50mm af-s f1.4G vs 50mm af-s f1.8G vs af-s 85mm f1.8G


GReddyZC76 said:
heehhee to complicate thingys, can ConSider the afs 28mm f/1.8g nano lens .p

He he I agree with you.

Go for 28mm f1.8G as standard lens & 50mm for head & shudder only.

From this two primes in DX crop x1.5 just fine.
28 = 42mm FX & 50 = 75mm FX.

Just consider this.
If wanna tele feel like DC 135mm and choose for 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 and x1.5 = 127.5mm FX just right.
 

Last edited:
If you are into environmental portraits, get the 35mm one. I am using Sigma 30mm and sometime I still find 30mm too tight. But I have no money to buy the 24mm one :bsmilie:
 

Do you mean 1.4G is not much different with 1.8G but the price is twice.

1.4G for S$500 and 1.8G for S$260 ( used) lens.. Hard to decide.

It was well documented by professional photographers overseas that the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is better than the 50mm f/1.4 from aperture ranges of f/1.8 to f/5.6

For portrait, i would believe one rarely use apertures more than f/2.8 except for multi tier group photos or if they are sat in an arc pattern. At least, personally, i take portraits from f/1.4 to f/2.8, hitting f/4 if required sometimes. So in a sense the 50mm f/1.8 although cheaper, it is indeed better as a portrait lens.

After testing around, if there is only ONE prime lens that i would carry around, it would be a 50mm.
 

Last edited:
heehhee to complicate thingys, can ConSider the afs 28mm f/1.8g nano lens .p

He he I agree with you.

Go for 28mm f1.8G as standard lens & 50mm for head & shudder only.

From this two primes in DX crop x1.5 just fine.
28 = 42mm FX & 50 = 75mm FX.

Just consider this.
If wanna tele feel like DC 135mm and choose for 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 and x1.5 = 127.5mm FX just right.

Aiyoyo, you guys really know how to poison...

But consider the cost, 28/1.8G < 35/1.8G DX + 50/1.8G; and ~= 35/1.8G DX + 85/1.8.

I think that's the wrong approach for a relative newbie. If there is budget for 28/1.8, I say buy 35 and 50 or 35 and 85. I favour the 85 option.
 

Those prime lens are FX lenses. Since you are using FX lens on a DX D5000 camera, you may need to apply approx. 1.5 crop factor. Meaning you need to zoom to ~75mm and ~128mm to test the 50mm and 85mm respectively. Therefore, some DX camera users may choose 35mm prime to get an equivalent 50mm on a FX camera. Correct me if I'm wrong.

FX or DX lenses, it doesn't matter, the focal length are the same. The FOV for DX or FX lenses will have to be multiplied by 1.5x to get the 35mm equivalent.

So, FOVs of a 35/1.8G DX = 35/2D FX, similarly 18-105 at 35mm = 35/1.8G = 35/2D
 

Last edited:
Way too much going on in this thread to confuse a newbie.

A couple of Nikon 101s for the TS to note. Get only G lenses, not D lenses as the latter won't AF on your camera.

Some lenses are marked DX because they only cover the image circle of the smaller DX sensor, such as the one in your camera. If you have the aim of upgrading to FX(Full frame) in the near future, try not to collect too many DX lenses.

Both the 50 1.8G and 85 1.8G are FX lenses, so no worries on that front if you upgrade to full frame. The 35 1.8 DX is not.

As someone on a budget, forget all 1.4 lenses for now. The slightly better performance is not worth the significant costs involved. The 50 1.8G in particular is better that all the other 50mm Autofocus Nikkors, even the 1.4s.

I would suggest that you rent the 35 1.8G DX, the 50 1.8G and the 85 1.8G for a day, get a friend to tag along with you and do some portraits. The rental shouldn't be more than 60 bucks or so for the three lenses combined. This will help you understand which focal length you are most comfortable working with. Purchase accordingly.
 

Last edited:
Way too much going on in this thread to confuse a newbie.

A couple of Nikon 101s for the TS to note. Get only G lenses, not D lenses as the latter won't AF on your camera.

Some lenses are marked DX because they only cover the image circle of the smaller DX sensor, such as the one in your camera. If you have the aim of upgrading to FX(Full frame) in the near future, try not to collect too many DX lenses.

Both the 50 1.8G and 85 1.8G are FX lenses, so no worries on that front if you upgrade to full frame. The 35 1.8 DX is not.

As someone on a budget, forget all 1.4 lenses for now. The slightly better performance is not worth the significant costs involved. The 50 1.8G in particular is better that all the other 50mm Autofocus Nikkors, even the 1.4s.

I would suggest that you rent the 35 1.8G DX, the 50 1.8G and the 85 1.8G for a day, get a friend to tag along with you and do some portraits. The rental shouldn't be more than 60 bucks or so for the three lenses combined. This will help you understand which focal length you are most comfortable working with. Purchase accordingly.

