# Fixed length lenses



## kirbyultra (May 7, 2010)

When I was first looking at DSLRs and whether to get everything separate or get a "kit" and other stuff, a friend recommended that if I was going to photograph bunnies, I might want to get a fixed length lens. Particularly because my rabbit room has the worst indoor light in my apartment, I do find myself with blurred up pictures using the kit lens, so maybe he was right. If I get a good shot I could always crop the pic to get the animal, so I'm thinking the lack of a conventional zoom wouldn't be such a big deal.

I'm looking at these lenses and it's another chunk of money but it's not like I'm buying it tomorrow. Just wanted to have something to look towards  The Nikkor 35mm f1.8G lens is pretty reasonably priced. The 50mm f1.4G lens is like double in price! I kinda want to know why. The focal length doesn't seem to be THAT different (is it even visibly that different?) and the f# is a fraction apart -- though of course that could mean worlds apart for an expert while it doesn't seem like much to me. :?

Would anyone recommend a lens of this type for indoor bunny pics? And perhaps some general tourist-y type shots? (Landscape, maybe night shots, portraits)


----------



## MikeScone (May 7, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> The Nikkor 35mm f1.8G lens is pretty reasonably priced. The 50mm f1.4G lens is like double in price! I kinda want to know why. The focal length doesn't seem to be THAT different (is it even visibly that different?) and the f# is a fraction apart -- though of course that could mean worlds apart for an expert while it doesn't seem like much to me. :?


The difference may not seem like much mathematically, but it's actually quite large - going between f1.8 and f1.4 is one full f-stop. That is, you can capture twice as much light with an f1.4 lens as with an f1.8 lens. That means you can use twice the shutter speed, which might be the difference between blur and not. 

There's also a difference in wide-open depth of field - a 50mm f1.4 lens will have less depth of field at f1.4 than a 50mm f1.8 lens has at f1.8 (and even less than a 35mm f1.8 because it's a shorter focal length). That's not really a big factor - and obviously, at smaller f-stops, the depth of field will be the same in each. It will be a huge difference in depth of field compared to the f3.5-5.6 of a kit zoom lens, though. 

As to whether or not it's worth buying, all I can say is I have a 50mm 1.4 in my camera bag and I definitely use it. It's great for bunny portraits in everyday indoor light without flash:







You probably won't use a f1.4 for landscapes - you'd want a wider angle lens, more like 18mm than the semi-telephoto 50mm (on a digital camera). 

For night work, you'd buy four or five stops more light gathering ability compared to a kit zoom - that would be thirty-two or sixty-four times more light, which is pretty significant. I took this picture during a ghost walk underground in Edinburgh, by the light of a single candle: 







There are a few reasons for the difference in price between the two Nikon lenses you're looking at. The increased f-stop is, of course, an important factor - f1.4 is a lot more glass than f1.8, and even more when you consider that the lens is a longer focal length, so you're talking about a maximum diameter of 1/1.4th of 50mm vs 1/1.8th of 35mm. Then, the 35mm f1.8 is a DX-format lens (i.e. APS sensor digital cameras only), whereas the 50mm f1.4 is a full-frame lens which will work on both APS and full-frame sensor digital cameras (and film Nikons). That requires higher quality to get a sharp picture out to the edges of the larger frame. Finally, the f1.4 is a physically better lens - Nikon has several quality ranges for their glass. The less expensive lenses are intended for the consumer market and have plastic mounts and frames, the more expensive lenses usually have sturdier metal mounts and maybe metal innards, too. That may not matter, since you'll probably never wear out a lens, but there is a cost. I'd check eBay and see what used lenses are going for - that's where I got my f1.4. 

All of that said, the f1.8 is also a good lens, and at 35mm it's basically a "normal" lens rather than a telephoto. Either way, I think you'd be happy you had it.


----------



## Little Bay Poo (May 7, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> When I was first looking at DSLRs and whether to get everything separate or get a "kit" and other stuff, a friend recommended that if I was going to photograph bunnies, I might want to get a fixed length lens. Particularly because my rabbit room has the worst indoor light in my apartment, I do find myself with blurred up pictures using the kit lens, so maybe he was right.


If you are having troubling with lighting in the apartment, I would definitely go with a speedlight instead. I know I have spoken negatively about the SB600s bulk and weight, but it has fixed ALL of my white balance and lighting issues (and believe me, I had A LOT of lighting issues). The SB600 also negates blur. Set at a high enough shutter speed (my D40 goes to 1/500 with flash) and you can capture mid-binkies without blur.

