I have a Nikon D90 and I have two lenses 18-105mm and 70-30mm. I am thinking about buying a new one for low light situations. I would like to know if anyone knows about the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX. I am little concern because this lens doesn't have the VR feature that my other two lenses have. I am an amauter photographer and I don't know if this is the right choice. I will be using mostly for portraits. Any suggestion?
I purchased this lens - 35mm f1.8G and have not regretted it for one minute. A fantastic prime lens, very sharp and super for low light. Buy it, you'll love it, guaranteed! I must admit it stays on my camera longer than any of the others.
I appreciated your comment. I read good things about this lens but I wasn't sure if it is ideal for portraits...and because of the fact that it doesn't have VR.
Well as you can see, no VR hasn't hurt this image any. I find this lens a joy to use and have a lot, really a lot of images that will pass inspection. Actually it is a wide enough lens that it works just fine without VR. Oh and this was hand held no tripod. Exif data; f10, 1/250, ISO 200 Nikon D5100. You'll have a job to pry this camera and lens from my hands, Ha! It stays on my camera most of the time and always gives me good results.
Taken at a car show.
Beautiful image!!!! Woww...! You sold me on that lens just for this image! But I still have a question if you can help me I would much appreciate. I don't understand much about camera and lenses as I wrote before, so I read that the D90 it is not a full frame camera, so it can affect the result of a lens...is that true? So if I buy the 30mm, is still going to be 30mm or it is going to be 50mm? I don't know if I am making sense because I am not sure if the frame affects that or what. And does it mean less light? I am trying to make an educated decision before buying it.
Thank you very much I really appreciate your feedback!
The 35mm f1.8 lens will be equal to 52.5mm on a full frame (FX) camera. Just as your 18 -105 will be 27- 157.5 and your 70 - 300 would be 105 - 450, just multiply your lenses by 1.5 to be equal to the 35mm camera (full frame) Am I making sense? I tend to totally ignore the conversion factors because it's been so long since I used a 35mm full frame camera. Just like I do not convert metric to imperial measurements now. If you were a professional photographer I would expect you to be more concerned with the focal lengths but for me, a happy amateur, I ignore it! Any help at all Jaqueline?
Yes!! you help me a LOT! Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with me!
Here is a web page that you might find helpful Jaqueline
As you own Nikon this should explain the FX v DX lenses better that i can.
I have the 50mm f/1.8 - fantastic lens to be inexpensive. Hope this helps
IMHO, VR is quite useless on a short wide angle like the 35 mm. common formula is believed to be, more long the the lens, more fast the shutter exposure time u need. i.e.: if u shoot with a long and maybe heavy tele at 300MM, u need to shoot at 1/300 for avoiding shake or vibration without the help of VR. on a small and lite prime lens like 50MM u can shoot at 1/50. and grabbing properly the camera with both hands, with forearms on your chest, standing 45° degree legs, some people could shoot even at 1/20. but if u'll need mainly for portraits, i think you'll have good light, so u'll shoot around 1/125 so in fact you'll never need VR. or maybe if u are really into portrait u can consider to use tripod, with remote cable, so in this case u have even to disable VR. for portraits, 35 1.8 sounds good. depends if u prefer head shots or body shots. 85mm is the big deal for the head shots, but if u are in a small studio u could have issue coz u don't have enough room to walk back for fitting the whole body on the frame. there is a friend of mine is using 24mm 1.4 for gorgeous portraits. great is 50mm 1.4 too, the extra stop in low light is useful, and u can use for both head shot or body shots, need only to walk around the subject. but 35 1.8 is an interesting alternative. depends from you style!
Portraits and 35 mm are not compatable. Look for something in the 60 to 80 mm range.
You can use a 35mm for portraits but it's not that usual. The 1.8 aperture will certainly help in low light without a doubt. For head/head and shoulders shots you're going to have to get pretty close though which as has been mentioned will introduce a less than flattering look depending on the subject. For full body shots showing the subject in their surroundings it could be a good choice - depends on what comes to your mind when you think 'portraits'. I've got the 50mm 1.8 which is a peach of a lens for the price and may be better suited but I rarely use it for portraits myself preferring to go for a longer lens and off camera flash. The best thing maybe is to look through the portraits you have taken already and see if they're predominantly head shots or body shots and which of those you prefer. If your preference is for full body portraits then the 35mm is the one to go for, if your preference is for head and shoulders then the 50mm is going to make you happy. If your favourites are head shots that you've taken with a zoom then you should probably look for a longer focal length (which for a fast lens is going to get pricey !!!) or you could up your ISO a stop and/or start considering a dedicated flash - control the light.