#4 in Camera lenses
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Nikon AF FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras
Sentiment score: 41
Reddit mentions: 66
We found 66 Reddit mentions of Nikon AF FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras. Here are the top ones.
or
Note : Autofocus system is compatible with select Nikon DSLRs that support D-type lenses, and offers quick and precise focusing performance. Autofocus is not supported by DSLRs lacking an autofocus motor, such as the D3000-series, D5000-series, D40, D40X, and D60, where the lens may be used with manual focus onlyLens not zoomable. Focal Length : 50 millimeter , Minimum Focus Distance - 1.5 ft.( 0.45 meter)FX in DX Crop Mode 35 millimeter Film; Lens Case: CL-30SHigh-speed normal lens. Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.15xGreat for travel and for shooting full-length portraits in available lightDistortion-free images with superb resolution and color renditionProvides high-contrast images even at maximum apertureFormat Compatibility: Nikon FX/35mm Film and Nikon DXAutofocus operation with this lens is possible with Nikon autofocus cameras (except the F3AF); manual focus possible via separate focusing ring with all Nikon SLRs. Compatibility includes D3200 and D5200 cameras.NOTE: Refer the User Manual before use. Maximum angle of view (DX-format) 31°30'NOTE: Autofocus is not supported by DSLRs lacking an autofocus motor, such as the D3000-series, D5000-series, D40, D40X, and D60, where the Nikon AF FX NIKKOR 50 millimeter f/1.8D may be used with manual focus only.Maximum Angle of View (FX-format):46°
Specs:
| Color | Black |
| Height | 1.53543 Inches |
| Length | 2.499995 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | August 2018 |
| Size | 50MM |
| Weight | 0.3417165061 Pounds |
| Width | 2.499995 Inches |
serious bang for the buck - currently $105 (USD) at Amazon.
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
Yes!!! I'm in this thread early so i'm just gonna dump my questions. For reference I'm shooting with a D7100 (I blame DatAperture for owning that instead of a D7000)
Thank you for your help. Here's a picture I took of my dog as thanks for your comments. Taken at 1/25, f/2.5, ISO 3200.
After a quick research I would say: yes, this one.
However, whatever you do, you should take a lens with fixed focal length. They offer much better sharpness and higher quality in general, also they usually have bigger apertures which is good for depth of field effects.
You might also consider taking a Nikon 50 mm which is really cheap but has awesome quality (I have it and I love it) and use it with extension tubes. Those cost around 80-100$ I think (look for some that support auto focus).
I'm a complete moron when it comes to Canon since I grew up using Nikon, but I'd say whatever you do start with a lower-end digital SLR (probably used unless you have a lot of money to spend) and a 50mm lens.
Some of the best shots that I've ever gotten with my camera have been shot through a 50mm 1.8 lens that I bought for $100 back when I first picked up an SLR.
The reason I feel that the 50mm lens is so important is because it sort of hits a trifecta of stuff that I find incredibly important in photography - especially when beginning.
A) It can produce tack sharp images with a very small initial investment. The photos that this lens can produce often looks better than some of the stuff that I crank out using lenses 10x its price.
B) The 1.8 aperture allows the photographer to shoot in very low light, which is great if you're shooting on a cheaper SLR since many of them can't handle bumping up the ISO much (and even on more expensive SLRs it's much better to stay low).
C) The fact that you can't zoom in and out with the lens really gets you thinking about composition when you shoot. Instead of twisting a ring, you're literally walking back and forth to get the composition you like. It's very rewarding.
Here's the lens I'm talking about: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1260070433&sr=8-2
Second tip is don't fall into fads. Experimentation is great with photography, but the most important thing as a photographer to do (in my opinion) is to capture reality in an interesting way BEFORE bringing it into your computer and without relying on gimmicks. Overdone HDR, toy cameras, grunge filters - they can all be fun when done in moderation, but when you start forgetting about composition, light, and everything else because you know you can just rely on a plastic camera or Photomatix to fix up your photo, you're getting lost.
Ok, crazy tangent done, third tip - bring your camera everywhere. Shoot everything. The weirdest thing that I've noticed is that some people who have taken years of photography school still can't do crap without any real world experience. As you shoot, you'll start getting better. Seek out honest critiques online and hone your skills accordingly.
Fourth - learn the basics. Don't shoot in programmed or automatic - shoot in manual, aperture, or shutter mode - finding out how changing the aperture and shutter speed changes the final photo that you get is literally the most important thing that you can learn.
There is just so much I can say to a beginning photographer. It's really hard to stop at three. I'll try to add more if I can think of a way to do it without babbling forever.
TL/DR:
Before I jump in to try and provide you with an answer, I want to verify the information that you gave in your posting to make sure that we're on the same page. Some quick google-fu tells me that you have the following already, which I'm hoping you can confirm.
