1.4, actually. But that's just a pulled-out-of-my-ass guess with no actual evidence.
>> Anonymous
>>264655

It's the best part of $500, I think
>> Anonymous
>>264687
FUUUUUCK.
That is expensive for a 50/1.4...

D40 = teh sux
>> Anonymous
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092201nikkor_50mm_1_4glens.asp

AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G lens specifications
Price • $439 (US)
• £280 (UK)
• €383 (EUR)
>> Anonymous
Save your money, the f/1.8 is a much sharper lens.
>> Anonymous
>>264579
delicious keyboard borkeh is delicious
>> Anonymous
>>264823

a D80 is only like, $200 more than a D60. instead of being a jew to save $200 on your body, spend that extra money and don't get shafted out on the entire AF lenses available to you?

YEAH HURR DURR INDEED
>> Anonymous
>>264831
when I bought my D40 it cost me £300 for the kit and at the time it was £599 for the D80 body

enjoy your useless currency
>> Anonymous
>>264840

enjoy your useless country
>> Anonymous
>>264854
touché
>> Anonymous
get a sigma prime
DO IT FAGGOT
>> Anonymous
>I've got nothing extra for my D40
did you not even get the kit lense?

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1017627

this is the kit lense for the D40, get this
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265434

you should add 'when shooting stopped down and in ideal conditions'

any other time the difference is quite noticeable, at leat it was with the Nikon 18-70 (which was a great lens) and 17-55
>> Anonymous
>>265434

nah, the Olympus and Pentax kit lenses are much nicer to use in feel and build, proper focus ring, good zoom ring. and the quality is noticeably better
>> Anonymous
>>265435

No one is talking about the 18-70. It's not even an official kit for the D40 and D60, not in the US anyway.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265441

You're missing my point. I only added the 18-70 comparison because it's the only experience i've had in regards to kit lenses.

Just read the first sentence, it still stands regardless of what kit lens we're talking about.

Don't get caught up with the example.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265441
>>It's not even an official kit for the D40 and D60

And yeah, that's because it hasn't been produced for a long long time... which is a bit of a shame, twas a good lens... they decided to replace it with the freaking ridiculously expensive 16-85 VR
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265466
I actually misread this part.

>>I'd say the difference between them is pretty much negligible compared to the difference between a kit lens and any higher-end standard zoom.

Oh well, serves me right for 2am 4chan. I focused on the second part of that sentence. What i said still made sense, just not in the context of the thread. Ha.
>> Anonymous
this is a perfect example of the Jeremo faggotry i was talking about in>>265416
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265472

Yeah the 18-70 iirc was only shipped with the D200 and D70/s... maybe even the D2x... it was discontinued before the D40 came onto the market me thinks.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>265475

hahahahahaha... ahhh

sorry dude but FAIL. Keep going though. You'll troll me sooner or later.
>> Anonymous
who said it was discontinued? it's still selling everywhere

it's not sold as a kit anymore because they're favoring the 18-135,18-105 vr and even 18-55 vr over it