Thanks for your sharing. I will decide for 50 or 85mm 1.8G.
 

You mean 50mm kit lens on DX camera is the same as 50mm FX lens on FX camera ? I agree with you. How about 50mm FX lens on DX camera ?

what he meant is that focal length is the same no matter if its DX or FX, and the crop factor still applies.
even a DX 35mm, it will still "look" like 35x1.5= 52.5mm even though the compression/distortion is still at 35mm.
 

so 85 X 1.5 will be too far for portraits . I think. some advise 50mm (75mm at DX) will be just nice.

not true, i do sometime take portrait with 200mm. its about the compression.
but on a DX it will "look" like 300mm, but compression still remains as 200mm.

but as are unsure of what you need (i assumed that due to the fact that you post this thread), i would advise getting 50mm over 85mm, and AFS version for your D5000 to auto focus.
 

Get a 2nd hand 50mm F1.8G, if you dont happen with it, sell it, not much pain :p
 

Believe me lah, if still wanna stick on DX the only choice for 35mm f1.8G DX can do more thing like 50mm in FX format.
For the 35mm got more advantage on close up object that is good for taking food, flower etc.
If choose on 50mm you will loose on close up object and what you can take.

Actually both's is a good lens or either died died to jump over 28mm f1.8G for future is not a problem.
 

Thanks for your sharing. I will decide for 50 or 85mm 1.8G.

erm too expensive... i thought the afs 85mm f/1.8g price is no better than the afs 28mm f/1.8g nano leh.....

Believe me lah, if still wanna stick on DX the only choice for 35mm f1.8G DX can do more thing like 50mm in FX format.
For the 35mm got more advantage on close up object that is good for taking food, flower etc.
If choose on 50mm you will loose on close up object and what you can take.

Actually both's is a good lens or either died died to jump over 28mm f1.8G for future is not a problem.

yes i agree. 35mm f/1.8g dx !
 

Generally, a 35mm lens is more versatile as compared to 50mm lens for general purposes. However from what I read, TS merely said he/she wanna buy a prime lens w/o stating the purposes, budget, etc. I would interpret this scenario as buy for the sake of buying, which there is a chance of buying the wrong lens.

You can use any lens to take any kind of pictures, just that some may yield better results (sharpness, quality of bokeh, etc) that others. You have to ask yourself why do you need this prime lens for. For low light photography, smaller lens for travel, sharper pictures, macro photography, etc? If you can identify a purpose, it is a lot easier for you to decide 35mm vs 50mm vs 85mm vs 28mm, f1.4 vs f1.8, Sigma vs Nikon, etc.
 

GReddyZC76 said:
erm too expensive... i thought the afs 85mm f/1.8g price is no better than the afs 28mm f/1.8g nano leh.....

yes i agree. 35mm f/1.8g dx !

85/1.8G is about $600, much cheaper than the 28/1.8G.
 

diediealsomustdive said:
85/1.8G is about $600, much cheaper than the 28/1.8G.

85mm f1.8g the price is really sound good,
At 850mm minimum focus distance, if wanna take the half body have to backward at lease 3m away :)
That is good idea for cover all the way?

If I just bring the 35mm DX at street walk or close up any object should be much useful than 85mm f1.8G the feel just like 135mm DC on FX format.

Nothing can do, the photo output has maximum cropped up on head area only.

Let TS to decide lah.
 

85mm f1.8g the price is really sound good,
At 850mm minimum focus distance, if wanna take the half body have to backward at lease 3m away :)
That is good idea for cover all the way?

If I just bring the 35mm DX at street walk or close up any object should be much useful than 85mm f1.8G the feel just like 135mm DC on FX format.

Nothing can do, the photo output has maximum cropped up on head area only.

Let TS to decide lah.

err... 85mm on a DX cam, MFD is not a problem... because want to shoot half body also must move backwards way past MFD.

The difference between a wide angle lens compared to a tele is compression. You can move closer but your perspective will be totally different, and you cannot get compression with a 35mm.

But I am confused why you say 85mm cannot shoot full body? Because many people have shot full body portraits with 85mm 135mm or even 200mm... and the effect is wonderful...

Some people even shoot portrait with 800mm lens... check out this 3/4 body portrait shot with 800mm lens!

[video=youtube;ebz6Kow-ywc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebz6Kow-ywc[/video]
 

Last edited:
err... 85mm on a DX cam, MFD is not a problem... because want to shoot half body also must move backwards way past MFD.

The difference between a wide angle lens compared to a tele is compression. You can move closer but your perspective will be totally different, and you cannot get compression with a 35mm.

But I am confused why you say 85mm cannot shoot full body? Because many people have shot full body portraits with 85mm 135mm or even 200mm... and the effect is wonderful...

Some people even shoot portrait with 800mm lens... check out this 3/4 body portrait shot with 800mm lens!

[video=youtube;ebz6Kow-ywc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebz6Kow-ywc[/video]

This guy is on a whole new level o.o!