>DX 0.2m
I'm assuming that this is the Nikon 40mm f/2.8
>DX 1.1m
I'm also assuming that this is the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6
I'm also guessing that he has a D3300 and not a D330 (I don't think there is one, other redditors correct me if I'm wrong please) because his current kit of lenses is comprised of DX lenses. I'd like to make a couple lenses recommendations (lenses that I think are great for any kit) based on the above information.
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G
Amazon Link
Adorama Link
B&H Photo Video Link
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (Manual focus only on the D3300 since it doesn't have an internal focus motor)
Amazon Link
Adorama Link
B&H Photo Video Link
Both of those lenses will be alright for event and outdoor photography (although having to juggle primes all the time can be a bit of a pain and the 55-200 he already has is probably better for wildlife) but each will clock in under $200, giving you some extra cash to spare if you decide to pick up a UV filter for both of those lenses - they both use 52mm threaded filters. The only thing I can see is that both of those lenses fall somewhat within the same focal distance as the 40mm f/2.8, so the only other thing I can think of is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G if one didn't come with the camera body when he bought it. That can be had for under $200 and would be helpful as an everyday walk-around lens instead of having to lug around different primes.
Amazon Link
Adorama Link
B&H Photo Video Link
I hope this is helpful!
*Edited for formatting.
For your purposes, a 70-200 f/2.8 is probably your best bet. That said, they aren't cheap. Used, older models can go for as low as $600-800 if you're lucky, but make sure it works before you pay for it. Test it THOROUGHLY, make sure it has no mold, scratches, or other obvious defects, make sure autofocus is fast and smooth even (especially) in low light, and make sure the aperture isn't sticky (resulting in over/underexposure) when shooting at high frame rates. Buying used can be risky, so be sure if you do.
If cost is an issue, go with a prime. It is not the same experience as shooting with a zoom, but they're cheaper and, when compared to the after-market brands or older branded zooms, are usually of superior quality and sharpness. (Newer branded zooms are much better quality, but as you've noticed, are much more expensive. This will, to a certain extent, depend on your camera body. I swear by my 50mm f/1.4, but that probably isn't going to be long enough for your needs, even on a cropped sensor (making it an effective 75mm f/1.4). A fixed focal length will be a pain in the ass when trying to follow fast-moving subjects around, particularly if you're stationary in the stands or on the sidelines, but it can be done.
Another factor to consider when thinking about fast primes is that their smallest aperture isn't always that small. For example: the 50mm f/1.4 can only stop down to f/16. Why is that a bad thing? Well, for one, it means you might have to shoot at a much faster shutter speed under bright lights/sunlight, which might not be what you want if you're trying to show action by allowing a small amount of motion blur by shooting at 1/30 to 1/60 of a second. This is mostly a non-issue indoors or out of direct sunlight, but is worth considering.
Personally, I love my 50mm f/1.4 - it's my most frequently used lens at the moment... depending on the type of event I'm shooting. I used it about 1/3 of the time while shooting some dancers at SF City Hall last week (1/3 was a 24mm f/2.8 and 1/3 was a 70-200 f/2.8, because I could move around), and the low light made me glad I brought it. It is invaluable for live performances, and makes stage lighting look like a studio portrait. I used my 50mm about 60-75% of the time for both of those shoots. It's also good for general portraiture, either medium or close-up. The 50mm barely left camera body for those two shoots. Most of these shots were on a D700, which is a full-frame sensor. I'm guessing yours is a cropped frame, which means the 50mm becomes a 75mm, at which point you might actually have a decent lens for medium and wide shots when at the sidelines. It probably won't be tight enough if you're in bleachers, though. And as I mentioned earlier, the ability to zoom in and out without having to move around is going to make things a LOT easier.
But a 70-200 f/2.8 will run you close to $1,000 used, whereas you can find a 50mm f/1.4 on Craig's List in decent shape for $200-250 fairly regularly. It'll cost you $450 on Amazon.com for the AF-S version, $350 for the SF-D version (slightly slower & louder focusing), or $125 for the AF-D f/1.8 version if you don't mind losing a half-stop of light. $429 will get you the 85mm f/1.8, which also loses the half-stop of light but is a tighter shot and is still fairly fast. You can reasonably expect to find this lens used for about $100-150 less than it's new price, in decent shape.
Insofar as after-market vs. Nikon-branded lenses are concerned, I have never owned an after-market lens that did not develop some kind of problem after 1-2 years of regular use, and I've owned a few of them. Sigma/Quantaray sucks for longevity; I've had to send one of their EX (pro) line back twice, and it still has some of the same problems. Tamron is okay, depending on which version you get... and it seems that some lenses come off the assembly line in good shape while others don't. Tokina seems to get good reviews, but also seems to be more limited in specs. Most of the other after-market brands aren't even worth mentioning. On the flip side, I own Nikon lenses that have been dropped onto cement, smashed into the ground lens-first when knocked over on a tripod, smacked and beaten, which work just as well now as they did when I bought them. The primes are built like tanks. The pro zooms are as well, though much more expensive. The more plasticky prosumer or kit lenses aren't, but still seem to develop fewer problems than after-market lenses. Another thing about after-market lenses: their autofocus is usually slow, and they frequently hunt for focus (focusing in and out, unable to lock) in low light. Pro AF-S will be your best bet for this, but is expensive. AF-D is usually good for sharp, accurate autofocus, but is slower than both pro and consumer AF-S.
I've been shooting for ten years and won't buy another after-market lens if I have a choice for all of these reasons. Yes, I get paid for my work and thus tend to spend more money on my gear than the average amateur, but for me, photography is more like a hobby that occasionally pays for itself than a business; I have a career that's completely separate. As a result, I have many of the same concerns about spending over a thousand dollars on a lens. However, I also know I'll get tons of use out of it over the years. I shoot, on average, 1-4 events per week (work allowing, of course), and many of my events put my gear at risk due to rowdy crowds, so I need that beefier build quality. Much of this may not be as true for you, so bear that in mind when making your decision.
Hope that helps!
All manufacturers make a "budget" 50mm. Pentax is the best for my money, then Canon, but the Nikon one is DEFINITELY better than this, and it's not that much more expensive.
Definitely worth buying over this one - I promise. You're probably only looking at a 40 dollar difference.
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-1-8D-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=nikon+50mm&qid=1563824015&s=gateway&sr=8-6
I'm going to assume this is your first entry into digital photography.
The camera body is fine.
The 18-55mm kit lens will take a decent to good photo in most circumstances. An external flash will improve your results in low light situations.
The 70-300mm will only be useful (hand held) in bright daylight because of it's narrow apeture and lack of image stabilization. A monopod or tripod will help. I'd also recommend a remote to further minimize vibration.
I highly recommend getting a nifty-fifty. I have basically the same lens on my Canon and it takes a higher quality picture than all my other lenses, some of which cost nearly $1000.
This is a great lens - although depending on the Nikon body you have it may not auto-focus. You can get them pretty cheap, and if the AF thing isn't that big a deal to you, you'll have an awesome lens. I have this one on my D5100 and use it for night shooting all the time.
I'd take your dad's camera down to the shop and get a repair estimate -- chances are all you need is a sensor cleaning, which is pretty cheap to get done.
Photography can be an absolute money sink, so it's worth making sure it's something you like before shelling out a ton of cash.
A 6.8 MP Nikon is still a better camera than 12 MP point-and-shoot, particularly when paired with a good lens. You'll be able to get images that blow up to about 16x10 without showing artifacts.
Given that this is a new hobby, I'd try to make do with the older body and invest in a good lens or two. Although price and quality are generally linked, you can find good lenses for very reasonable prices.
Also, get some books on photography or sign up for a class.
If you learn on what you have, you'll get a much better idea about what you need to invest in to get the pictures you're after. In two years, you can expect better electronics than these models for the same price.
They do.
However if you have a entry level camera without a autofocus motor in the body, then an AF lens will not focus on that camera and you will need to pay for an AF-S one for autofocus.
So this one is AF, so it will not focus on the D40-90, D3000 series, D5000 Series. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4
Whereas this one being AF-S will focus on those bodies as it has a motor in the lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC
Good choice. I started out with a Nikon entry level camera and I think it was a good choice.
If you have funds, I'd recommend getting a bag and a spare battery (third-party batteries are usually fine). A second battery is always the first thing I get when I get a new camera; nothing is more frustrating than having to stop shooting because your only battery has died.
Once you get used to the 18-55 kit lens, you might want to pick up a 50mm prime lens http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/. They're incredible cheap (<$80 on eBay) and the quality is very good. On the D3300 it will be a good lens for portraits.
And don't bother with one of those big accessory bundles, most of the stuff is complete crap. All you need is camera, lens, memory card, 2x battery (one spare) and a battery charger.You'll get all of that - apart form the second battery - in the box you've linked.
Good luck!
In my opinion, it is. Even though it's not 50mm, it seems to be the most popular choice for a second lens when people are first getting into photography, just like the nifty-fifty.
There IS this bad boy, though.
If you can afford both the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 I would buy them both. They both go down to 1.8 which means the aperture is open very with and will let a ton of light in. These are both prime lenses so they don't zoom but that is not as important as you probably think.
I am assuming here that you don't want to spend 1500+ on a fast professional zoom lens, that would also be okay.
The 35 mm is 200 and I just bought it myself: https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1491578988&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=35mm+nikon+dx
The 50mm can be had for 131: https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1491579288&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=50mm+nikon
You can also just go with what you have, but you will probably need to crank the ISO up pretty high.
