it's ok
it's alright i guess
>>2867585
dece lens, i suppose
Depends.
For the price...it's great to have "just because" the G is a way better one though.
Its okay.
It could be better, but it could be worse.
There are better lenses and worse lenses.
Its awful compared with some lenses, but its awesome compared with some others.
Its adequate for some work.
Sufficient for a lot of things I would say, but nowhere near all.
A decent little performer, except for when its not, which isnt often, but it does happen quite often that it isnt.
It competes.
It attempts to cover all bases.
It has a lot of ups and downs - there are a lot of ups though! And also downs.
On a list of one to ten I'd give it a solid number.
I only have a 18-55, i want a lens for landscapes and events.
>>2867651
>landscapes and events
Sigma 28mm 1.8 prime?
>>2867631
autism the post
>>2867667
Here in Argentina that lens is around 850USD
>>2867585
It's great! It's so small, I forget I have it in my bag sometimes. I use it on film too, manual focus isn't great but it works. It's plenty sharp. Here's a crappy, soc jpeg illustrating that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2867678
f/3.2 1/800 sec
nice lens. pretty sharp. remember to set to 22 to get af working. only real beef is the build quality (all plastic everything).
>>2867631
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/8121635
It's a good little lens, but I'm not sure why you'd buy one in this day and age. You're better off with the 35 1.8 on the DX cameras that will focus with the 50, and if you can afford FX you can probably afford a 1.4 or at least the 1.8G.
I guess maybe there's a case for it if you're a 95% zoom shooter and just want something that disappears in your bag for the rare occasions that you need a fast prime.
50 is the most useless length
Always something better
>>2867585
>have it at work
>tried to change the aperture by turning the ring when using it for the first time
it's ok for what it is, but nothing special.
>>2867585
cheap plastic that over performs its station
>>2867631
I read this as William Shatner.
>>2867585
No SWM so it's loud and no rounded aperture blades so...pic related.
Unless you are living off of ramen and trading GBP for tendies, go with the G.
>>2867585
It's a great lens. However, especially on a crop sensor, it's not wide enough to be used indoors or in tight spaces so I almost always just run with my 35mm f1.8 Nikon.
>>2867585
Focus ring turns backwards.
Why can't nikon make a good 50mm lens?
>>2867651
crop factor makes it somewhat useless for dx landscapes
>>2867585
cheap fun
>>2867651
>landscapes
>events
kinda different settings you have there....
landscapes.... 14-24?
events............ 24-70?
>>2867677
Go to ML and look for used prime-lenses (zoom and AF are for pussies anyways).
You should be able to secure a wide –28 or 35mm at f2.8–, standard –35/50||1.8–, and tele –100/135/200||4.5– for about 10k ars or so; that should be enough to keep you covered until you _truly_ need to upgrade.
Just make sure they are Nikkor, don't go for the E series, Q, or whatever the older ones are because they're shit.
Sucks living in a third-world shithole and not being rich, so try to adapt: don't ask for recommendations online because they'll tell you to get stuff you cannot afford.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 804 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:23 00:27:04 Exposure Time 1/4000 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias -2 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2868684
Not necessarily true, I've got an AI-converted 135mm f2.8 Nikkor Q and it's the bee's fucking knees, especially for the $40 or so I paid for it.
>>2868688
I take you're from the US or somewhere in the EU? It would probably cost a lot more than 40 bucks in Argieland.
You're right though, that lens is actually good, but I meant it more as a general rule.
Also, let me correct myself on this post:
>>2868684
For that price, both the wide and tele should/could be f3.5
>>2868699
Yeah, I bought it in the US. Here in Japan MF lens prices are pretty inflated though. I would suggest just buying from KEH or B&H and shipping internationally but I suppose those countries have corrupt customs/import tax profit engines, yeah?
>>2868717
50% taxed on whatever the item+shipping costs happen to be, plus a shitload of paperwork and a three hours queue at the customs office.
>>2868724
Jesus Christ. Time to build some illicit lens-smuggling submarines.
>>2867686
Autofocus doesn't work on anything short of a D7XXX camera
>>2867585
Oh, I just got this lens the other day. It's pretty sharp stopped down to f4 and lower, and at 1.8 it's kinda soft but still reasonably sharp. Does damn well in low light, but not very fast to focus. Manual focus ring is a little stiff, but not bad.
Compatible with a wide range of Nikon cameras; the D7000 and D7100 support it, that's the camera body I'm looking to get by Christmas.
>>2868663
>why not buy these $2000 lenses instead?
>>2867651
If you have that lens you probably have an entry level Nikon. The lens in OP won't be able to use AF on it, and it's a pain in the ads to manually focus on a DX camera with a tiny ads viewfinder.
Get the 50mm 1.8g. Its sharper, contrastier and will last you a long time.
>>2871865
Thanks for making the board a friendlier, more hospitable and generally better place!
>>2871865
you did it bro you saved /p/!
>>2867585
GET THE 1.4D
>>2867585
>What do you think about this lens?
I think it keeps me up at night
I get all flustered around it, and my words don't come out right.
I want to tell it how I really feel but all I ever say is "Hi"
Sometimes I wonder if it feels the same way
>>2871865
Good job!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 330 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2867585
It's the cheapest FF lens Nikon sells, and it's still ok. It's weights nothing, so you can bring it everywhere. It works with modern FF DSLRs, older film cameras (because it has an aperture ring) and makes a decent portrait lens for high-end Nikon APSC. Though, it won't autofocus with entry-level APSC, because it has no in-lens motor.
Pancake lens I love it.
...the eye...our eyes...see at 40mm, so I like a 35mm....
..."back in the day", on my FE2 I produced images that I liked with a 35-105....both built like the "brick house".....
>>2867585
As long as you have a camera it can autofocus on (or are shooting things where you can afford to always manually focus), it's a good value.
I only have a D3100 for a camera body, so I prefer the 35mm f/1.8G, though. A 35 on a crop body is a comparable field of view to a 50 on a full-frame body, and I'm terrible at manual focus.
I had the 50 1.8D, traded it in for the G for no good reason. Felt the G was significantly slower to focus and also looked a little less sharp (could have just been a bad unit), so I switched back. it's a great 50 overall. super sharp for being like $150 or whatever they charge these days.
>>2867585
great lens, I've taken many great pictures with it
>>2867585
IT'S A SHIT LENS COMPARED TO MY AF NIKKOR 50MM 1:1.4 D
GET FUCKED KIDDO
>>2874254
You seem like you'd be fun at parties
>>2874336
I DONT BRING 50MM LENSES TO PARTIES BUDDY
I BRING MY 35MM
REKT AGAIN
