[1]

I need a good indoor lens. The problem with the kit lens and my 55-200VR are that they're awesome outside, but not so good inside unless I can use a long shutter time (bad for people) or high ISO (bad for everything).

This one is 35mm and F1.8 for under $200:

2183G Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Wide Angle Auto Focus Nikkor Lens - Gray Market

Whereas something similar to this F1.4 55MM (I can't find a 35 link):

2180G Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S Auto Focus Nikkor Lens - Gray Market

Is more than twice as much. I realize that going from 1.8 to 1.4 is basically a whole ISO step (right?) but is it really worth an extra $300? I'm looking for a lens for things like weddings, restaurants, etc - places where there are moving subjects indoors and not enough light to use a fast shutter time on a higher F-stop lens.

 

[1]

Here's the 35 F1.4 Nikon on the 'Bay:

Nikon 35mm f1.4 Ai lens Nikkor 1:1.4 prime on eBay!

It's $549.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

F1.4 to F1.8 is a part of a 1/3 F stop series (F1.4, F1.6. F1.8, F2), so it's a fraction of a film speed (ISO) setting, which would be equivalent to -

F1.4 = ISO 100 (for the sake of argument)
F2.0 = ISO 200

Smaller F number = larger aperture = more light
*Larger ISO number = faster film = more light (exposure, really)

Since F1.8 is 2/3rds between F1.4 and F2.0 (the next F stop in the traditional series, representing a halving of the available light between the two), then in this case, it would equal like, ISO 166 or so. (A fictional number I realize.)


* More graininess and loss of resolution introduced, too. Hence why ISO is kind of a last resort in the exposure triangle of aperture, shutter speed, and film speed.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

For me, the plus with a smaller F stop number is even better bokeh, and great shallow depth of field. Does that justify the price? I dunno. Depends on how serious you are, I guess. You got the eye.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

In all honesty, personally, I'd go for the cheaper lens. I'm kinda cheap, though, and figure I can usually make do with what I got. Don't really like to get over-dependent on technology, and I'm reasonably serious about photography myself.

 

[1]

Thanks for the myriad of replies, broseph. :lol: :wub:

I'm not sure that me, and my camera, would really benefit from the extra $300 for the 1/3 stop, so I think you just made the decision for me. Cheap it is!

 

[stealthtastic]

Amazon.com: Kodak MAX Water & Sport Single Use Camera: Camera & Photo

This :agreed:

 

[The Dark Wolf]

I'm a wordy fuck. :lol:

Yeah, I feel the same. My photography teacher/mentor (awesome, award winning nature photographer, and does sports and portraits) has a badass D3, and uses a surprisingly small number of regular lenses. A good macro, a telephoto, an all-around, and a nice large aperture. 3 to 4 lenses, all the time, even though he owns more. Said he just never uses them though, unless it's for shits n' giggles.

My kinda philosophy.

 

[DelfinoPie]

For me, the plus with a smaller F stop number is even better bokeh, and great shallow depth of field. Does that justify the price? I dunno. Depends on how serious you are, I guess. You got the eye.

:agreed: If you get into taking portraits then the smaller F-stop will get them looking absolutely fantastic :yesway:

 

[Helter Skelter]

You picked the right one. We have the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G lens at work. It's great. I've worked with the 1.4G one and to be honest, I wouldn't say the difference in quality was worth it for what you're planning to use the lens for.

 

[Uber_Mega]

Easy choice in my eyes (it looks like you've already made it) - the 35mm f/1.8. That old 35mm f/1.4 looks like it's manual focus?? at f/1.4 on a 35mm prime lens you're going to greatly miss auto-focus - especially for portraiture or low-light/indoor candids - because the ridiculously shallow depth-of-field when close to the subject makes focusing very unforgiving. The 50mm f/1.4 is a great portrait lens, but it'll have limited other uses indoors because it's effectively an 80mm lens on a crop-sensor body.

You shouldn't have any problem getting adequate shutter speeds with that 35mm f/1.8 at a wedding or inside a restaurant, just don't hesitate to bump the ISO to 1600 if you need to...1600 is entirely usable (even for print) on most modern DSLRs just so long as you expose correctly. Correct exposure is the key with indoor photography.

 

[Kagami]

you have the VR kit lens? besides that nikon 35 you might want to check out the sigma 30mm 1.4

 

[1]

Thom - I'd go with a similar lens at 1.4 and 1.8, the link was just a quick googlexampletm.

I do have the VR kit lens, and a 55-200 VR as well, but they both blow balls indoors. :lol: