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

wrote in message
...
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'm guessing you already took in account the money for the D90 else you
wouldn't mention it.
Definitely go for the D90. You hardly or not will see the difference between
a 50 1.8 and a 50 1.4 with a D40 or even with more expensive camera's.
Stepping up to the D90 gives you a lot mo
you go from 6 MP to 12 MP. Some will say you don't need that much, but I
disagree. I've seen the (big) difference between a D40 and a D40x (10 MP).
12 MP gives you even more possibilities for cropping etc.
You get much faster and better AF, more focus points, more options. You can
even make HD movies with it (you never know what you see on the road) and
the whole system is a new design with the newest and fastest electronics.

I would never buy a used body! If you have the D90, you can always buy used
lenses: you can see if they're allright or not. With a camera it's virtually
impossible.

As for the portraits: at 1.8 at a distance of about 1 m. the DOF is so
small, that a person's face is not completely in focus. The eyes will be,
but the nose will not. So you have a fast lens, but if you want the whole
picture sharp, you'll have to stop down to at least 5.3 or smaller...

Time to use a flash maybe?


--
Focus

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:12:05 -0000, "Focus" wrote:

I would never buy a used body! If you have the D90, you can always buy used
lenses: you can see if they're allright or not. With a camera it's virtually
impossible.

Actually, I do the exact opposite. I would never buy a used "high
tech" lens, i.e., one with AF-S or USM, VR or IS. But I definitely
would and have bought used bodies. That's because the markdown on
those used lenses is practically nothing. I still see the 18-200 VR
selling used for as much as I bought a new one for over a year ago.
And other lenses are only 10-20% off new prices. It definitely does
not pay to go used with these high-tech lenses that more than likely
will need warranty repair within the 5 year warranty period. And
you're SOL if you bought used. One repair more than makes up for
whatever you saved by buying used.

Bodies, on the other hand, lose value extremely fast. Look at what
D200's are going for these days. You can buy excellent condition, low
shutter count D200's for $600-$800. And if it needs repair in the
future, you can get it repaired 4 or 5 times for the $1000 savings vs.
what a new D200 cost. The odds are with you.

I'm surprised no one suggested this to the OP so far.. that is, keep
your 50mm f/1.8. Keep your D40 if you like it, but get a used D200
that can autofocus with that screw-drive lens. A D200 that's the same
price as a D90 is a toss up. But a D200 that's several $100's cheaper
is a no brainer. And a D200 totally outclasses a D40 in every respect
except for size/weight.

As for used "low-tech" lenses, I buy them all the time. My 50mm f/1.8
was used, as was my 80-200mm f/2.8, as was my Sigma 70-300mm. There's
much less to go wrong in those lenses without the ultrasonic motors
and VR *and* they can be bought for significantly more markdown under
new prices vs. the high-tech lenses. The only high-tech lens I bought
used was the 12-24mm f/4 DX AF-S. And the only reason was because I
found an incredible deal. But that's rare.

Steve

TheRealSteve wrote:
Focus wrote:

I would never buy a used body!
If you have the D90, you can always buy used lenses...

Actually, I do the exact opposite...

Two good arguments. See what makes sense for your needs. I'd go for the
old lenses mostly and new bodies because the technology advances so
rapidly it's hard to miss out on that but the new lenses are good too. I
have not heard of one case of VR HSM/AF-S lenses breaking down but it
makes sense that they would with more tech inside. I do envy the latest
lens improvements though, and it seems they are significant.

You (the OP) mention AF lacking on the old body but the new lens will
probably eventually end up broke and only manual focus on your new-ish
worthless body... but the high tech designed optics & coatings will
still be usable. And those have improved significantly over the decades.
Some of the old classic lenses are admirable (for their time and today's
price) and still useful but the new ones are indeed better, and the lens
is ultimately the deciding factor. But damned if the new cameras aren't
astonishing too... but they will be worth very little in a few years,
and you can get great deals on used bodies if you can stand missing the
latest cool stuff (which is genuinely cool). grin

Photography is always about trade-offs, you will have to decide.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam