50mm Prime Lens Advice for my D7000

[flashback]

As I find myself more and more interested in street photography I am looking to add a prime lens and so I have been reviewing past posts (and reviews) and now I'm looking for some clarification.
I'm considering the nifty fifty, either a f/1.4 or f/1.8. My reading so far suggests that the 1.8 (to f/22) is the better, sharper, faster lens. Adorama has them (Nikkor) for $220-400 (which is the price range I'm looking), new and used.

Perhaps some recommendations and maybe some clarification as to the difference/distinction between the D and G variants. Also open to any suggestions other than the 50mm (35mm DX, 35mm FX).

I've seen the uber-techno, unlimited depth of knowledge that so many in here have so here's your chance to educate, elucidate and intimidate me.

Many thanks in advance,
Jack

[Mike Buckley]

This Ken Rockwell web page provides access to an explanation of the Nikkor lens nomenclature including your D and G designations. Yes, I know about Ken Rockwell, but this particular information has been helpful to me in the past and might be helpful for you too.

[Shadowman]

This Ken Rockwell web page provides access to an explanation of the Nikkor lens nomenclature including your D and G designations. Yes, I know about Ken Rockwell, but this particular information has been helpful to me in the past and might be helpful for you too.

KR has been known from time to time to give good information and critiques.

[Shadowman]

As I find myself more and more interested in street photography I am looking to add a prime lens and so I have been reviewing past posts (and reviews) and now I'm looking for some clarification.
I'm considering the nifty fifty, either a f/1.4 or f/1.8. My reading so far suggests that the 1.8 (to f/22) is the better, sharper, faster lens. Adorama has them (Nikkor) for $220-400 (which is the price range I'm looking), new and used.

Perhaps some recommendations and maybe some clarification as to the difference/distinction between the D and G variants. Also open to any suggestions other than the 50mm (35mm DX, 35mm FX).

I've seen the uber-techno, unlimited depth of knowledge that so many in here have so here's your chance to educate, elucidate and intimidate me.

Many thanks in advance,
Jack

I have the 50mm f/1.8D which doesn't autofocus on my camera, it should on yours. It's a nice enough lens but when I really want a super sharp image my aperture is usually set at f/18 or higher. In lowlight without a tripod the 50mm at 1.8 or 2.0 gives me enough light entry to get a few good shots.

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure if you want the 50mm lens for the D7000, as it is the "normal" lens for a full-frame camera. The prime for the DX is really the 35mm lens. I own both the f/1.8 50mm D (which is the older screw-drive focus lens), which I use on the D800 and the f/1.8 35mm G (with the built-in focus motor) which I use on the D90.

For my own shooting, I find a 50mm lens is not a great fit for street photography; it is a short zoom. The 35mm works reasonably well, but I will often opt for something a bit wider (I often use the f/2.8 24-70mm zoom on both bodies). If you still want to stick with the 50mm lens, I tested both the f/1.4 and the f/1.8 and frankly saw so difference in image quality. I expect that if you pixel-peep, the new f/1.8 50mm G will be a bit sharper than the f/1.4 50mm lens, but the extra 2/3 stop in light might be worth the extra money to you.

[Manfred M]

KR has been known from time to time to give good information and critiques.

But at times he is well known for confusing opinion for fact; so his reviews are a bit hit and miss. He can be an amusing read, and I find he is bang on about half the time, as for the other half...

[steve norris]

Hi Jack,

I have a 35mm 1.8G which sits on my D7000 most of the time. With the crop factor it gives you a 35mm equivalent of a 'nifty fifty' which is a great standard view where the 50mm will become the equivalent of 75mm which is a great portrait length. I have to say that the 35mm 1.8G is one of the sharpest Nikon lenses I have ever owned and gives fabulously bright contrasty images.

I also own a 50mm 1.4G that I bought as a standard lens for my D800 and, although it's good, the 35mm 1.8 knocks the socks off it.

Hope that helps

[steve norris]

I also own a 24-70 2.8 but there is a tiny bit of a price difference!

[xpatUSA]

This FX-size Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is one of the recently introduced 'Art' series, worth a look . .

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1561/cat/30

And their DX-size 30mm f/1.4 if you want get more of the street in ;-)

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1589/cat/30

Good Luck in your quest . . .

[flashback]

To all who've replied so far; Thank you.

So which is better then, a FF 35mm that would be a 50mm equivalent (52.5mm to be exact) on my camera, or a 50mm made specifically for a crop camera?

[Manfred M]

To all who've replied so far; Thank you.

So which is better then, a FF 35mm that would be a 50mm equivalent (52.5mm to be exact) on my camera, or a 50mm made specifically for a crop camera?

Depends on your shooting requirements. The f/1.8 35mm Nikkor is a DX lens, whereas the entire Nikon line of 50mm lenses are designed for FX bodies.

[flashback]

Depends on your shooting requirements. The f/1.8 35mm Nikkor is a DX lens, whereas the entire Nikon line of 50mm lenses are designed for FX bodies.

Thanks Manfred, that is the info I was looking for.
Knowing that all 50's are FX makes it easier to move forward.
So finally, between the D and G variants, since both will work equally well on the D7000, is one better than the other or is it a price thing?

[Manfred M]

D is the older style that required the camera to have an on-board motor for focusing. Not a problems with the D90 or D800 (or your D7000). The lens is smaller, more mechanically robust and less expensive than the newer G model. Optically, the new G is better, based on what I have read, but the 50 1.8 lenses have been optically very good lenses. I would certainly not bother upgrading to the G model from my D, but if I were buying for the first time, I would probably opt for the newer lens.

[flashback]

Excellent info Manfred, thanks again. So now, based on all earlier responses I have to decide if I want to shoot street with an actual DX 35mm for greater FOV, or do so with an FX 35mm as my nifty fifty.

[inkista]

I'm interpolating, as a Canon shooter, but the G version differs from the D in two main ways: it has an AF-S focus motor (which is not just about autofocus on entry-level bodies, but also about silent autofocus, and possibly faster autofocus lock), and it has no aperture ring.

There is, however, a minor third way in which the two lenses differ that MAY make a difference to you if you're going to shoot street old-style (i.e., zone-focusing), which is that the older D design has a large usable distance scale (vs. the smaller AF-geared one in a window on the G version), and a DoF scale (albeit a tiny less-than-useful one that's only got marks for f/11 and f/22).

Whether you want a 35 or 50 is up to you and your personal shooting style and preference in subject distances, but if by street photography you mean the traditional PJ-style where you include the street/environment for context and storytelling, 50 may be too narrow a FoV on a crop body. And even 35 may be too narrow. The general preference of a lot of street shooters is to use a full-frame equivalent of 35-50mm, which on a crop comes to the 24-35 range. This is why so many of the large-sensored compacts (e.g., X100s, RX1, etc.) come with a 35/2 equivalent lens. (And there is an FX 35/2D if you wanted to avoid DX lenses).

If, however, by street photography you mean something more like street portraits where the shot is about a person rather than the environment they're in, then a 50 or 85 might be a better fit.

... DX 35mm for greater FOV, or do so with an FX 35mm as my nifty fifty...

Um. Both 35s will give the same FoV on your camera. The difference is how big the image circle the lens projects is. The DX's will only cover a DX sensor, while the FX's is big enough to cover either a DX or an FX sensor. They won't look that different. Even the DoF will be very similar, as f/1.8 is only 1/3 stop wider than f/2.

[flashback]

Hi Kathy and thanks. You've hit the nail on the head, much more old style for me. Which is why I'm thinking the 35mm, for exactly the reasons you listed. As for a ~24-35 range zoom the price jump up considerably (for the good stuff).
Thanks for your insight.

[BigEater]

The great street photographers like Gary Winogrand and HCB used lenses generally between 28mm and 50mm (on the D7000 that would be between 18mm and 35mm). So if you want to shoot like Henri Cartier Bresson, start with the Nikon 35mm 1.8. It is cheap, it's a great lens, and the wide f/1.8 aperture will let you use faster shutter speeds for sharper results. If you want to use a wider lens to get more background in the picture, set your 18-55 at 18mm, set your camera to Aperture Priority mode with the aperture at f/3.5 and you'll be golden. Wider prime lenses for Nikons are either hellishly expensive or not that good.
Here's what HCB said about working with a 50mm lens (again, for a D7000 that would be a 35 1.8):

Why the 50-millimeter lens?
It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have in longer lenses. I worked with a 90. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.

[xpatUSA]

... DX 35mm for greater FOV, or do so with an FX 35mm as my nifty fifty...

Um. Both 35s will give the same FoV on your camera. The difference is how big the image circle the lens projects is. The DX's will only cover a DX sensor, while the FX's is big enough to cover either a DX or an FX sensor. They won't look that different.

I see a noticeable difference in field of view between FF and APS-C lenses on my 1.7 crop DSLR's. Specifically, APS-C 17-70mm zoom @ 70mm and a FF 70mm macro lens; also APS-C 17-70mm zoom @ 50mm and a FF 50mm macro lens.

Any ideas why, anybody?

[Mike Buckley]

I wonder if the difference of aperture between the 35/2 and the 35/1.8 is important considering the quality of the high-ISO capability of the D7000 and its ability to deliver a shutter speed that is fast enough. If it's important for whatever reason to have a lens that will work on a full-frame camera, that difference seems negligible. However, I'm not a street photographer, so I recommend that street photographers confirm whether my idea about it is off base or on target.

[Manfred M]

I wonder if the difference of aperture between the 35/2 and the 35/1.8 is important

f/2 versus f/1.8 1/3 of a stop is a rounding error with little real world impact with either DoF or exposure.