equipment nikon ? not sure where to post

neastguy

i have a d40 and I love my 50 mm 1.8 non auto focus lens.. but with kids, its a pain.. I'm getting various diff. costs on the af-s version from $250 up to $400.. I dunno if I'm looking at two diff. versions or what.. anyhow, what would you do? sell the d40 and get a d90 so the lens works.. or get the upgraded af-s lens and sell the non auto focus lens I have? not that I can afford either but I need a plan of attack and your input is important .. thanks...

if somone can move this to the correct forum , that would be great.. people is where I usually post

ivar

neastguy wrote:

if somone can move this to the correct forum , that would be great.. people is where I usually post

Since this is about cameras/lenses, I've moved this to 'cameras'

ziggy53

neastguy wrote:

i have a d40 and I love my 50 mm 1.8 non auto focus lens.. but with kids, its a pain.. I'm getting various diff. costs on the af-s version from $250 up to $400.. I dunno if I'm looking at two diff. versions or what.. anyhow, what would you do? sell the d40 and get a d90 so the lens works.. or get the upgraded af-s lens and sell the non auto focus lens I have? not that I can afford either but I need a plan of attack and your input is important .. thanks...

if somone can move this to the correct forum , that would be great.. people is where I usually post

Active children really does qualify you for a "sports/action" camera and lens. I honestly suggest that a Nikon D300 with a couple of sports lenses is not overkill. You might try the D90 with your existing lens if it would allow AF, but the D300 appears to have a more powerful AF screw-drive motor and would be best, IMO.

bloomphotog

I'd suggest selling the 50/1.8 and picking up this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html

The new 35mm f/1.8 is designed for Nikon DX(crop) cameras and will give a 50mm equivalent. It's got a fast, built-in AF-S motor and will work really well for the purposes described. And the best part, it's only $199!

Here's a sample I stole from KenRockwell.com

gowiththeflow

ziggy53 wrote:

Active children really does qualify you for a "sports/action" camera and lens. I honestly suggest that a Nikon D300 with a couple of sports lenses is not overkill. You might try the D90 with your existing lens if it would allow AF, but the D300 appears to have a more powerful AF screw-drive motor and would be best, IMO.

Seems a bit overkill for a guy who says he can't afford a D90 or a 50mm AF-S lens... For the price difference between the two, you could easily pick up both the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 AF-S lenses, and not have to worry about how strong the AF motor is.

If you can't afford either the D90, or $400+ for the 50mm 1.4 AF-S, how about the 35mm 1.8 AF-S? I went out shooting with my new-to-me 50mm Series E last night, and found the field of view to be a bit small on my D90, even for outside shots- I can't imagine trying to use it inside on moving subjects. Buying the D90 could also solve your problem, depending on whether your 50mm is truly non-AF, or if you just meant it won't AF on your D40 because it's an older AF-D lens. But the 35mm AF-S is a good, inexpensive lens that will AF on your D40, and will work fine whenever you upgrade bodies, as long as you stick with DX.

neastguy

thanks everyone.. yes the d300 is definitely out of my range... and unfortunately even if I sell my d40 with the stock 18-55 lens I still can't afford the d90... I'm such a newb that I need to read up on what the diff is between 50mm and 35mm... but this 35mm lens definitely might be the winner and solve some of my shooting issues with my kids (missing shots manual focusing, 1 year old and 2.5 year old)... I love the sharpness of my 50mm (non af on the d40) lens.. some of the reviews of the 35mm state that it is slow to focus, but Rockwell says it isn't any diff. than any other AF-S lens that Nikon makes.... thanks for all your hlep.. if someone wants to explain the difference between 50mm and 35mm and how they are used in real life shooting.. I"m all ears.....

gowiththeflow

neastguy wrote:

if someone wants to explain the difference between 50mm and 35mm and how they are used in real life shooting.. I"m all ears.....

Put on your 18-55mm lens. Set the zoom to 35mm, and practice framing your shots by moving around, instead of zooming in and out. Now try the same with your 50mm. You'll see the 35mm has a lot more field of view than the 50mm on a DX camera, because of the crop factor. I assume you have the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, which has the same maximum aperture as the 35mm AF-S, so the only real difference is the focal length, and the 35mm will AF with your D40.

neastguy

gowiththeflow wrote:

Put on your 18-55mm lens. Set the zoom to 35mm, and practice framing your shots by moving around, instead of zooming in and out. Now try the same with your 50mm. You'll see the 35mm has a lot more field of view than the 50mm on a DX camera, because of the crop factor. I assume you have the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, which has the same maximum aperture as the 35mm AF-S, so the only real difference is the focal length, and the 35mm will AF with your D40.

wow, I'm an idiot.. thanks.. I will give this a try

iambarefoot

Everybody seems to poo-poo the 18-55mm kit lens, but it's pretty capable - no reason not to use it until you have a better idea of what you want in an upgrade. This pic was shot with my D40 and the kit lens:

neastguy

iambarefoot wrote:

Everybody seems to poo-poo the 18-55mm kit lens, but it's pretty capable - no reason not to use it until you have a better idea of what you want in an upgrade. This pic was shot with my D40 and the kit lens:

i agree the the kit lens is pretty darn nice.. but the 50mm is so much more crispy and clear to me....