[Paul B]

Found a bit of an issue with the prime over the weekend, not that it wasn't there before: Zooming with your feet is all very well and good until the point at which you want to stand doesn't exist. I was at St.Bees and I either couldn't get far enough away to get the desired framing without running into a block or a chasm or something else.
I'm guessing this is where the 1.6x crop factor becomes a bit more of a ball ache? and I'm guessing that wider primes cost $$$?
(I also tried to battle the sun with my speedlights but soon realised it was a) futile and b) unecessary).

Yeah, the forecast didn't suggest it was going to be as nice as it was, hence why I brought the flashes. Soon realised they would have been better in the van.
I've got the 18-55mm, which I'd left at home which I won't be doing again. Someone put idealistic notions in my head.
Wider primes are more $$$, yes?
JamesD: I'd really love to see you carting that lot up and down the Fishermans steps at St.Bees. Pad and boots was enough for me.

[dave]

Someone put idealistic notions in my head.

Chances are the real limiting factor wasn't the prime lens but your eye/brain - like cofe says, there's rarely only one option, you just didn't see it.

Wider primes are more $$$, yes?

They're all dearer than the fiddy cos its the cheapest thing they do. A 35mm will cost you £150ish used. A 24mm similar or a bit more. After that there's the 20mm for a bit more money, and thats its, there are no useful wide primes for DX unless you go right down to the 10.5mm fisheye. This is the gaping hole in the DX lineup that I keep moaning about. All you've got left is the huge 14mm that doesn't take filters and will cost you a grand, or a 16mm fisheye which'll cost you £400 and be fuck all use on a DX.

Its enough to make a guy reach for a D3.

(just written all that assuming you're using Nikon, but basically you'll be in a similar boat with canon, only without the fisheye.)

[Paul B]

No doubt, I did end up with something (or should I say nat did):



but its not great.

I'd seen (and wanted) this:
http://www.alexmessenger.co.uk/ - the one of Katy that was up in the works for a while. 2nd row RHS. With the 'fiddy' you're just backed up by a boulder with nowhere to go. Similarily with the shot pictured you can't get any closer as there's nowhere to stand. More of an angle and you lose any points of contact with the rock. Feel free to rip the photo to bits.

[cofe]

alex's shot is with a longer lens than a 50mm equiv on a DX sensor. he must have been stood further away?

[Paul B]

That'll teach me then. Enguage brain and move all over.

[cofe]

with climbing try to visualise the moves someone will be doing, which way they'll be facing and where their arms and legs will be at certain points, what's in the background from different angles, where the light source (if any)... then think about the kind of shot which would work, rather than forcing a specific focal length shot or toasting it with flashes.

[Paul B]

as it looks like i'll be selling the 1000d with the 18-55mm IS lens I was wondering if anyone had any input whether or not I should buy the 550d body only / with the same kit lens / with some different. I don't want to spend a butt load of extra cash mind you.

[Johnny Brown]

Best move would be to trade in for Nikon, then get a D3x.

[Paul B]

Best move would be to trade in for Nikon, then get a D3x.

I've got a stack of those alreasy from your prior rec's.

[Davo]

Hi All

This could be quite a long post, so thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read and reply.

Have just recently bought a Nikon D5000 with kit lens (after much trawling through threads on this forum and others). Camera is great and really like it but was thinking about getting another lens to go with it. So again after a fair amount of investigation and reading through this thread I have decided to buy a prime. The main reasons being that they seem to be relatively cheap for the quality of glass and photos that you get (please feel free to correct me on this).

I guess I should also say what kind of things I want to photograph or am interested in: Generally wanting to take shots of people bouldering or roped climbing but also am interested in landscape photography. Not sure if one lens can do all of that?

From what I have read here and a few other places there are a few choices within my price range (cheap ish)

1. Nikon 50mm f1.8
2. Nikon 50mm f1.4
3. Nikon 35mm f1.8

Would be great if anyone had any advice/opinions about the 3 lenses above.

My take on the above lenses is as follows (but I could very well be wrong!)

1. Nikon 50mm f1.8: Very good price (95 quid or less currently), gets great reviews and has been recommended here. With the crop factor this will work out at about 75-80mm (35mm film equivalent). I will have to use manual focus as my D5000 requires the motor to be in the lens. I am a bit worried that this will be a bit too much of a zoom for what I want to do with it (take climbing shots mostly). Also a bit worried about the manual focus thing and how much of a pain this will be? Possibly it isn't an isssue...?

