›

CameraStrut (NRR)

mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
edited September 2005 in Strut Central
I need to find another lens for my Nikon D70. The only lens i really use right now is an 85mm f/1.8 which is great for portraits and what not, but 85 isn't a really practical, all-around lens to be carting around. Unfortunately, my 28-80 zoom lens broke (but it was a cheap piece of shit anyways) and while I have a 28mm, it's manual and manual lenses are a PAIN in the ass to use with the D70 (I'm actually really annoyed at Nikon for so poorly integrating manual lenses).The question I have is:35 or 50mm? And I usually want to get as fast a lens as possible, at least another f/1.8 but I've seen 1.4 and 1.2 as well but I here as the lenses get faster, the picture quality suffers too. Any suggestions on what focal length is more practical? And what the aperature size I should ideally consider?Thanks,OW

  Comments

  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    Oh no, the faster the lense, the sharper the image. But the smaller the depth of focus. I have a 50 that I use on my Nikon FA, which is kind of an old model, and it opens to 1.4. Its a great lense. Fifty is about what you see, so I would recommend that. I also have a 28 and have used a 35, and you do have to get a bit closer. 35 doesnt distort much, but its not great for people. Anything that puts more space in a person's face will not be very flattering. Also zooms make softer pictures. Fixed lenses are the sharpest.
  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    Also, 1.4 can be great for twilight shots. I cant stress enough how nice a wide open aperture is for your negative. Get some 100 asa film with that and you'll have some great lookiing negatives.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    I read this: "optical performance steadily declined with speed. The smart men stuck with f/1.8 lenses, while the gullible dealt with the extra distortion, weight and price of the certainly OK f/1.4 lenses. The f/1.2 lenses were pretty awful."
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50f14ai.htm

    Thanks for the 50 suggestion.

    Oh no, the faster the lense, the sharper the image. But the smaller the depth of focus. I have a 50 that I use on my Nikon FA, which is kind of an old model, and it opens to 1.4. Its a great lense. Fifty is about what you see, so I would recommend that. I also have a 28 and have used a 35, and you do have to get a bit closer. 35 doesnt distort much, but its not great for people. Anything that puts more space in a person's face will not be very flattering. Also zooms make softer pictures. Fixed lenses are the sharpest.
  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    I read this: "optical performance steadily declined with speed. The smart men stuck with f/1.8 lenses, while the gullible dealt with the extra distortion, weight and price of the certainly OK f/1.4 lenses. The f/1.2 lenses were pretty awful."
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50f14ai.htm

    Thanks for the 50 suggestion.

    Oh no, the faster the lense, the sharper the image. But the smaller the depth of focus. I have a 50 that I use on my Nikon FA, which is kind of an old model, and it opens to 1.4. Its a great lense. Fifty is about what you see, so I would recommend that. I also have a 28 and have used a 35, and you do have to get a bit closer. 35 doesnt distort much, but its not great for people. Anything that puts more space in a person's face will not be very flattering. Also zooms make softer pictures. Fixed lenses are the sharpest.

    Oh thats my lense!! Well, thats his opinion, but Ive enjoyed mine.
  • lucerolucero 425 Posts
    the loss of picture quality is news to me

    a 1.4 aperture can be very useful, especially where the light is low (you might be indoors for example)

    a 50mm lens is great for people shots - don't forget to get in nice and close tho

    its kinda hard to grasp what you're looking for in this thread as it seems you know whats needed !?!

    both the shots below were taken with a manual 50mm, 1600 ASA at the lower end of the aperture (i.e 1.4) ... no flash ..

    (some quality loss thru scanning at ~ 200 DPI)



  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Lucero,

    I was trying to figure out if I should buy a 50 or 35 lens. I've heard arguments for both.
  • BaptBapt 2,503 Posts
    as the lenses get faster, the picture quality suffers too.

  • gibla74gibla74 182 Posts
    The thing is maybe the quality isn't quite as good on the 1.4 or whatever but it could make the difference between getting or not getting a shot in available light. I'd rather have a slightly lower quality pic than none at all, ideal situation would be to have both I guess. I used a 50m for years when I first got into photography but now could not imagine not having a wide angle . If I had to choose between only 35 or 50 I'd prob go 35 but again you really need both.
  • lucerolucero 425 Posts
    Lucero,



    I was trying to figure out if I should buy a 50 or 35 lens. I've heard arguments for both.





    Well I'm biased perhaps as I don't have a 35. I have heard that one should master the 50 before using anything else though, and its a tip thats served me well.



    As for quality, in the context of one or two stops (i.e 1.2 v 1.4 v 2) thats so at the margin that its a question of either getting it or not getting it. And if you do get it, is it's what you wanted, or perhaps better then it's got to pull through on the quality tip. 'It' being your photo! So yeah, this deterioration in the 'quality' stuff sounds like bullshit to me.



    The ones I posted above were 2 I had on my photobucket that happened to fit the options being talked about - I've got others where the gear didn't get it, its that marginal. If someones wearing a hat in that light for example don't even bother taking a picture unless I've course its what you want. The gear stepped it up with others though too, and I'm not trying to sound like a wanker but those were the ones that got published.



    If you can get your lens to 1.4, you'll appreciate it with time.





  • indiana45sindiana45s 266 Posts
    While 50 is the greatest lens ever made, in a pinch I would use the 35 more often. Simply put, even the 50 is too cramped when you are in small quarters. If you find yourself in a room that is 10*12 then your shooting portraits automatically. The 35 is going to give you a lot more options for bringing in the surrounding environment. You can always get closer....

    If you go with the 35, ditch the 28 and pick up a 20mm. Trust me, you will not regret it.

  • RAJRAJ tenacious local 7,782 Posts
    Been rocking a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 with the UltraSonicMotor for a few months now. Phenominal lens for portraits and lowlight situations... but Indiana45s is right about shit being cramped if you want to get the surrounding environment in...



    Here are some shots taken with it:













    I'm defintely going to invest in a lens for wide angle shots. Preferrably a zoom. I'm Looking at the Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM right now. Anybody have some suggestions?



Sign In or Register to comment.