What’s Your Preference?

slcraig1 · #1 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 08:33 PM

I purchased a D60 with the kit lens (18-55 f3.5-5.6) soon after the birth of my baby girl. I am finding that I have a very hard time shooting her inside without the flash, even during the day with blinds open. Also, I want to take shots inside and outside where I can get that nice shallow depth of field with the blurry background. So, I am now in the market for a faster lens. I like the price of the 35mm AF-S; and I like that I can auto-focus with it; but is it an appropriate focal length for what I will be doing (shooting my daughter as she grows up? Since I'm a total beginner, I'm not sure how to determine the pros and cons of 35mm prime lens for shooting children.

Thank you!

jnelson · #2 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:03 PM

I recently bought this lens and love it. Autofocus is fast, bokeh is good and i dont have to worry about flash. Paired with my D40 this setup is superlight! Check out KenRockwell.com and see his review of the lens, people will have their opinions about him and his reviews, regardless, he shows a lot of images that he has taken of his children with this lens on a D40 and its obvious that it can produce some great images. You will love it with the D60, they make a great pair, and you cant argue with the price.

WooD · #3 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:11 PM

I've been thinking about this lens for a while now for inside portraits.

When I do full body portraits I find this is the focal length I usually use with my 17-55.

If I'm just doing head shots, I'd still use my 50mm, or 80-200.

vandergus · #4 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 11:04 PM

For what you're trying to do, I think the 35mm f1.8 would be a great fit. I recently did a miny photo session for my friends with their kids and used primarily the 35mm. They turned out great. The "rules" of photography say that you should use a longer focal length for the most flattering portraits but this lens will still do you very well. As WooD alluded to, as long as you don't need to get really close, 35mm should be fine.

And it's great for low light.

Almond.Butterscotch · #5 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnelson

Autofocus is fast, bokeh is good and i dont have to worry about flash.

The AF is fast, and at f/1.8 to the f/2.8 range is ridiculously good, but I have to disagree about the bokeh. at f/1.8 most anything not close to the focus point will be blurred out, but it wont necessarily be a smooth blur. Put another way, it bokehs, but it doesn't always bokeh nicely. It is, however, one of the best little buggers I've ever used as a walk-around. Actually, I just checked KenRockwell's site on jnelson's suggestion, and while I am one of those guys who disagrees with him quite a bit, he also mentions that the 35mm has "fair to poor bokeh"

Almond.Butterscotch · #6 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 11:48 PM

Also, I should mention though that I've never had anything as bad as KR's example.

vandergus · #7 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 11:53 PM

I generally agree about the quality of out-of-focus areas. It won't make you swoon but its rarely bad enough to ruin a photo. It mostly just stays out of the way.