# D3200: interested in f/1.4 AF-S lens - what type to get, where to find lowest price?



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

Just got my D3200 a few days ago and LOVE it, but would like a faster lens ( came with the 18-55 f/3.5 Nikkor DX ).

I see all kinds of lenses listed, but am not sure which one I need, or where to find the lowest price for one.

Jeez, with some of these, they want $1500??


----------



## Tkaczuk (May 18, 2012)

Nikkor 35mm 1.8 dx. Cost 225ish and is easy and will auto focus.


----------



## jwbryson1 (May 18, 2012)

B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders


----------



## CheezyCheeto (May 18, 2012)

If you're not sure which lens you need i think you should just keep shooting. No sense in spending money and not end up using it. Play some more and see what kind of photography you like to shoot and what kind of lenses fit that type of photography. What are you shooting now?


----------



## Trever1t (May 18, 2012)

Have to agree. To mfg. a 1.4f fixed aperture lens costs significant;y more than the kit lenses, hence the cost to you. As sad as I am about it I don't even own an f1.4 lens. I do have 2 on my wish list though. For your D3200 you should take another look at the 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 "G" lenses. They are quite cheaper and the Image Quality is high.


----------



## Derrel (May 18, 2012)

Skip the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S and buy the newer, better, aspherical element designed 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor!!!! Ghe newer 50mm f/1.8, the AF-S G-series model, focuses FASTER than the 1.4 G-series model AND costs less, and is all-around, by a test I saw a while back, one of the top "all-around and overall" regular 50mm lenses made in the last 20 years by Canon or Nikon or Zeiss. The new 50mm 1.8 AF-S G sells for $229 at walk-in retail with a 5-year USA warranty.

The 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX Nikkor is another new, G-series Nikon-made lens that is very affordable--$199. Either of those two lenses will give you a high-speed lens.


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

CheezyCheeto said:


> If you're not sure which lens you need i think you should just keep shooting. No sense in spending money and not end up using it. Play some more and see what kind of photography you like to shoot and what kind of lenses fit that type of photography. What are you shooting now?



It will be a lot of scenic outdoor shooting, mostly daytime, but then I also like to do a lot of indoor natural light, like with our pet parrots, so the flash doesn't scare them. And I've never really cared much for flash photography anyway. 

Of course I've never really studied photography either.  :blushing:


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Have to agree. To mfg. a 1.4f fixed aperture lens costs significant;y more than the kit lenses, hence the cost to you. As sad as I am about it I don't even own an f1.4 lens. I do have 2 on my wish list though. For your D3200 you should take another look at the 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 "G" lenses. They are quite cheaper and the Image Quality is high.



Thanks Trever, I will.


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Skip the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S and buy the newer, better, aspherical element designed 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor!!!! Ghe newer 50mm f/1.8, the AF-S G-series model, focuses FASTER than the 1.4 G-series model AND costs less, and is all-around, by a test I saw a while back, one of the top "all-around and overall" regular 50mm lenses made in the last 20 years by Canon or Nikon or Zeiss. The new 50mm 1.8 AF-S G sells for $229 at walk-in retail with a 5-year USA warranty.
> 
> The 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX Nikkor is another new, G-series Nikon-made lens that is very affordable--$199. Either of those two lenses will give you a high-speed lens.



Thanks Derrel, I will. Very interesting!


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Have to agree. To mfg. a 1.4f fixed aperture lens costs significantly more than the kit lenses, hence the cost to you. As sad as I am about it I don't even own an f1.4 lens. I do have 2 on my wish list though.



This reminds me of my Minolta SRT101 years ago. They offered an f/1.2 and an f/1.4. The 1.2 cost a LOT more than the 1.4 and the image quality wasn't as good. People used to point out that it was only a .2 f stop difference, so why even pay that much more. 

There's a big difference between 3.8 and 1.8 though. Not so much between 1.8 and 1.4 though, but still... ( drool ) 

Sure would have more natural light depth of field and brightness though...


----------



## IByte (May 18, 2012)

Melissa2012B said:
			
		

> Just got my D3200 a few days ago and LOVE it, but would like a faster lens ( came with the 18-55 f/3.5 Nikkor DX ).
> 
> I see all kinds of lenses listed, but am not sure which one I need, or where to find the lowest price for one.
> 
> Jeez, with some of these, they want $1500??



50mm 1.4, Nikkor or Sigma can't go wrong with either.


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Skip the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S and buy the newer, better, aspherical element designed 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor!!!! The newer 50mm f/1.8, the AF-S G-series model, focuses FASTER than the 1.4 G-series model AND costs less, and is all-around, by a test I saw a while back, one of the top "all-around and overall" regular 50mm lenses made in the last 20 years by Canon or Nikon or Zeiss. The new 50mm 1.8 AF-S G sells for $229 at walk-in retail with a 5-year USA warranty.



Wow, what a recommendation!

This one? Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens | Nikon Wide-Angle Lenses

Look at the reviews!

It's been a long time, and I don't recall what makes aspherical better...

But will this lens stop down, for depth of field too?


----------



## Derrel (May 18, 2012)

Yes, it will stop down!!!

Here is all you need to know about the new 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens...

Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

Thanks Derrel. I'm sold!


----------



## Tkaczuk (May 18, 2012)

Check out the 35mm 1.8. Most people prefer it on a dx camera. (which is the kinda camera you have)


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 18, 2012)

Focal length, if I recall? SO the difference between 35mm and 50mm?

I THINK I read something about this camera and the image sensor, that it has a different kind of area or something, better for a longer than shorter lens?

Forget where I read it, now...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 18, 2012)

Tkaczuk said:


> Nikkor *35mm 1.8 dx*. Cost 225ish and is easy and will auto focus.



Sold mine - got tired of the chromatic aberrations.  Look into some top shelf glass such as the 50mm 1.4s


----------



## TheFantasticG (May 19, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Tkaczuk said:
> 
> 
> > Nikkor *35mm 1.8 dx*. Cost 225ish and is easy and will auto focus.
> ...


 
about to sell mine too. Since I got my Nikon 50mm 1.4G (which has better bokeh IMO than the newest 50mm1.8G) I have barely used my 35mm 1.8G.


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 19, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Tkaczuk said:
> 
> 
> > Nikkor *35mm 1.8 dx*. Cost 225ish and is easy and will auto focus.
> ...



This is starting to sound like the old discussions with the audio purists, about .05% THD and whether to pay for better than that. 

In my case, this camera hit the budget mark. A $200 additional lens will be my birthday money this year. More than that? My other half could have my head? :lmao:

I'd better think in terms of the 50mm 1.8G.

Thanks guys!


----------



## KmH (May 19, 2012)

Melissa2012B said:


> People used to point out that it was only a .2 f stop difference, so why even pay that much more.


F/1.2 to f/1.4 is not a .2 stop difference. It's a 1/3 (.33) stop difference if the camera is set to 1/3 stop steps, or a 1/2 (.5) stop difference if the camera is set to 1/2 or 1/4 stop steps.

F-number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Tkaczuk (May 19, 2012)

Still not worth it. 50mm 1.8 is just as good at half the price.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 19, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Tkaczuk said:
> 
> 
> > Nikkor *35mm 1.8 dx*. Cost 225ish and is easy and will auto focus.
> ...



Or the 35/1.4's


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 19, 2012)

I've just sold my 35 1.8G and got me a SB700 flash, it ended up being a wise choice as I love my new flash and no one will be able to take it from my hands when I'm dead! No one told me flash photography could be so much fun? 

But seriously, I didn't mind losing the 35 1.8G due to the fact my Sigma 50 1.4 is such a superior lens in every aspect. The 35 1.8G had dreadful bokeh and dreadful CA control. The 35 1.8G is tack sharp and produces beautiful contrast so I may consider picking up another one at some point if I have money lying around but in no way is it a better lens to buy than a Sigma 50 1.4.

As Tyler mentioned though, the 35 1.4 G is a great lens if you have the cash. I hear the Sigma 30 1.4 is no slouch either...


----------



## greybeard (May 19, 2012)

Imo, you should work with the kit lens until you are certain of what you want.  F/3.5-5.6 is pretty slow for film but, your d3200 can easily shoot at iso 1600 and even higher so, I'd wait a while and get use to all the bells and whistles.  The 18-55 will surprise you, it has me.


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 22, 2012)

My first outing with this camera. I definitely need a faster lens. 

http://lakewoodcolorado.net/RMSAEXPOMAY2012/


----------



## Melissa2012B (May 29, 2012)




----------



## ceejec (May 30, 2012)

CheezyCheeto said:
			
		

> If you're not sure which lens you need i think you should just keep shooting. No sense in spending money and not end up using it. Play some more and see what kind of photography you like to shoot and what kind of lenses fit that type of photography. What are you shooting now?



+1

Id also suggest to take note of the focal lengths u shoot and determine if u use wide angle more than the standard focal lengths


----------



## Solarflare (May 30, 2012)

Since nobody mentioned it yet, I would like to point out that if you buy a FX (full frame) lens for a DX camera, you wont get the same values than with a real FX camera.

Basically you lose a lot of light because the DX photochip is much smaller and your F/1.4 FX lens will actually be "demoted" to F/1.8 DX.

But as a plus, if you ever decide to pay 2k+ for a body (which is a hell of lot of money considering how fast digital bodies are outdated again), you will still be able to use the FX lens.


----------



## zamanakhan (May 30, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> Since nobody mentioned it yet, I would like to point out that if you buy a FX (full frame) lens for a DX camera, you wont get the same values than with a real FX camera.Basically you lose a lot of light because the DX photochip is much smaller and your F/1.4 FX lens will actually be "demoted" to F/1.8 DX.But as a plus, if you ever decide to pay 2k+ for a body (which is a hell of lot of money considering how fast digital bodies are outdated again), you will still be able to use the FX lens.


No one has mentioned this... Because it simply isn't true. I don't know where you are coming up with this... You loose a bit of the image circle but the strength of light coming in on both is the same, no way does a 1.4 lens become 1.8. At most you have to step back a little to fill a dx frame with the same image where in fx you can get closer, allowing you to get lower depth of field with fx, so it may give you the illusion that the depth of field on a 1.4 is going to b the same as 1.8 on fx body ( even still it's not that clear cut). However the settings you shoot an image at are going to be the same for either one as both will receive the same light. I've heard the focal length "changes" quite often, which is also false but never the 1.4 becomes 1.8 interns of amount of light.


----------

