Nikon prime lens for indoor photography

olafurdanielsson

hi everybody
I´m looking for a lens to use with my D90, mainly to use indoor with dim light - so I need a fast lens. I´ll mostly photograph my children - and children are "always on the move"... so the lens probably needs to be fast and sharp - right ?
I was mainly looking at two options,

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1923/AF-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F2D.html
And
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1919/AF-NIKKOR-24mm-f%252F2.8D.html

Which one would you recommend for me, and what is the main difference between those two lenses ?

Best regards,
Ólafur

brianb

Unless you're planning on using the lens on a full frame camera, I'd recommend the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX. Its cheaper than either of those ($200 new) and is considered very good.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0

Brian

olafurdanielsson

Thank you for your answer
I have considered this lens, but Ken Rockwell does not recommend using it on D90
"For larger DX cameras with built-in autofocus motors like the D50, D80, D90 and D300, getting a 35mm f/2 AF-D instead will also work on FX cameras should you upgrade later."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm

Therefore I´m more looked into the prior mentioned lenses.

Best regards,

zoomer

35mm 1.8 is probably your best bet for Dx. It can also be stretched for use with FX wide open with minimal vignetting on close up subjects. For the price you can't go wrong with it.

jziegler

I'd check other reviews before you eliminate the 35mm f/1.8. Check these out:
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-DX-AFS-lensreview.htm

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-D-lensreview.htm

His conclusion: get the 1.8 for DX. Just remember that Ken Rockwell, while he can have good information, is a salesman (selling his site) and an entertainer before all else. I do read his site, but I take everything that he says with a large grain of salt.

catspaw

yes, please look into MULTIPLE reviews and then make your own decision. 'one' person alone is never going to be 100% right

especially at the price, the 35mm DX lens is pretty danged nice! Alas, I'm mostly FX so I just look at it and it's low price mournfully

Art Scott

I would opt for a medium Zoom....like the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.........you're in Iceland and I know that country has gorgeous Landscapes for the children to play in and this lens will give you the opportunity to capture those also.....without changing lenses......if I weren't headed into the world of full frame (FX) this would be my next purchase to use for portraits and weddings......

cab.in.boston

I second (third? fourth?) the 35 f/1.8 DX, unless you are absolutely going to upgrade to FX within a year or so. The 35 f/1.8 is great (it's on my D300 most of the time), light, cheap, and if you care for it well, when and if (for me that's a big IF) you ever go FX, you can sell it for most of what you paid for it. You gain 1/3 of a stop over the f/2 and 1 1/3 over the f/2.8. I'd guess the AF-S focuses faster than the AF-D, and I'm positive it is quieter since there's no mechanical screw drive working.

I get some occasional amusement from KR's site, but to date I don't know that I've ever taken his advice and/or agreed with him.

angevin1

Art Scott wrote: »

I would opt for a medium Zoom....like the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.........you're in Iceland and I know that country has gorgeous Landscapes for the children to play in and this lens will give you the opportunity to capture those also.....without changing lenses......if I weren't headed into the world of full frame (FX) this would be my next purchase to use for portraits and weddings......

I like where Art went with this. I know you asked about Primes, but for me when I choose a Prime, I am ALWAYS thinking Field of View. You've got a crop Camera, and unless you've got a Bunch of room that you are shooting in, then your field of view is limited by the prime lens choice you make.

For the Primes you gave, I'd put my money on the 35 f/2 due to it's reviews.

But for me, in the situation you ask about with what is known, I'd opt for as much variability as I could stand! Such as the Zoom Art mentions, or several others that come to mind for me.

When I think of fast Lenses and Kids, I am not at all certain that is a good mix and only because if they are normal and moving, and you shoot wide open, then your DOF will be so very thin!

I know you posted over in technique about Flash, so assuming you'll use that flash, then I'd go for the lens with the best ability to capture all of the field you desire and fill it with flash to stop action, using as much f/stop as I could: f/8, etc. Even with f/8, flash and proper metering, you'll still only have a small DOF. And wide-er will help you there.

HTH~

Icebear

I'm going to inject another consideration. The OP has referred to the fact that children are always on the move. I would therefore recommend a longer lens than a 35mm. The extra distance gained with a longer lens gives you an easier job of keeping up with angular change. What's wrong with the 50mm 1.8. I think it's the best lens value in the marketplace.