2. Nikon 50mm f1.4: Twice the price of the above with generally all the same stuff. Was wondering if you get twice as good a lens for your money?

3. Nikon 35mm f1.8: About 170 quid. With the crop factor works out at roughly 52mm ish... 50mm focal length is apparently fairly close to the naked eye or something like that. Seems a bit wider and could be better for climbing photography?? Will be able to use autofocus as the motor is in the lens. Not sure if this is as good a lens as the others, not really found any reviews, so was hoping that someone here might have used one.

Okay, would be great to hear any advice or help or thought anyone has to offer. If there are any technical mistakes above feel free t correct them, I am pretty much a complete newbie when it comes to photography and would welcome any help. Also if there any better lenses (reasonably priced ones!) for my needs then that would be great as well.

Cheers Dave

[Jim]

my 50mm 1.8 was about £60, I find it generally too wide for bouldering photography, however it is a very good bit of glass for the money

[Johnny Brown]

I'd be wary of spendng ££ on a lens that won't do autofocus on your body. The viewfinders on cheap bodies really aren't up to critical MF with fast lenses. Which basically leaves you with the 35/1.8, which is a good choice. I use an older 35/2 a lot on my D300.

I expect at some point Nikon will come out with a ~60mm AF-S portrait option for DX users. In the meantime, if you're still keen on a portrait lens, save £££ by buying an old MF 50/1.8 for peanuts.

[dave]

What Johnny said.

1. Nikon 50mm f1.8: ..... I am a bit worried that this will be a bit too much of a zoom for what I want to do with it (take climbing shots mostly). Also a bit worried about the manual focus thing and how much of a pain this will be? Possibly it isn't an isssue...?

Its not a zoom. Its great for climbing shots that suit a short telephoto. Manual focus might be a ballach depending how usable and accurate your camera focus confirmation is. Forget about focussing by eye through D5000 viewfinder though. Basically you'll be very limited to not using it either wide open or close up, which is kinda the point of owning a fast prime. The main ballache with the focus confirmation lights on the Nikon cameras is its way off to the corner of the viewfinder, so if you're looking at that you're lot actually looking at your shot, and your focus point could be drifting off what you're intending to focus on.

2. Nikon 50mm f1.4: Twice the price of the above with generally all the same stuff. Was wondering if you get twice as good a lens for your money?

Won't be twice as good, but there is a new version with focus motor that will work fine with your D5000000.

3. Nikon 35mm f1.8: About 170 quid. With the crop factor works out at roughly 52mm ish... 50mm focal length is apparently fairly close to the naked eye or something like that. Seems a bit wider and could be better for climbing photography?? Will be able to use autofocus as the motor is in the lens. Not sure if this is as good a lens as the others, not really found any reviews, so was hoping that someone here might have used one.

Would be a good allround lens but its too expensive for what you get, and for some reason is huge, despite the fact it should be the cheapest and most compact lens they make.

[Johnny Brown]

I've come to the conclusion including an AF-S motor must make a lens unavoidably bigger. The 50/1.4 is a similar size. If you're spending those kind of beans consider worth looking at either of the Nikon 60/2.8 macros (newer one for a D50000), or the Tamron 60/2 macro - all giving a slightly tighter field of view with a lot of extra close-focus capability thrown in.

[dave]

Yeah the motor makes em bigger but what I don't get is that the AF-S 50mm 1.4 is still smaller than the AF-S 35mm 1.8. How can a lens thats 50% longer and 2/3rds of a stop faster be about 3/4s of the size? its crazy. When I saw them on the shelf next to each other in harrisons I couldn't believe my mince pies.

The thing that really annoys is that they bring out these potentially handy tiny bodies but then you have to use huge AF-S lenses on them. As if any of these lenses actually need AF-S anyway, they all focus fast as fuck on any decent focusing body anyway. It seems we're just going backwards, every new lens and camera they bring out is bigger and heavier than the last. Rant over.

[Davo]

Thanks for the replies, really helpful and have given me a bit more to think about.

Jim, think the price of the 50mm Nikon lenses has gone up recently due to the exchange rate (read that somewhere). The cheapest I could find using camerapricebuster and google was 95 quid from amazon.

Dave and Johnny: I think you have both confirmed what I originally thought that although the 50mm f1.4 might be better it probably isn't worth twice the cash of the older 1.8.

Johnny I have very briefly had a look at the two micro lenses that you mentioned but I think that currently they are out of my price range, although they do look great.

Dave: Just tried to use the manual focus on my kit lens and have found the focus confirmation light. Kind of see what you mean about where it is placed. Manual focusing was actually okay and I guess with practice would become more instinctive and quicker? Kind of don't quite understand your point about not being able to focus through the viewfinder. I guess you mean that it is hard to tell if it is perfectly in focus and it is necessary to rely on the focus confirmation light??

So that kind of leaves me with the very cheap but manual focus 50mm 1.8 or the more expensive (and bigger) but autofocusing 35mm1.8.

Hmmm... will have to have a think!

Cheers Dave

[dave]

Kind of don't quite understand your point about not being able to focus through the viewfinder. I guess you mean that it is hard to tell if it is perfectly in focus and it is necessary to rely on the focus confirmation light??

yeah, basically unless you're at a small aperture then its hard with a small viewfinder to just do it by looking at the image to be in focus, sometimes you'll get it, sometimes you won't.  One option if you were hell bent on manual focus would be to replace the focussing screen. Most of the nikons you can do it fairly easily even if they're not intended to be user-interchangeable. I think some third parties sell replacement screens, but really it'll probably cost more than just buying a different lens.

If you're looking at a 50mm look at second hand prices too, that's where you'll find them for £50-60.

[Jim]

£84 from hong kong on ebay

[Johnny Brown]

What Dave said: second hand. I own about twenty lenses, but I can count the ones I bought new on my thumbs.

[Paul B]

Is there anyway to tell whether a lens is just plain soft or if its me and I can't use it at all.

I've been playing around with the old Praktica primes that I had kicking about, especially the 135mm. Now they're fine for video but I chanced using them on some still stuff just to see what the different focal lengths offered and all of my photos seemed very soft.
The adapter ring has AF confirm on it so you just depress the shutter a half and then focus until it bleeps, maybe thats off?

Comedy - its had a fair bit of post sharpening in lightroom.

Grimer - again a fair bit of post sharpening.

I'll upload the un-tampered with images if they're needed.

Should I be scowering the foreground to see if any of that is sharper i.e. indicating the focal point was off? I couldn't see it in the picture of comedy, maybe the foreground in the grimer shot is a little sharper?

[cofe]

they both look out of focus to me. grass in front of grimer is in focus, and i'd say the rock top left of the ross pic is nearer focus - the actual focus point might be out of frame for that one. what f-stop are they at?

[Paul B]

they both look out of focus to me. grass in front of grimer is in focus, and i'd say the rock top left of the ross pic is nearer focus - the actual focus point might be out of frame for that one. what f-stop are they at?

I'd be guessing as it doesn't record it on the lenses but

4
and
2.8
respectively I think.

[Johnny Brown]

Yeah, both those shots are out of focus - there are sharper areas in the flowers in front of Grimer and in the top right (left Cofe?) corner of the Comedy pic. Whether its a super sharp lens I can't tell at that file size, but it should be comparable with a modern budget kit zoom at least (though expect soft corners at f2.8 ).

This goes back to what we've discussed above with manual focus on consumer DX bodies - its hard. And using a long lens wide open it needs to be cock-on. Autofocus isn't 100% reliable with a state of the art lens, the focus confirm light (which uses the same sensor) definitely won't be with an old manual lens.

As you've front focussed both times it may be giving erroneous results. Have you got live-view? Stick it on a tripod, zoom in on live, and get it as well focussed as you can. Note the focus distance on the lens. Switch off the live-view, and compare the the light in the finder. Some cameras allow you to then adjust the back or front focus for that lens in the menus. As its an old lens you'll need to program it into the memory, and remember to select it when in use. I can do that on mine anyway...

[Paul B]

As you've front focussed both times it may be giving erroneous results. Have you got live-view? Stick it on a tripod, zoom in on live, and get it as well focussed as you can. Note the focus distance on the lens. Switch off the live-view, and compare the the light in the finder. Some cameras allow you to then adjust the back or front focus for that lens in the menus. As its an old lens you'll need to program it into the memory, and remember to select it when in use.

I wonder if the adapter thickness comes into play making the error systematic?
I think I've got liveview (550d?), I'll give it a go and see whats what.

[cofe]

sorry, i meant top right. testing it with live view is a good idea for sure.