Prime 50mm

[dtemple]

I am currently thinking about purchasing a Nikon D7000 with Sigma 18-250mm lens. I had the same set up but with a Nikon D90 until it was stolen just over a year ago. I am by no stretch of the imagination a professional just a very keen beginner (amateur sounds too experienced!).

I am also thinking of getting a 50mm prime lens to go with the D7000 but have hit a wall of confusion.

There are three options that Nikon produce (there maybe more) and they follow below. I am aware of many other manufacturers but for the moment I want to get my head around Nikon's lenses.

Nikon 50mm F/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
Nikon 50mm F/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens
Nikon 50mm F/1.4D AF-S Nikkor Lens G

Can anyone help?

Am I right in thinking that the F/1.4 is better in low light? But by how much and is it worth it?

[Hill Country Hack]

I recently went through the same dilema. I was sitting on the fence with the same questions but with Canon instead of Nikon.

What did it for me was to ask myself if I was willing to spend the extra $ to gain one stop. In the case of Canon, the money needed to buy that one stop gain was more than I was willing to pay. I purchased the 50mm f1.8 for $100 US. Best money I've spent in a while! I've been told the focus gets soft at 1.8, so I've yet to try myself.

I love the crisp, clean and sharp pictures I get from it. Heck, I even shot a volleyball game with it. Right now this is my favorite lens.

[ceremus]

I'm also not a Nikon guy, but in general you are correct, an f/1.4 lens would be better in low light than an f/1.8 as it's a "faster" lens. Larger maximum aperture, lens lets in more light, also it's possible to get a razor thin depth of field (which you may or may not want in certain situations). It looks like with your body you're not limited to AF-S type lenses, which is nice.

A quick check of the reviews indicates all three of the lenses you're looking at perform very well in terms of sharpness, as is usually the case for 50mm normal lenses. The f/1.8 seems to be the sharpest of the bunch, and about the least expensive to boot, so it's hard to argue against it. Depending on how critically you need low light performance, you might lean toward the f/1.4

[sk66]

I'd buy the 1.8 G version....
Actually, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't buy any of them, but that's just me.
BTW, the .4 difference is not 1 stop, it's about 1/2 stop.

[Hill Country Hack]

Originally Posted by sk66

I'd buy the 1.8 G version....
Actually, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't buy any of them, but that's just me.
BTW, the .4 difference is not 1 stop, it's about 1/2 stop.

I stand corrected. Thanks sk66.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by sk66

I'd buy the 1.8 G version....
Actually, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't buy any of them, but that's just me.
BTW, the .4 difference is not 1 stop, it's about 1/2 stop.

On DX, 50mm works like a short portrait lens. I quite like it. On FX it's a bit of an odd-duck lens. Most people tend to go the 35/85 route.

I'd opt for the 50/1.8 G: it performs better in the corners than the D version, and it's not *that* much more expensive.

[sk66]

Even on DX I wouldn't get one, but I have almost no use for one (never did). I prefer fast zooms. Maybe if I did more "natural light" portrait type work......

But for a fast/sharp lens on the cheap; I can understand it.

[dtemple]

Thanks for the responses and your time!

I will let you know what I go for and post some results.

Just to add something to the mix...

on the D7000 would a 50mm lens be equivalent to 75mm so would it be better to use a 35mm?

[sk66]

yes, it will be equivalent to 75mm. For "standard" or close quarters 35mm might be better.
FWIW, something around 80mm is generally considered "preferred" for portraiture.