Which Lense would you buy? expensive 1.4 or cheap 1.8?

According to this Nikon page, with D type lenses on the D5000 you get no AF but metering does work.

 

I suggest a Nikon 35mm 1.8G. 35mm is the closet equivalent to 50mm on the D5000's crop sensor anyway. You get the added benefit of the auto-focus motor and the 1.8 aperture, so it's the best of both worlds. It's a little bit more expensive, but it works better in the long run. For its price, it can't be beat.

I had a 50mm 1.8D before, but I sold it because I kept getting hit and miss focus on my pictures. I depend on the auto-focus because my eyes aren't that great at telling if whatever I'm taking a picture of is in focus or not based on the tiny viewfinder. It was also a pain having to use manual focus when time was of the essence in getting the shot. I took the money I got from selling my 50mm 1.8D, saved a bit more and bought the 35mm 1.8G. It's now my all around lens.

 

I dealt with the 1.8 vs 1.4 question myself (just in Canon). How about I phrase the situation a different way? What else could you spend $200 on?

- another inexpensive lens, like an 85 f/1.8
- halfway to a true macro lens
- an external flash
- a lighting kit
- slew of accessories, like tripod+magnifiers/extension tubes+assorted neutral density filters
- new wardrobe for your doll
- a new doll or a significant chunk thereof


You take the 1.4 most likely because you plan to shoot at 1.4. Maybe a build quality related reason. But most of my doll shooting takes place at f/2.8-f/4 anyway, because otherwise you may not even have the ears or the trailing eye in focus!

 

^ What @gaiaswill said. If you read around, you'll find a lot of articles talking about the sweet spot of prime lenses. The sweet spot is what aperture the lens will give the sharpest images. Usually, it's two spots down the maximum aperture. Shooting at maximum aperture, as @gaiaswill said, will leave some stuff out of focus. I shoot my dolls with my 35mm 1.8G in the same aperture as @gaiaswill, and sometimes at f2.2 as well.

 

Ooh, the question has changed. But you are not only comparing aperture now, as the focal lengths are different they will be different in use more than just the aperture difference!

Assuming you have a standard zoom, set it to 35mm and 50mm. Look at the difference in your working distance, and the degree of background. Then you have to imagine a bit but if you use either of the corresponding primes the background can be a lot more bokeh'd out. The 50mm f/1.4 can give a much stronger effect there than a 35mm f/1.8. But how much is enough?

 

Buy the fastest lens you can afford. Always.

 

When you say fastest are you referring to shutter speed, or just how long it takes for one to take a picture with said lens? (Sorry such a dslr newb.)

 

Fast here refers to the aperture opening. You can get away with faster shutter speeds with wider aperture. Shutter speed, aperture, and ISO make for the exposure of your picture. This article should help. http://www.nhislight.com/Articles on Photography/Aperture Shutter Speed ISO.htm

 

Okay got. Considering a bigger aperture opening allows in more light meaning you can use a faster shutter speed.

 

I definitely second Zag's rule of thumb.

While you can get a lot of good stuff for the price difference between an expensive fast lens (not that 290 quid is actually all that pricey, as lenses go) and a more inexpensive slower one, and while it is true that lenses in general don't take their sharpest images with their aperture wide open, you do gain two benefits with a larger aperture:

• Your ability to create good boke increases with decreased DOF — in essence, the blurriness gets blurrier
• Your ability to handle low light without tripod increases

Now, how important these benefits are to you is of course up to you, but generally, my philosophy is that having that extra 2/3 f/stop available in your bag when you need it is better than not having it.
I don't have the 50mm f/1.4 in my own kit yet, but it is high up on my shopping list.

 

My rule of thumb is that if you can't see the difference with your bare eye in photos, then you don't need the extra stops of light in the faster lens, especially when you are on a budget.

And IMO, I rather get the 60mm than a 50mm because of the macro capabilities. =) I once owned a 50mm F1.8, but now I'm saving for the 60mm. I already own the 35mm mentioned. 35mm is the "normal" lens on DX anyway.