Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera?

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

I have been using a Nikon D40 for some time with the kit lens, but
recently started using a 50mm 1.8 lens which is manual focus only on
the D40. I mostly take pictures indoors in relatively low lighting,
which makes the 1.8 lens very nice for what I take pictures of. I
actually love the clarity of the 50mm 1.8 when I can have someone stay
still enough for me to manual focus. I feel like I am missing a lot
of good shots because it takes me so long to manual focus, especially
on children who do not stay very still most of the time.

I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 50mm 1.4 AFS lens which would
have autofocus? What would be the benefits of the 1.4 vs the 1.8
(except for the autofocus on the D40)? Would it really change much
about the pictures I take (mostly of family...nothing professional,
but like to post the pictures I take)? Would upgrading camera bodies
be just as well, say to the Nikon D90 in which I can use the 1.8 in
autofocus mode?

I appreciate any suggestions!

I personally give priority to glass over body, and the D40 is a very
good camera, so I would go for the 50 mm f/1.4. In addition to
autofocus, its larger aperture would give you lower light shots, easier
focusing, and shallower depth of field, although the difference over the
f/1.8 is relatively small.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:20:23 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

I have been using a Nikon D40 for some time with the kit lens, but
recently started using a 50mm 1.8 lens which is manual focus only on
the D40. I mostly take pictures indoors in relatively low lighting,
which makes the 1.8 lens very nice for what I take pictures of. I
actually love the clarity of the 50mm 1.8 when I can have someone stay
still enough for me to manual focus. I feel like I am missing a lot
of good shots because it takes me so long to manual focus, especially
on children who do not stay very still most of the time.

I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 50mm 1.4 AFS lens which would
have autofocus? What would be the benefits of the 1.4 vs the 1.8
(except for the autofocus on the D40)? Would it really change much
about the pictures I take (mostly of family...nothing professional,
but like to post the pictures I take)? Would upgrading camera bodies
be just as well, say to the Nikon D90 in which I can use the 1.8 in
autofocus mode?

I appreciate any suggestions!

If you like the D40 and want the autofocus, keep the body, sell the
50mm 1.8 and get the 50mm AFS 1.4. Yes, the D90 is a much better body
and can use your 50mm 1.8 and has a higher useable ISO range so you
can even stop the lens down a little and get better results than usnig
it wide open. But it's also twice the price and bigger/heavier.

As for the 50mm 1.4 vs. 1.8, that's hashed out in several places. But
in general under f/2.8, the 1.4 does better in terms of sharpness,
color, clarity. Over f/4, you won't notice much difference between
them in those respects (and f/5.6 and above, no difference) but the
1.8 does better in terms of lower distortion and less chromatic
aberration. While the 1.4 doesn't have bad distortion or CA, the 1.8
has practically none.

Of course, if you want to use it below f/1.8, you don't have a choice.
But down there, the DOF is paper thin and you might end up having to
manual focus anyway.

It's a tough decision but if it were me, I'd rather have a D90+50mm
f/1.8 vs. a D40+50mm f/1.4. But it's a very close call and if you
like your D40 for other reasons (like the smaller size) then go that
way. Of course, a D90+50mm f/1.4 would be nice also.

Steve

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:02:57 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:20:23 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

I have been using a Nikon D40 for some time with the kit lens, but
recently started using a 50mm 1.8 lens which is manual focus only on
the D40. I mostly take pictures indoors in relatively low lighting,
which makes the 1.8 lens very nice for what I take pictures of. I
actually love the clarity of the 50mm 1.8 when I can have someone stay
still enough for me to manual focus. I feel like I am missing a lot
of good shots because it takes me so long to manual focus, especially
on children who do not stay very still most of the time.

I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 50mm 1.4 AFS lens which would
have autofocus? What would be the benefits of the 1.4 vs the 1.8
(except for the autofocus on the D40)? Would it really change much
about the pictures I take (mostly of family...nothing professional,
but like to post the pictures I take)? Would upgrading camera bodies
be just as well, say to the Nikon D90 in which I can use the 1.8 in
autofocus mode?

I appreciate any suggestions!

I did not write that.
Be more careful how you quote and attribute.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:08:30 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:02:57 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:20:23 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

I have been using a Nikon D40 for some time with the kit lens, but
recently started using a 50mm 1.8 lens which is manual focus only on
the D40. I mostly take pictures indoors in relatively low lighting,
which makes the 1.8 lens very nice for what I take pictures of. I
actually love the clarity of the 50mm 1.8 when I can have someone stay
still enough for me to manual focus. I feel like I am missing a lot
of good shots because it takes me so long to manual focus, especially
on children who do not stay very still most of the time.

I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 50mm 1.4 AFS lens which would
have autofocus? What would be the benefits of the 1.4 vs the 1.8
(except for the autofocus on the D40)? Would it really change much
about the pictures I take (mostly of family...nothing professional,
but like to post the pictures I take)? Would upgrading camera bodies
be just as well, say to the Nikon D90 in which I can use the 1.8 in
autofocus mode?

I appreciate any suggestions!

I did not write that.
Be more careful how you quote and attribute.

I know you didn't write it, and I didn't attribute it to you. If you
look at the attribution line that is on the same level as the quote I
responded to, it says:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

The only reason your attribution line is in there at all is because I
I didn't see the original post sinceit came from gmail and I have
anything from gmail filtered due to spam. So I replied to the OP via
your post.

Steve

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:29:31 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:08:30 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:02:57 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:20:23 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

I have been using a Nikon D40 for some time with the kit lens, but
recently started using a 50mm 1.8 lens which is manual focus only on
the D40. I mostly take pictures indoors in relatively low lighting,
which makes the 1.8 lens very nice for what I take pictures of. I
actually love the clarity of the 50mm 1.8 when I can have someone stay
still enough for me to manual focus. I feel like I am missing a lot
of good shots because it takes me so long to manual focus, especially
on children who do not stay very still most of the time.

I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 50mm 1.4 AFS lens which would
have autofocus? What would be the benefits of the 1.4 vs the 1.8
(except for the autofocus on the D40)? Would it really change much
about the pictures I take (mostly of family...nothing professional,
but like to post the pictures I take)? Would upgrading camera bodies
be just as well, say to the Nikon D90 in which I can use the 1.8 in
autofocus mode?

I appreciate any suggestions!

I did not write that.
Be more careful how you quote and attribute.

I know you didn't write it, and I didn't attribute it to you. If you
look at the attribution line that is on the same level as the quote I
responded to, it says:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

The only reason your attribution line is in there at all is because I
I didn't see the original post sinceit came from gmail and I have
anything from gmail filtered due to spam. So I replied to the OP via
your post.

Since it wasn't my material, my attribution shouldn't have been included
-- quoting level isn't enough.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:19:28 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:29:31 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:08:30 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:02:57 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:20:23 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

I have been using a Nikon D40 for some time with the kit lens, but
recently started using a 50mm 1.8 lens which is manual focus only on
the D40. I mostly take pictures indoors in relatively low lighting,
which makes the 1.8 lens very nice for what I take pictures of. I
actually love the clarity of the 50mm 1.8 when I can have someone stay
still enough for me to manual focus. I feel like I am missing a lot
of good shots because it takes me so long to manual focus, especially
on children who do not stay very still most of the time.

I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 50mm 1.4 AFS lens which would
have autofocus? What would be the benefits of the 1.4 vs the 1.8
(except for the autofocus on the D40)? Would it really change much
about the pictures I take (mostly of family...nothing professional,
but like to post the pictures I take)? Would upgrading camera bodies
be just as well, say to the Nikon D90 in which I can use the 1.8 in
autofocus mode?

I appreciate any suggestions!

I did not write that.
Be more careful how you quote and attribute.

I know you didn't write it, and I didn't attribute it to you. If you
look at the attribution line that is on the same level as the quote I
responded to, it says:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

The only reason your attribution line is in there at all is because I
I didn't see the original post sinceit came from gmail and I have
anything from gmail filtered due to spam. So I replied to the OP via
your post.

Since it wasn't my material, my attribution shouldn't have been included
-- quoting level isn't enough.

It is for people who understand how to follow a thread. We already
know you don't though, so it's not surprising you were confused.

Steve

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:59:58 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:19:28 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:29:31 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:08:30 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:02:57 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :


On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:20:23 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

I have been using a Nikon D40 for some time with the kit lens, but
recently started using a 50mm 1.8 lens which is manual focus only on
the D40. I mostly take pictures indoors in relatively low lighting,
which makes the 1.8 lens very nice for what I take pictures of. I
actually love the clarity of the 50mm 1.8 when I can have someone stay
still enough for me to manual focus. I feel like I am missing a lot
of good shots because it takes me so long to manual focus, especially
on children who do not stay very still most of the time.

I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 50mm 1.4 AFS lens which would
have autofocus? What would be the benefits of the 1.4 vs the 1.8
(except for the autofocus on the D40)? Would it really change much
about the pictures I take (mostly of family...nothing professional,
but like to post the pictures I take)? Would upgrading camera bodies
be just as well, say to the Nikon D90 in which I can use the 1.8 in
autofocus mode?

I appreciate any suggestions!

I did not write that.
Be more careful how you quote and attribute.

I know you didn't write it, and I didn't attribute it to you. If you
look at the attribution line that is on the same level as the quote I
responded to, it says:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:00:33 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

The only reason your attribution line is in there at all is because I
I didn't see the original post sinceit came from gmail and I have
anything from gmail filtered due to spam. So I replied to the OP via
your post.

Since it wasn't my material, my attribution shouldn't have been included
-- quoting level isn't enough.

It is for people who understand how to follow a thread. We already
know you don't though, so it's not surprising you were confused.

With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.

--
John