Suggested settings:
The reason for the suggested lenses is at 1.8, your ISO can be much lower than 3.5 and this will result in less noise. One last time: shoot raw if you can since it is a tricky situation. GOOD LUCK!
There is a way to to do center focusing, though I don't have the exact steps to do so off the top of my head. I did it for my 3a when I got it and haven't returned to that part of the camera's menu. Just letting you know that there is a way though.
To add to Fafoah's comment, looking for lenses with aperture rings is something you definitely have to keep in mind with Nikon lenses; older lenses will have them while newer ones got rid of the ring completely. Something to look out for (again, with Nikon lenses), is that anything G will NOT have the aperture ring. On the other hand, lenses denoted as D will have rings.
For example, here's the Nikon 50mm f1.8G versus the Nikon 50mm f1.8D
The obvious advantage to this is cost; D's tend to be the older models and cheaper (though there are definitely a few exceptions). Disadvantage is image quality or lens durability. Personally, I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8D, and I really like it especially because it didn't cost me an arm+leg.
Either way though, using any non-e-mount Sony lenses on the NEX will force you to manually focus which is fun especially with the NEX's peaking mode (when manually focusing, it highlights the in-focus bits) but 1) will take a while to be quick about it and 2) VERY difficult to do in the dark, especially when you become dependent on the peaking mode.
I should also add that because you can't auto-focus with other-brand lenses, this actually opens you up to much older lenses which also tend to be cheaper because they lack things like auto-focus or image stability. Because of this, I was able to pick up an old Nikon 105mm f2.5 AI-s lens for cheap. All said and done, I have 3 lenses and did not spend more than the cost of the camera.
I picked up this 50mm 1.8 lens for my Nikon. I grabbed a refurbished D3200 about two months ago (college budget, whooo). It's actually kinda funny - my camera doesn't have an onboard AF motor, but to pick up a lens was $100 more expensive to buy one w/ the lens-based AF motor... so I just bought the cheaper one and have been manual-focus bumblefucking my way through life.
It's a little tricky sometimes but also kind of interesting and fun? Shrug. Photography is like a tertiary hobby for me, after clothes and writing. I've gotten better since taking the 877 pics, I promise.
Old ass Nikon D80 with this 50mm
I generally carry these 2 around when i bring my camera.
Tamron 18-270mm
http://amzn.com/B004FN1W2I
Nikon 50mm
http://amzn.com/B00005LEN4
I LOVE my D600. The interface takes a bit of getting used to, but that's true of both the cameras you're looking at. And the images are just stunning, even at ISO 6400 (especially if you don't mind applying a modicum of noise reduction in Lightroom or whatever).
The only warning I would give is that Nikon UK took several weeks to clean my D600, so plan to be without it for a while at some point.
Edit: Just to add, as others have said, don't mess around with DX lenses. If your budget is tight, you really cannot go wrong with this fantastic and extremely cheap 50mm FX prime.
Photography newbie here, can someone tell me the difference between:
Also, what key features should I be looking at in order to compare one lens from another?
Thanks :)
Edit: Fixed name
I think i will go with this
D90 body only for $300
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001ET5U92
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D $105
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005LEN4/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
and get her another lens for her birthday or something. Will that Lens take good pictures or is the stock lens better?
Find photos that you like, and copy them as close as you can.
Notice the lighting, posing, composition, shutter speed, depth of field, and editing.
After perfecting each shot, you can then use the techniques you learn to explore different variations, eventually creating your own vision and style.
edit: I also recommend getting this lens (nikon 50mm, 1.8), it's cheap, will give you very shallow depth of field when you need it, nice bokeh, and will help with low light since the d70 gets pretty noisy when you bump the iso up.
Granted you need a D70/80/90 or higher to use AF on it. Nikon most certainly has a nifty fifty equivalent. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1278700481&amp;sr=8-1
It is $125 though, and assuming you are going to do a bare bones cost analysis, the Canon EOS 50mm has to have an electronic aperture and AF motor in it for $100. The Nikon has a mechanical aperture as all Nikon lenses do and has no motor for $125. Theoretically you are getting higher quality components in the Nikkor taking the $25 price increase and removal of 2 electronic costs compared to the EOS.
Nikon:
D3100 single lens kit for $499, then I'd try to get a 50mm f1.8 for about $100. I don't think you can get it off of Amazon for $100, so perhaps try craigslist or ebay or something for a second hand one. If you want to spend a bit more money, the 35mm f1.8 would be better.
For Canon:
You'll have to go for an older model T2i for $599.
In my opinion the Nikon is much better. It is preferable to get a prime lens (the 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8) and a normal zoom lens (the kit lens).
I don't like twin lens kits, because they give you a normal zoom lens, and a long telephoto zoom lens. The telephoto lens is useless most of the time. It is mainly useful for taking photos of wild animals, birds, etc. or spying on people like a creep.
The prime lens is great because it is much sharper than a zoom lens, and you can use it in lower light. (It has a bigger opening, and lets more light in)
***
For $600, I would actually prefer to buy a mirrorless camera like an Olympus EPL-1 kit for $270 and then buy an extra 20mm f1.7 lens to go with it.
Or if you wanted a slightly bigger mirrorless camera, the Panasonic G3 is great and only $549.
Don't let anyone tell you that mirrorless cameras have worse quality. In daylight they'll be exactly as good, and even at night time micro four thirds cameras give excellent performance if you know what you're doing. I shot these photos on a Panasonic G2.
You can get a 50 mm f/1.8 for a little over $100 new off Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4
I highly recommend it. Most kit lenses shoot f/3.5 wide open (at best), so this would effectively give you ~2 stops of light more with the f/1.8 lens. This means that you can shoot at a much faster shutter speed (4x faster) and get the same shot. This is especially useful for low light situations and times when you don't want to use flash. And as an added bonus, the f/1.8 lens gives you a very narrow depth of field which produces that great, blurry bokah effect in the background.
Or a 50mm http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1450055264&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=nikon+50mm
This is the one I have, I also had a D3200, you can get some great results with that lens
I'm looking to get a new lens, I was thinking either 35mm or 50mm, I feel I shoot more in 50mm but had a question about autofocus. I have a Nikon D3400, would this lens have autofocus capabilities with it?
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-manual-aperture-control/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1505176782&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=nikon+35mm+1+4
Also, how can I find examples of photos shot in 50mm or 35mm?
So about a year ago I got my first Nikon DSLR (D3300) and have been playing around with styles, and I definitely believe that portraits is the way I want to go. I've been using the 18-55mm kit lens so far and have looked into what lenses a portrait photographer should use and I think a 50mm would fit me. Somebody near me is selling a nikon 50mm and a sigma 50mm
they have the same maximum aperture so I'm trying to figure out what the differences are and what I should choose for my final decision. Also why should I buy these and not one of the $100 50mm lenses like this one? I would really appreciate an explanation on the differences. Thank you!
I've got this coming in the mail
Also, if you don't want the kit lens and only want to get the 55-200 you should give them a call. They might knock off an extra $75 or so.
To be honest though, if I were buying new again, (I own a d40x and am in the process of getting a d300) I would start with a D80 and here's why. The d40/d40x/d60 is a great camera, really, it's awesome for an entry level rig. It does have one major drawback, which is also why they are so cheap in price not quality. They don't have an internal lens motor. Not having a lens motor limits the lenses you can put on the camera. You pretty much need to get lenses with motors in them if you want to auto focus.
Why this is a problem. I was recently looking to buy a 50mm f1.4. There are several Nikon options. The older 50mm lenses cost between $100-200 used and have great image quality but I couldn't use them on my camera unless I gave up auto focus. The only lenses that would work are the sigma and the new Nikon that was literally just released. They cost $450, clearly much more expensive.
So, the d40 line are cheaper now and if you just want to take nicer vacation pictures will work absolutely great but if you want to move into any other sort of photography they'll quickly become more expensive because you'll be forced to buy more expensive lenses. Something like this might work. It's a little more than what you want to spend but it's a great camera and the 18-135 lens will give you much greater flexibility than the standard 18-55 kit lens.
Or this and this
I do! That's what I wound up getting. I'm having a blast with mine--this is my favorite picture so far. It's a great camera. It's not the most sophisticated camera Nikon offers, but it's got everything you'll need for quite a while. It's also nice and light, so you can ease into lugging around SLR-sized cameras.
I started out with a D40 because Rockwell made such a stink about it, but I exchanged it for the D60. The D60 is a nice upgrade in a few ways. First off, the kit lens has image stabilization, which comes in pretty handy in low light. Second, the extra megapixels, despite what Rockwell says, do come in handy. It's nice to have room to crop. There are a few other little extras, too, like a sensor cleaner and a few interface improvements.
The only caveat has to do with lenses. Nikon is in the middle of transitioning from putting the autofocus motor in the body to putting it in the lens. The D40 and D60 don't have an in-body motor, so you lose autofocus on some older lenses. This is mostly a non-issue for newbies like us who don't have lens collections, except when it comes to the legendary 50mm 1.8. It's one of the few "fast" cheap lenses, meaning that you can open the aperture to blur backgrounds and shoot in low light. You can still use the lens, but you'll have to focus manually.
Good luck!
Thanks for the reply! I've found several 50mm 1.8 lenses on Amazon that are significantly cheaper. Like this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-1-8D-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1540073786&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=50mm+nikon+lens
And this one is even more inexpensive:
https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-Aperture-Cameras-EACHSHOT-Cleaning/dp/B01HEZK95Y/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1540073786&amp;sr=8-1-spons&amp;keywords=50mm+nikon+lens&amp;psc=1
Is the quality of the image significantly better with the one you recommended? Can I take pictures like the ones I posted above with one of the less expensive lenses, or do you really recommended the one you linked on BestBuy?
Thanks so much for the help!
Doesn't matter much. Personally, I'd take the t2i because it's a level "above" the Nikon D3x00 series (the D5x00 series is Nikon's equivalent), but see also below.
I wrote this for some other threads:
The T2i and 18 - 55mm are fine places to start; so are their Nikon and Sony equivalents. If you have any friends who are interested in photography, ask them and buy whatever they use, because they'll be able to help you better than a bunch of people on the Internet. The differences among cameras at this level are really small—think f/11 small—and you're better off learning how to use your camera and how to think photographically than agonizing over which to buy.
If you're like most people, you'll eventually want to explore fixed-length primes. Canon sells a $100 50mm prime, and so does Nikon. Once you have some experience with the kits lens and the "nifty 50," you'll be ready for something else—but what that "something else" is depends on what you shoot.
See the Digital Photography Review Canon t2i guide, the Digital Photography Review learning guide, and How to make the jump from automatic to manual. If you have questions after reading them closely, come back and ask.
The important thing is learning your camera and training your eye. For the former, a knowledgeable user can help; so can a book. I got David Busch's t2i guide and like it fine. I'm sure there are others; get whichever you see as most useful.
Absolutely you should shoot in RAW. I'd suggest Adobe Lightroom to process your shots. In terms of lenses, you may want to give a "nifty fifty" a shot. Here is a 1.8 for $99, and a 1.4 for $429. If you can afford it, go for the 1.4, but either way you will not be disappointed. The wide aperture gives you a nice bokeh effect, and the fixed length will help you work on your composition.
As soon as I upgraded from my very first kit lens, there were two lenses I bought simultaneously.
The first was the 50mm f/1.8. That lens is just ridiculously sharp, and six years later I still use it. I still prefer the older D lens over the newer G lens because the older model has the old-fashioned focus ring with dialed-in infinity position that is really helpful when setting the focus for night shots. $135
The second was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. This is probably my most-used lens in my bag of eleven lenses. It is sharp, has a great zoom range, and the maximum constant f/2.8 aperture is really helpful in low light. Now this one is gonna cost you. Currently the new value is listed at $600, but they have used ones for as little as $240.
Mine was a Canon 50mm 1.8 II. This looks like the Nikon equivalent. It's great for low depth of field shots. Sharper too.
A 52mm reversing ring
If you'd prefer extension tubes, here's some for $10.
Now you can take great pics with that 50 mounted normally or macro photos with it flipped around. Here's one of many tutorials on this.
Now you've got a standard lens and macro covered, decide what else you're going to shoot and buy accordingly.
Thanks for the recommendations! You're probably pretty knowledgeable on my friend's setup, then. Would this be an appropriate 35mm lens? And would this be an appropriate 50mm?
Also, I would like to know what these lenses would be capable of that the 18-105mm would not be able to do. I would assume the zoom levels on the 18-105mm should cover those lower ranges as well. But, like I said, I'm a novice. So I'm assuming a lens that specializes in a range is better in its area than a "jack-of-all-trades" lens?
Cool, I'll definitely try slowing down the shutter speed (going from 1/250th second to somewhere between 1/50th and 1/75th of a second) when using my Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens (http://amzn.to/n4CwwQ) at an upcoming show! Thanks for your recommendations :)
Thank you for the response. Follow up question on the lens. I think i'm leaning towards a 50mm AF-S G lens
Is there a big difference between lenses that have the G and the D after the name? From what I read and what the Best Buy folks told me, is that the G is the later model, and better motor. Essentially it'll autofocus because it's an AF-S type.
Also, is there anything that I should read more into about the AF vs AF-S types? This forum mentioned about how AF-S body won't have autofocus with a AF lens and other way around.
www.kenrockwell.com is a good resource for info. There are literally tons of online resources, blogs, videos, etc scattered across the web.
Definitely read the manual as the D7100 is an intense camera for someone unfamiliar with DSLRs (good choice though, I love mine).
Try to use manual settings as often as possible. You'll definitely want to understand the shutter and aperture relationship...they're like peas and carrots.
As for baby pics, check out out the nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D lens. It's very affordable and you'll love the shallow depth of field at f/1.8. The lenses you have will be great. Here is some info on aperture and depth of field: http://www.exposureguide.com/focusing-basics.htm
Here's a link for the nikkor 50mm lens on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00005LEN4/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1407380138&amp;sr=8-2&amp;pi=SY200_QL40
Here is a bit on prime lenses vs zoom lenses: http://digital-photography-school.com/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best/
Eventually you'll want a tripod.
Shoot lots of pictures.
Do you have photoshop or Lightroom? RAW files are extremely awesome: http://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/
Pretend you're the paparazzi with friends, not strangers.
Have fun and be creative.
Would this work well for portraits like that? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00005LEN4?cache=f89f98dafec1ddf7c5f50707fb033f3c&amp;pi=SY200_QL40&amp;qid=1404857641&amp;sr=8-2#ref=mp_s_a_1_2
If you're looking for a good cheap lens, I'd REALLY recommend this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-1-8D-Lens/dp/B00005LEN4/
The (somewhat old) 50mm 1.8 AF is super sharp, and in some ways I've found it to be better than the new 35mm 1.8 AF-S I've tried.. The best thing? It's a nice full flame lens, and your D800 should have an internal motor, so auto focus should not be a problem (it will not be silent, but it's not exactly loud).
And for the price, it's absolutely brilliant!
I've used it on my D90, and I can't find any faults with it (other than it lacking an internal focus motor, or vibration reduction).
Thanks for the reply. Could you please explain what you mean by "-- 35mm on the 5200/5100 is about the same frame size". I googled for 50mm lens and found http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LENO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1425994521&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+50+mm+full+frame+prime and http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1425994521&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=nikon+50+mm+full+frame+prime . Did you mean one of these? (still confused what you meant by the 35mm being about the same frame size on 5200/5100)
PS: Will do for sure. Thanks for the encouragement.
Tip for anyone with a DSLR: get a "nifty fifty" prime lens and start shooting awesome macros with little-to-no skill required. You can usually find them used, on eBay for under $100.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1367855857&amp;sr=8-5&amp;keywords=50mm+prime+lens
I am camera ignorant.. When you say 50 1.8 so you mean this one ?
Film tends to be personal taste, but for a first time user Kodak Gold 200 or Fuji Superia 200 colour negative films are decent all round films tend to be fairly available in a lot of countries. You said you like the aesthetic of film, any examples i can look at to maybe make a specific recommendation?
I live in the UK so i'm not sure where you get film or develop it in Canada, the only Canadian film shooter i know of is /u/azrielknight , any other Canadians here who could help?
>Where do you recommend I get my lens from?
You can still buy it new on Amazon if you want, or hunt for a used one on ebay, look at the sold listings like i said and see what they are selling for.
No problem!
You perfectly described AF-D vs AF-S. The AF-D are significantly cheaper (they are the older generation) coming with the drawback of louder focusing mechanisms and most likely with the added benefit of manual focus rings. Just to be clear, you can operate AF S lenses on both cameras with or without focus motors. It's only AF-D that have the restriction.
Honestly the deal from your friend is nice camera wise, but those lenses are nowhere near the quality you'd get from a good AF-D and maybe a slightly older camera. This is for a few reasons: although the D3300 sensor is newer and may have better high iso performance, those two lenses are f/4 and f/3.5 as opposed to a 1.8 or 2.8 you could easily get for AF-D. Furthermore, those lenses are zoom lenses. While you can get great quality from zoom lenses, take the holy grail 14-24 or 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for example, they have nowhere near the quality : price ratio you can get from a fixed lens.
Here's what I would recommend given your most recent response:
Nikon D7000 for ~$500.
Nikkor 50mm AF f/1.8D lens for ~$125 and I would save up for the Nikkor 35mm AF-S f/1.8G and the Nikkor 85mm AF f/1.8D for a longer lens to add to your bag.
Make sure to shop around because Amazon isn't always the best option. Just to demonstrate, if you went with the 85mm AF-S you would spend an extra $150 and if you go for the 50mm AF-S you would spend an extra $100. That $250 in savings gives you enough to get the 35mm 1.8G and a couple of SD cards, an extra D7000 battery, or maybe a tripod or some other accessory you will undoubtedly pick up after your main purchase!
It's also worth pointing out that both of those have AF-S focusing motors, unlike the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF which is still only $125 new.
That, and the light bendy thing.
Appreciate your answer, thats pretty much confirm my purchase!.
I forgot to ask the difference between the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G and this one https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-manual-aperture-control/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=pd_sbs_421_2?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B00005LEN4&amp;pd_rd_r=Q4JW6M3NRSHYCNCMCBXX&amp;pd_rd_w=LWGE2&amp;pd_rd_wg=K6YA6&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=Q4JW6M3NRSHYCNCMCBXX I know this one is 50mm but is there a real difference between them?
Thanks again for taking the time!
Would someone be able to tell me if this works? I want to get this lens http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4 and then use this adaptor http://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-AFNK-Fujifilm-Camera-Adapter/dp/B007YPED8O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1421710804&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+to+fuji+x+adapter&amp;pebp=1421710866442&amp;peasin=B007YPED8O for my XA1. Will that adaptor work with that lens? If not what do I need? Also I am unsure of how it will affect the focal length of it. Will the adaptor ad length to it? I am lost with this stuff
Ah I love IFTTT so useful! Thanks for the compliments! The lens I used was this Nikon lens. Its pretty amazing for bokeh, and has a great depth of field!
I know canon equipment, not so much Nikon. Two lenses fit your requirements, inexpensive, very good, Manual focus.
One is the 28 f/2.8 AIS
The other is the 50mm f/1.8D
If you are going to be on stage, the first one is good. The second one is great for close ups from the front row, but no group shots except from further back. With small venue, wide angle may make sense. I have found the good, and unusual images are close ups. I use wide angle to fill in the gaps, but depend on the telephoto to make my work 'special', better than the average person. Honestly, either one is good, because I do not know how close you will be.
In post production, multiple images can be combined for a montage. I find that more effective than a plain group shot. I could make only the 50mm work, better than I could make only the 28mm. You will have to use your legs, shoot some from the back of the audience area.
Others with more knowledge of Nikon equipment could be helpful, but autofocus is not a requirement. Neither are zooms, that are expensive, over your budget.
It's just the cheap kit lens, I plan to invest in http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1454084636&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=nikon+50mm soon
It would be the excellent 50mm 1.8D or the ever slightly more excellent 50mm 1.8G.
The primary difference is that the "D" version is older and lacks a focus motor, so it only auto-focuses on Nikon bodies that already have a focus motor built in. The "G" version includes the focus motor in the lens. There are a few other differences as well.
Additionally, there's the 50mm 1.4D and 1.4G, if you want even further abilitiy to defocus backgrounds. (D=no focus motor, G=with focus motor.)
Nikon D90 with a set of extension tubes and a reverse mounted, decently small aperture 50mm lens. It's also possible to mount two lenses together for even more magnification.
How about all those autofocus cameras/lenses.
"Nikon as fuck" etc.
These go for $130 new
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LEN4
I'd say do it, but you're going to have to spend the money on a lens that has the autofocus motor built into it. A great lens would be this 35mm. It's a great lens. I'm also a fan of this 50mm but it will not auto-focus on your D50.
That 35mm though, I promise you will fall in love with it, and it will still work perfectly when you upgrade cameras.
if anything, i would get a telephoto lens (70-300mm with f/4.0-5.6), but it isnt anything you need - yet at least.
1
2
other than that, pancake lenses are really nice to have and are usually high quality for a pretty affordable price.
Yes it does. I believe this is the one I have.I just bought the 35mm and I'm not that happy with it. I should have just waited and spent a bit more money on a 24mm or something similar.
Side by side of the cameras You can see the iso performance is slightly better in other models and this would help with low light performance. However, this could be offset by lens selection somewhat.
What lens do you currently have? Doing both landscapes and portraits I'm guessing a zoom lens would be the best fit. I tend to prefer primes but I mainly shoot portraits (of my kids). Low light you'll want a fast lens, maybe the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
I would also highly suggest the nifty fifty for any portrait work, it'll net you pretty awesome pictures
Maybe just maybe the Sigma 30 1.4 as an all rounder, it's still a lil tight for landscape work but it's the best "in the middle" prime I can think of. It also would do much better in low light than any zoom.
As far as what you can do out of the box, well not a lot different. You will get better low light performance but that really depends on what glass you have on the body. Nothing wrong with the body choice, just because there are "better" bodies doesn't mean you need one. The only other thing I'm not familiar with is the AF on Nikon bodies, some lenses need an af motor in the body some are in the lens.. some bodies have motors some don't...
BEST OF LUCK AND GET SHOOTING.
Offer still stands about the money though... ;)
Yes, panoraman/utsikt med kitobjektivet, resten med makro (fick gå väldigt långt bak på stigen för att få med allting haha). Jag hade Nikkor 50mm f1.8 med mig också som var tänkt att fota stigen men vart för lat för att gräva upp den ur packningen. :P
What I will most likely keep if I go through my possible changes:
- Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
+ Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
- Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
- Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
+ Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
My new gear set:
Any thoughts would be appreciated on this.
Thanks again in advance!
I'll say if you get a 50mm 1.8 avoid the pancake and AI-s ones if you want to shoot wide open, i have both of those and they are truly awful at f/1.8.
I'd be tempted to get the AF-D 50mm 1.8, it's a fifth of the weight of your 1.2, you can still buy that new, even looking at the used section on amazon you can get it for about $90. It will meter fine on the FM, the only downside i can see is the smaller focus ring on it, but it's still bigger than the old 50mm pancake focus ring. If you have a local camera shop with one of those on the shelf you could take it down and try it out.
Sorry, but the dude's a fool. That Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-S is NOT the "nifty fifty", never was! Apparently he doesn't know about the existence of this one, which - for a professional photog - is embarassing to say the least.