the Interceptor
I LUV MY PRIUS!!!
It's me again, with my D40 (still very happy with it)! I'm looking for the right cheap-ish lens for indoor shooting at low light situations. The D40 works well up to ISO 800, but shooting longer than 1/25s by hand with f/5.6 (kit lens @ 55mm) is not really fun. Therefore, I need to get more light onto my sensor. Another issue is that I need a lens with a built-in focus motor, so some classical lenses (like the good old dirt cheap Nikkor 50/1.8) are out of the race.
I looked around a bit and basically found two possible solutions:
1. a f/1.4 prime lens or...
2. a f/2.8 wide angle zoom
They all come at about 320-350 Euros, so price is not an issue.
Group #1 consists of the new Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G, which finally brings auto focusing with a prime to the D40. The alternative is the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM, which is a bit older, but still good. The obvious difference between these two is the focal length. The Nikkor 50mm appeals to me, but I think for indoor shooting including some wider angle shots, Sigmas 30mm would be the better compromise since it averages the 18-55 zoom range of the kit lens pretty well.
Obviously, these lenses mean that zooming will be performed by my feet, yet, they offer loads of light. The alternative are low-light zooms such as the fairly new Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM and the comparable Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF. Which one I go for is less important (though I'm leaning towards the Sigma), the question is whether this is better than the above primes. Obviously, these would replace my 18-55 kit lens (f/3.5-5.6) and offer quite a bit more light, especially when zoomed. However, I would rate picture quality noticeably higher for the primes, also they offer a good chunk of even more photons.
Therefore, I'm indecisive. Do I take the prime and sacrifice a few shots for lack of being able to walk there, or do I take one of the zooms? And if I take the prime, which one do I take? Help!!!
I looked around a bit and basically found two possible solutions:
1. a f/1.4 prime lens or...
2. a f/2.8 wide angle zoom
They all come at about 320-350 Euros, so price is not an issue.
Group #1 consists of the new Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G, which finally brings auto focusing with a prime to the D40. The alternative is the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM, which is a bit older, but still good. The obvious difference between these two is the focal length. The Nikkor 50mm appeals to me, but I think for indoor shooting including some wider angle shots, Sigmas 30mm would be the better compromise since it averages the 18-55 zoom range of the kit lens pretty well.
Obviously, these lenses mean that zooming will be performed by my feet, yet, they offer loads of light. The alternative are low-light zooms such as the fairly new Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM and the comparable Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF. Which one I go for is less important (though I'm leaning towards the Sigma), the question is whether this is better than the above primes. Obviously, these would replace my 18-55 kit lens (f/3.5-5.6) and offer quite a bit more light, especially when zoomed. However, I would rate picture quality noticeably higher for the primes, also they offer a good chunk of even more photons.
Therefore, I'm indecisive. Do I take the prime and sacrifice a few shots for lack of being able to walk there, or do I take one of the zooms? And if I take the prime, which one do I take? Help!!!
Last edited: