# D90 + 35mm 1.8: Better to upgrade the lens or the body for low light/High ISO?



## marklbucla (Oct 26, 2012)

I'm looking for better/sharper performance in low light situations. I'm currently shooting a D90 with the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. 

I'm looking to either upgrade into a FX body (like a D700 or D600) and keep using my 1.8 lens or upgrade my lens (like a 35mm 1.4) and keep using my D90. Which would be a better performer in low light:
A. D600/D700 + 35mm 1.8 lens
B. D90 + 35mm 1.4 lens

As I understand it, both combinations would be cropped, right?

Edit: The lower light situations would be things like school plays, museums, classrooms, etc. where I can't exactly use a flash. Not horribly dark situations, but low enough light that would give me problems. Tripods, remotes, etc. aren't going to be an option either.


----------



## gryffinwings (Oct 26, 2012)

marklbucla said:


> I'm looking for better/sharper performance in low light situations. I'm currently shooting a D90 with the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens.
> 
> I'm looking to either upgrade into a FX body (like a D700 or D600) and keep using my 1.8 lens or upgrade my lens (like a 35mm 1.4) and keep using my D90. Which would be a better performer in low light:
> A. D600/D700 + 35mm 1.8 lens
> ...



There is a Nikkor 35mm f1.4 AFS lens, but its very expensive, the cheapest I've seen is $1600, not worth it if you ask me. You might as well keep the 35mm f1.8. To get the same field of view on a full frame as your D90 woud be to use a 50mm

Now the question is, what are you trying to achieve? What situation is the D90 + 35mm f1.8 not good enough?


----------



## orb9220 (Oct 26, 2012)

Yep agreed if the f1.8 isn't cutting it then f1.4 wont give you much additional usability. Which only gives you 2/3rds of a stop and even shallower depth of field at a much higher cost. More info on what you are trying to shoot would help as so would a D600 or D700 I imagine. 
.


----------



## JaronRH (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't think a 35mm 1.4 will really benefit you that much.  Also, the 35 1.8G is a DX lens so you would have to run a D600 or D700 in crop mode.  Without knowing what you're trying to accomplish, I would have to say that either waiting for a D7000 replacement to upgrade to or getting a D600 with a 50mm 1.8G might be your better options (50mm on an FX camera will be very similar to the 35 on your DX camera).


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

35mm 1.8 <---i sold mine because of Chromatic Aberration problems in night shots


----------



## JaronRH (Oct 26, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> 35mm 1.8 <---i sold mine because of Chromatic Aberration problems in night shots



I never got one for that reason (I bought a Tokina 35mm instead.  It was a great lens but I sold it when I moved to FX.)


----------



## marklbucla (Oct 26, 2012)

The lower light situations would be things like school plays, museums, classrooms, etc. where I can't exactly use a flash.  Not horribly dark situations, but low enough light that would give me  problems. Tripods, remotes, etc. aren't going to be an option either.


----------



## JaronRH (Oct 26, 2012)

In that case, I would recommend a body upgrade for the better ISO performance.  Full frame if you want but the crop factor might be helpful for plays.  Also, if movement isn't an issue, a stabilized lens might be worth looking into as well (I use a Sigma 17-50 OS on my D90 and a Nikon 70-200 VRII on my D700 and can highly recommend both).


----------



## Mach0 (Oct 26, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> 35mm 1.8 <---i sold mine because of Chromatic Aberration problems in night shots



I used it as a walk around lens in Boston. It happened a few times lol


----------



## greybeard (Oct 26, 2012)

Well, to start with, the 35mm f/1.8 is a DX lens so it won't work very well with a D700, better with the D600 but still not optimal because they are FX bodies.  For low light performance I'd look at a D600 with a 50mm f/1.4 to start with.


----------



## Aloicious (Oct 26, 2012)

high ISO noise is a function of the sensor, not relative to the lens...a faster lens will give you better ability to expose in low light, but 1.4 vs 1.8 isn't going to be a huge difference. if low light ability is your primary goal, then FX is the only way to go....

when I shot the D90, I had the same 35 1.8 and I liked the 35mm range for a prime....on FX in the same situations I find I prefer the 50mm.....what I'd do in your situation is sell both the d90 and 35 1.8 and get an FX body and a good fast 50mm...using the 35 1.8 on a FX will work, but results won't be optimal. something like a D700 and 50mm 1.8D (or G) would be a far better combo. and depending on HOW fast you want, and how much you have to spend you could even spring for a 50mm 1.4G which isn't TOO much more than the 1.8 (compared to the 35mm 1.4 at least)...or even a 50mm 1.2D if you don't mind manual focusing. something like that would keep the fast lens speed, but with the FX you'd be able to raise the ISO quite a bit more than the D90 to provide better exposure with acceptable noise.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 26, 2012)

Cheap, gently used D700 and a 50mm 1.8G is your answer. The 1.8G is less than half the price of the 1.4G, and it's sharper and faster focusing to boot.


----------



## Roger3006 (Nov 6, 2012)

Monopod along with the other suggestions?


----------



## AlexanderB (Nov 6, 2012)

marklbucla said:


> A. D600/D700 + 35mm 1.8 lens
> B. D90 + 35mm 1.4 lens


DX lens on FX format camera will be hardly more efficient in low light situation. Do not do that. If you are ready to upgrade the body then FX prime lens is just [FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]chickenfeed compared to it. I'd recommend 50 1.8D or 1.4D.[/FONT]


----------



## marklbucla (Nov 6, 2012)

Just to follow up: I got a D600 and the 50mm 1.8/G. They'll be arriving from Adorama tomorrow!


----------



## shadowlands (Nov 7, 2012)

marklbucla said:


> Just to follow up: I got a D600 and the 50mm 1.8/G. They'll be arriving from Adorama tomorrow!


Congrats!!! Adorama rules!!!


----------

