Can I get by with just a 50mm?

[zebulus]

Well, Ive gone from having a huge lens collection to now having two lenses. Its a long story.

Anyway, I now just have my 50 1.8 and my Nikkor 70-300. Do you think I can get by? Do I need a wide angle?

[Cajungaltx]

The nifty 50 is an awesome lens... I know quite a few 'mwc' (mom's with camera's' who never take it off their camera... I know until I got my 30/1.4, it was a mainstay for me...

[zebulus]

Originally Posted by Cajungaltx

mom's with camera's'

But what if im not a mom?

[ito4u]

Depends ultimately on what you like to shoot. Anyone can get by without a camera period. For all intensive purposes, myself could not do without my current lens line-up. I could survive without a 24-105F4L and the 85F1.8. But the rest of my glass... it's staying with me unless you pry it from my cold dead hands.

[zebulus]

Well I mainly want to shoot portraits, so I think I can get by, at least until I can afford to but a descent wide angle.

[Cajungaltx]

Originally Posted by zebulus

Well I mainly want to shoot portraits, so I think I can get by, at least until I can afford to but a descent wide angle.

The issue I had with the 50, on my D80 was due to the crop factor... the 50, on a D80 has a 1.6 crop factor... which means it's an 80... where as with the 30...it's a 48... which is closer to normal viewing range...

Plus, my 50, with my kids, meant I had to be in the kitchen to shoot in the living room... lol... space is an issue for me... ;-)

[Tom]

If nothing else, only using the 50 will really teach you photography and not to rely on zoom, lenses, etc.

Henri Cartier-Breeson took nearly all his pics with a 50mm prime. He did alright for himself.

[dbphotos]

50mm is a great lens and can work or a wide range of subjects.

As Donna said, keep in mind if you don't have a full frame DSLR you aren't actually shooting 50mm but something more like 80mm with a crop factor of 1.6.

[kenw]

Having only the 50mm will at least teach you how to zoom-walk. Or tele-walk. It's good for you. Walking, that is....

[doctahjones]

i would give up all my other kit glass to have the 70-200 in addition to my 50.

i use the d80 and the crop/zoom/whatever you want to call it on the DX format is a little annoying at times...

but for portrait type stuff i -rarely- go wide. i think i've done it once out of my 9 months of experimenting. every other time i've been 50 or above, and i seem to prefer the results of the 100mm focal area. but i -love- the shallow dof of the 50. i'd love to get the f/1.4 version, but it's not a necessity at this point.

lol @ tele-walk.

doctahjones added 1 Minutes and 45 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

make that i -rarely- go wide on indoor studio portrait type stuff...

i've had to rent fast wide lens when doing indoor on location where i was backed up against a wall...

[venchka]

Only 1 50mm lens? Curious behavior indeed.

Nikon mount, hey? Why not add the Nikkor 28/1.4??????????????

My first introduction to wide angle lenses was a friend's Nikkor 24/2.8 back in the Dark Ages. I was instantly hooked. I have been a fan of the 24mm FOV ever since.

Crop sensor? I have no knowledge of such things. YMMV.

[zebulus]

Well here is a little back story on the situation.

I started out with my D100 and had built up a descent collection of lenses. I had a manual focus 50mm, 35mm, and I had my 18-55, a tamron 28-80,and a Nikon 55-200VR.

I bought the 50mm AF-D 1.8 when I was in san antonio, and then got asked to do a wedding, so I sold my manual 50, my 35, and my 28-80, and then bought a D40 as a backup body. Then I had three lenses.

I gave my D40 to my fiance recently, and along with that the 18-55. I had also picked up a quantaray 18-50 for $10 from Ritz. Well, I thought I could get by with that. I was wrong.

That quantaray SUCKS. The fall off is extraordinary, and it actually casts a yellow taint to the photos. ITS SO UGLY!

Well, I also wanted a bigger telephoto, and one I could use on my film camera too, so I sold my 55-200 and got the nikon 70-300 (its on its way).

I cant use the quantaray, im trying to sell it on craigs.

So, I have my 50mm 1.8, and the 70-300 that's on its way. I like doing landscapes, but what I want to get really good at is headshots. Headshots and portraits are what I really crave to get good at, so I think honestly that my 70-300 will work good with that.

But Im going to start a savings for a good wide angle prime, and I think ill be good.

Opinions?

p.s., and my D100 has long since gave up the ghost, my main camera is a Nikon D50 and my backup is my Nikon N65 which I keep loaded with ASA100 film. :)

[doctahjones]

just realized zebulus said 70-300, not 70-200....which means kit lens...which means not f/2.8 :)

but, my comment still stands :P

[venchka]

The 35/2.0 in the For Sale forum right here would be nice. Local too.

venchka added 2 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by zebulus

... but what I want to get really good at is headshots. Headshots and portraits are what I really crave to get good at, so I think honestly that my 70-300 will work good with that.

But Im going to start a savings for a good wide angle prime, and I think ill be good.

Opinions?

Back in the day...way way back in the Long Ago, the Nikkor 105mm lens established itself as a legend. You will need a full frame body. You could do worse.

[doctahjones]

i've heard the holy trinity of portrait lenses is (i think) the 50, 85, and 105 primes...

personally i like the 50 and my 55-200vr kit lens. and after the portrait workshop i just took i'm going to start shooting at f/5.6 or so, the kit lens i have will work just fine. doesn't mean i won't eventually get fast glass....it will just be awhile :)