ThatCanonGuy

I wouldn't put any consideration into what Ken Rockwell says. He's biased, IMHO. I only go to his site when I'm in the mood for a laugh.

Re lenses, I suggest the 50 1.8, the 35's too wide for children I think. But it has slow AF, so a 50 1.4 might be better for moving children.

cab.in.boston

I have the 50 f/1.8, and for the money it is a definite must-have, at least with bodies that have the in-body AF motor. However, I find it simply too long for indoor shots unless I am doing closeups (headshots, really). I have used the 50 trying to get shots of my daughter playing with a friend, and I found that I couldn't back up far enough. There always seems to be a wall in the way when you're inside.

The 35 f/1.8 is, IMO, a great length on DX bodies. It's long enough to get the kids from a few feet away so you don't have to be right on top of them, but it's wide enough that you don't find yourself having to back up into walls to get the shot. It's great as a normal/standard lens on DX bodies.

Or, you could just get both of them and have 35 and 50, both f/1.8, for around $300.

The aforementioned Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (I also have the non-VC version) will cover both those ranges and also wider, but not as fast and it will cost more than the pair of primes combined. I think it's a great lens if someone wants a fast normal zoom for DX, and if you use flash indoors you don't necessarily need faster than f/2.8, but I also highly recommend the primes. Sure, I'd like the f/1.4 primes and/or the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, but I don't have that kind of budget, unfortunately.

Zerodog

I love the 50 1.8. For $125 ? brand new. How can you go wrong? Anyone that owns a Nikon with a screw drive should own one. Cheap, light, and sharp as hell. I don't think the AF is slow at all on mine either. I use my 50 1.8 on my old Nikon FE, just manual focus though. You do need some distance though to work with it on DX.

Another killer D lens is the 20mm 2.8. This is one of my favorites on my 300s. In fact I won a photo contest with it last year. And it was of a running dog. I think I picked that lens up for $300. I love it on my D3s too. It is really wide on FX, equivalent field of view to a 13mm on DX.

Just remember fast glass is great for low light. But the trade off is shallow DOF. Fun to play with, but not always the ideal thing for a given shot.

medusa1066

I have bought most of my camera gear to take pictures of my son. It just so happens that it also works good for weddings and portraiture. I have the 50 mm 1.8, the 85 1.8D, and the not so good 18-105. We have a small "single file" house and I always find myself backing up to get him in the frame with the 50 and 85, missing shots coincidentally. So I end up going wide with the 18-105 and bouncing a SB-600 off of a wall or ceiling with great results, and it keeps the camera fast enough that I am freezing action and getting the shots! Maybe you need a dedicated flash?

I think either choice would be a great inexpensive, low light upgrade. : ]

Jean Luc Jean

You might want to try a good Nikkor 50mm lens for a Nikon camera depending on the budget of course.

DsrtVW

I have 50mm f1.8 and 28mm f2.8. I have 5 grandchildren(aged 2 to 6) and when it comes to chasing them around the house my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 is fast on focus and tack sharp. Having the ability to zoom in or out from a fixed location lets me get more shots than zooming with my feet. Most of the time I have my SB900 flash unit in operation. Though it may be more expensive than some of the primes but it will cover more focal lengths and is great for landscapes too. When I am outside I throw on the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8.
If you are doing fixed portraits primes are great when they are on the move zooms are the way to go.

fjcvisual

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the 50mm f1.4. I picked up one recently for $270 and it is a great lens. Good lens with all the DOF benefits of a 1.4. Not to mention that with all the additional light, you can shoot in a lot of low light conditions with out a flash.

Just my two cents.

Jim

catspaw

fjcvisual wrote: »

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the 50mm f1.4. I picked up one recently for $270 and it is a great lens. Good lens with all the DOF benefits of a 1.4. Not to mention that with all the additional light, you can shoot in a lot of low light conditions with out a flash.

Just my two cents.

Jim

the 50 1.4 G for $270?? danged, if so. I suspect not the G version though.

fjcvisual

yea, you are correct. This is the D version just prior.

Easy2Putt

I also have a D90..exact situation as the OP..and I have the 50 f/1.4D also..and the 50 is too tight for indoor (home) photography with kids..unless you like to do tighter portraits. I just got the 35 f/1.8 (didn't get the f/2 as it's more expensive and don't plan on going to FX anytime soon)..the 35 f/1.8G DX is perfect..and cheap..and does what the OP is looking for.

olafurdanielsson

Hi again everybody, and sorry for my late reply.

Just wanted to thank your very much for all your considerations and comments. I really appreciate it.

The apartment I live in is quite small, so I think 50mm lens would be to narrow for me.
After reading your posts, the DOF for the 35mm f1.8 is what I´m thinking about now. And yes, I´m mostly considering the 35 mm f1.8 now, since I´m not thinking about FX for the next months/years.

But I think this will be my conclusion for now - buying the 35 mm f1.8, and later on, to buy a good flash with it (is SB-400 good enough?).
I´ll however also read reviews for the other lenses you all have mentioned, and take them into consideration.

And Art Scoot - your are absolutely right about the landscape, as you can get a brief view on my site http://olafurdanielsson.smugmug.com/Landscapes but so far, I´ve been quite satisfied with the 18-105 kit lens in those situations. But here in Iceland the day is very short over the winter (daylight from 11 am to 4 pm), so lens for indoor shooting is my biggest problem at the moment

Thank you all once again,

best regards,
Ólafur

cab.in.boston

olafurdanielsson wrote: »

later on, to buy a good flash with it (is SB-400 good enough?).

I would recommend at least the SB-700 or 600. The 400 tilts but does not swivel, but the 600 and 700 do both, so you can still bounce off the ceiling when in vertical orientation.

Zerodog

You will be very happy with a 35 on the DX body. For the flash do not get a 400. Find a used 600 and you will be very happy. It is very versatile and you can use your D90 in commander mode and fire it off camera too. They are all over the place for $180ish or less.

zoomer

Just an FYI.
I used the 35 1.8 for the first time this weekend, I used it on the D3 and FX body.
Really nice little lens and sharp wide open, feel confident if you choose this lens.

Also the lens is very usable on the FX body. It give you some nice vignetting in the corners, almost exactly like what you would normally add in PP.
If you don't want the vignetting it is 10 seconds in Lightroom to remove it.

MomaZunk

I do not recommend the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. The speed of autofocus is just awful. I have missed MANY shots due to the slow focus of this lens. While the quality of the shots (when I catch them) is clearly above my 18-200mm lens, the AF speed is not acceptable for a $450 lens. I have a D90.

I will admit I had to learn about depth of field with this lens in low light, and have missed a few shots because of it. At f/1.4 and 5ft, the DOF is about 2.5 inches.
The 35mm will let you take pictures from a closer range than the 50mm, and double the DOF, so at 5 ft DOF would be about 5 inches.

I purchased this lens for some of the same reasons you did: low light, chasing kids, street photography, portraits. I also thought he 50mm would transition better to a full frame camera as a walk around lens.
If I did it over, I would go for the f/1.8 and save money to go toward the 70-200 f/2.8. The f/1.4D is supposed to be faster AF than the 1.4G, but still over twice as much as the 1.8.

met

I shoot a 50 1.8 on my D80 with natural light or a SB600 bounced on camera to take pics of my nieces and nephews. I love it - but I also like close up facial expressions and am willing to put myself in crazy awkward positions. I do find that sometimes I wish it was a little wider, but then if I got the 35, I would probably wish that it wasn't quite so wide. Grass is always greener. lol I would like to try the 35 though to compare.


Here's some shots of very active children shot in a child's bedroom (maybe 10x12 or so?) wide open at 1.8 with an SB600 bounced or thrown over my shoulder (I also use the little black foam thingy on it). Shot manually - single focus point.

olafurdanielsson

cab.in.boston and Zerodog - thanks for the flash advises - I´ll go for the 600 or 700 in the nearby future
zoomer - very nice to hear your experience with 35 mm 1.8 - thanks for sharing that information
momazunk - thank you very much. Since my apartment is small, 35 mm is optimal for me
met - these pictures are very nice - I actually love the DOF in those pictures! Thank you for sharing.

Greetings from Iceland,
Olafur