Most of my problems came from having compact fluorescent lighting, and having photos come out too yellow. Even with the use of a gray card, the lighting would change intensity throughout the hour, and white balance was skewed.

Without the SB600:











With the SB600:












The SB600 is also good for action shots:

Without the SB600:







With the SB600 (it's been a while, I need to get a new shot!):


----------



## Pet_Bunny (May 7, 2010)

*Little Bay Poo wrote: *


> If you are having troubling with lighting in the apartment, I would definitely go with a speedlight instead.



I am definitely a flash fill person. I use theflash outdoors too. See the picture below.







Flash fired,SB800, Nikon D300, ISO 200, F7.1, 1/200 sec, 70-200 zoom.

Because your normal zoom covers 18-55 mm, you are duplicating the focal lengths you already have. The only advantage of a primelens is getting a faster lensbut it gives youa shorter depth of field.

I do have the 50 mm, F1.4 lens, and I haven't used it at all. I prefer a wider lens or a longer telephoto lens.


----------



## kirbyultra (May 7, 2010)

Appreciate Mike's explanation and Stan & Robin's flash suggestion. 

The candlelight photo is incredible. 

The speedlight seems to add a great deal of value to an action shot.

More things to think about Thanks!


----------



## kirbyultra (Aug 13, 2010)

Bumping my old thread about the prime lens. I borrowed a friend's to try before I buy  

For reasons other than what I originally wanted it for: I. Love. This. Lens.

I am almost certain I'm not using it quite right yet as I'm still getting my understanding of depth of field and aperture inverted and whatnot. But... I am just in awe at this.
















And I love how Toby came out. I mean, it really almost captures Toby perfectly...










Anything that you think might help take bunner pics better with this lens? (Nikon 35mm f/1.8)


----------



## MikeScone (Aug 13, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> For reasons other than what I originally wanted it for: I. Love. This. Lens. ...
> Anything that you think might help take bunner pics better with this lens? (Nikon 35mm f/1.8)


As I said originally, I like the wide-aperture prime lenses. The small depth of field at f/1.4 or 1.8 really makes subjects "pop" out from the background, and they're typically tack-sharp. 

With the digital multiplier, a 35mm f/1.8 is the equivalent of a 50mm normal lens on a 35mm film camera, so the focal length makes it easier to use than the 50mm f/1.4 I have. As much as I like the f/1.4, the focal length is a bit too long for comfort sometimes. 

(Nice pictures, by the way...)


----------



## kirbyultra (Aug 13, 2010)

MikeScone wrote:


> With the digital multiplier, a 35mm f/1.8 is the equivalent of a 50mm normal lens on a 35mm film camera, so the focal length makes it easier to use than the 50mm f/1.4 I have. As much as I like the f/1.4, the focal length is a bit too long for comfort sometimes.
> 
> (Nice pictures, by the way...)


Thanks Mike. Means a lot coming from you 
I wanted to try the 35mm f/1.8 because I thought that buying a 50mm f/1.4 lens (price = 2x more) would be wasted on my DX frame D5000, no?
ETA:If you don't count the extra f stop of course...


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Aug 13, 2010)

You're biten by the new lens syndrome. :biggrin:
There are nice lens that make your pictures pop and really stand out.

Looks like this 35mm is a keeper.



kirbyultra* wrote: *


> Anything that you think might help take bunner pics better with this lens? (Nikon 35mm f/1.8)


[/quote]
Anything? :rollseyes
How about the 24mm, f1.4 :wink


----------



## MikeScone (Aug 14, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> I thought that buying a 50mm f/1.4 lens (price = 2x more) would be wasted on my DX frame D5000, no?
> ETA:If you don't count the extra f stop of course...


Although I did spend the extra money to get the extra f-stop, I'd have to say that no, the extra stop, as such, isn't really worth spending twice as much for. It would allow you to use one shutter speed faster, but that's not a huge difference compared to the four or five stops difference from your zoom. You'll probably find the 35mm more comfortable than a 50mm on a DX format digital, too. 

At the time I bought the f/1.4 I also wanted to use the lens on a film Nikon, so the full-frame capability made sense for me. I'm not sure the less expensive 35mm 1.8 was available at that time, either.


----------



## DBell (Nov 12, 2012)

Kirbyultra, great pictures. I do have the 35mm and love it for close up shots. Didn't realize (since it's a prime lens) that it would be useful for moving subjects like rabbits. One thing about photography is that you never stop learning. 

Mike, I was contemplating getting the 50mm, but after reading your advice, I think you saved me some money. Thank you.


----------

