Since gifting my thrifty fifty, I am in the market for a replacement prime that will suit my needs, primarily as a low-light lens and a portrait lens. The 50mm was a good focal length for portraits, but a little tight for other stuff, so I'm kind of on the fence. I've narrowed it down to:

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (for a fast, "normal" lens)
Nikon 50mm f/1.4 Sort of lowlight, allpurpose lens that can be used for portraits.
Nikon 85mm f/1.8 If I want to commit to just using this prime for portraits.

I'm sort of leaning towards the first two, since I have zooms to cover the other stuff... I know the 85mm would be a great portrait lens, but I'd like to be able to use it for other stuff, and it's a little narrow.

I am going to go play with all of these lenses in about an hour, but I was curious if anyone had feedback before then.

Remember that these are all on a 1.5x crop body.

50 is a good general range, 85 for portraits, but you know that. If it were me Id buy the 85. I rarely use my 50.

on a 1.5 85mm is a bit tight IMHO. 50mm makes for a good portrait lens and 35mm a standard lens. IMHO checkout the sigma 30mm f1.4. A tad wider and faster. I'd either get that or the 50mm f/1.4 of these options.

I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 the more I think about it, mostly because it's in between, and because it's fast, which is, in my mind, it's primary advantage, at least for my uses.

the 30mm f/1.4 is just as fast....
But yeah, I also like ridiculously fast glass....

Yeah, on a crop I'd go 50mm, on FF, the 85.

i love my 50, the 85 would be too long for me.

Okay, so now I'm leaning towards the Sigma 30mm 1.4 so I can use it for some street photography sorts of stuff... I dunno, I still think the 50mm might be the way to go because I'll get more use out of it.... Arrrgh!

Originally Posted by moduleum

Get both?

They're just primes, so hopefully they won't break your bank account.

Ha! True, but they're about ~$400 each. JUST primes... kids these days...

I'd go 30 first personally.

Originally Posted by Markitos

Ha! True, but they're about ~$400 each. JUST primes... kids these days...

Hah! That's not even one tilt-shift lens. Get both!

I think your sarcasm meter is broked.

I'm kind of in the same predicament. The 30mm is a lot more expensive though

Can you show me that money tree again? I forgot where it was....

I'll get both eventually, but I'm going to get one for Boston (probably the 30).

Also, don't mean to hijack, but I read somewhere that the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent on a D80? Is this correct since it's not a DX lens?



edit: Yep, I just read the OP again. The 50mm is probably too narrow for me.

Even if it WAS a DX lens, it would still be 75mm equivalent b/c of the crop factor... so yes, therein lies my quandary. To get a "normal" lens, I would need the 30mm (45mm equivalent), or I could get the 50mm, which is a short telephoto good for portraits, but sometimes tricky in tight spaces. Either would work beautifully, I just don't know which one would be most useful to start out with.

I'm pretty familiar with the focal lengths--for me, right now, it's a philosophical question...

Originally Posted by moduleum

I think your sarcasm meter is broked.

I'm kind of in the same predicament. The 30mm is a lot more expensive though

Oh, and the 30mm is $429, while the 50mm 1.4 is $285--so the 30 isn't hugely more expensive... that's not really the issue (not like the $1k, 85mm 1.4 would be....)

Have you considered old school MF lenses?

Do they even work on Nikons? (that's not a rip on Nikon, I just don't know what the alternative options are for Nikons)

Cause I have a 24mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4 that were less than $100 each with adapters and are a hell of a lot of fun to play with. It might be the best bet (and you might be able to get 2~3 for your budget). That way you can have 3 focal lengths and just sacrifice AF. Once you've had them a while you can upgrade them to modern AF versions as you see fit.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Have you considered old school MF lenses?

Do they even work on Nikons? (that's not a rip on Nikon, I just don't know what the alternative options are for Nikons)

Cause I have a 24mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4 that were less than $100 each with adapters and are a hell of a lot of fun to play with. It might be the best bet (and you might be able to get 2~3 for your budget). That way you can have 3 focal lengths and just sacrifice AF. Once you've had them a while you can upgrade them to modern AF versions as you see fit.

Not a bad idea. One (of many) reasons I got the D200 is that it can use pretty much all Nikon lenses ever made, and meter with most of them. Some lenses need modification, but I would guess I could find some already modified if I looked hard enough.

Originally Posted by moduleum

Also, don't mean to hijack, but I read somewhere that the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent on a D80? Is this correct since it's not a DX lens?

I see this confusion a lot though.

Nikon's DX, Canon's EF-S and all the other various "for digital" lenses designed for cropped sensors are no different than their bigger brothers. A 50mm DX lens is the same as a 50mm non-DX lens. They both have identical focal lengths, DX is designed for digital either because the lens is smaller (narrower image circle because it doesn't have to provide light to as large a sensor) or they may have coatings supposedly optimized for digital sensors. Regardless of why they call it that, it's still a 50mm. The FOV (field of view) crop of your D80 is 1.5, so you have to multiply any 50mm lens you put on your camera by 1.5 and find it will have an equivalent FOV to a 75mm lens on a full frame camera.

Originally Posted by moduleum

Also, don't mean to hijack, but I read somewhere that the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent on a D80?

I think the D80 is a 1.5 crop sensor, so a 50mm on that would yield the same results as a 75mm on a FF or 35mm camera.

I own the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, and it still remains to be my absolute sharpest lens, I'd say even sharper than my Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 Micro in certain situations. Sure, it's a short telephoto portrait lens, but you can still do good stuff with it otherwise. Here's a few sample photos:



















I'd like to get myself a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 in the future, but the f/1.8 is still holding it down pretty well

It depends--the 50mm is not a good macro lens... I suppose it could be with extension tubes, but it doesn't focus all that closely. With the 30mm, you would be hard pressed to fill the frame with something small, and it probably doesn't focus that close, either (esp. without an extension tube). the 85mm might be the best, but again, with an extension tube... see where I'm going here?

The short answer is no, but I have thought about trying a 50mm lens with an extension tube... or I was, until I borrowed my dad's macro lens... now I just want a dedicated macro lens.

Minimum focus distance on the 85 f/1.8 is 3 feet, so yeah, not a good macro lens

mark, you realize someone here has the sigma 30mm for sale in a nikon mount used right? And by used I mean LNIB:
http://newschoolofphotography.com/fo...ead.php?t=1793

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

mark, you realize someone here has the sigma 30mm for sale in a nikon mount used right? And by used I mean LNIB:
http://newschoolofphotography.com/fo...ead.php?t=1793

Now that you mention it, I DO remember that from long ago... Don't know if he's been around at all, though.

K, just realized he posted today...

Originally Posted by Markitos

K, just realized he posted today...

Don't worry, that's why I remembered...