# 45mm or 50mm



## notelliot (Nov 13, 2005)

for a nikon f75 i have which has a 28-100mm f3.5 on it. i'm looking for the smallest possible 'regular' lens i can find. there isn't a whole lot of difference between a 45 and 50mm, and i'm wondering which would be more practicle in terms of:

compact-ness [sometimes people don't need to know they're having their picture taken]
practibilty [how much closer to the subject will i be?]
price [i imagine a 50mm would dominate here..]

any comment is cool. thanks


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 13, 2005)

45 is smaller for sure, but 50 would be cheaper.

I think it's splitting hairs.


----------



## notelliot (Nov 13, 2005)

what's an avg. nikkor 45mm priced at?


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 13, 2005)

300 bucks for 45mm... others i don't know


----------



## Patrick (Nov 13, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> 300 bucks for 45mm... others i don't know


 
Can't go wrong with the 50mm 1.8.  Also it's cheap enough. Like 100 bucks or so.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 13, 2005)

The 45mm is a little different. It is copied from the old 45mm GN. Both have the same 3 element teslar design, metal construction and both are f/2.8. The newer P lens has better, more modern coating. It is a manual focus lens, but had the "D" chip that enables all metering modes on AF bodies. It is very short and compact like the older GN version. It was brought out for sale with the FM3a and is a relatively short or limited production lens. The 50mms are AF and of composite construction, making them a little more fragile and very light in weight.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 13, 2005)

Is there anything special about the 45mm optically?


----------



## tito_gh (Nov 13, 2005)

i just ordered a 50mm 1.8 for my f4 i will tell you my opinion on it when it arrives 

maybe you might want to do something like 18-55 around there


----------



## e_ (Nov 13, 2005)

Hello notelliot

jstuedle gives a good, brief overview

* Compactness: the first impression one gets on handling is just how small it is

* Practicality: "Popphoto" Lab Test states ... _the SQF readings were excellent overall, among the best we've recorded for a lens of this type. There was slight pincushion distortion, measured at 0.55 percent. At the closest focusing distance of 17 ¼ inches (1:7.4 magnification) center sharpness was excellent at all apertures. Corner sharpness was very good at f/2.8, excellent from f/4 to f/16, and good at f/22. Optimum performance was at f/11._ 

*Price: The 45mm 2.8 P is somewhat a boutique lens, expensive and not very fast

The Doc asks if there's anything special about this lens optically: 

After purchasing the matt black model in 2003 for my backup camera, Nikon's FM3A, i sold my fast Nikon 50mm lenses ... in my view their results could not compare

No regrets, albiet the loss of speed

Have fun!



e_


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

> Is there anything special about the 45mm optically?


 

I have a 45mm GN, the first Nikkor lens I ever purchased. It was bought in 1969 and I used this as my standard (read only) lens for years. The lens design is simple, sharp and has good contrast. The 3 element Teslar design from what I understand does not lend itself to fast lenses, hence the 2.8 max. aperture. An advantage to me was it's f32 min aperture. I did a little extreme DOF close-up work in school and was amazed at the sharpness of this little lens. I have it converted to AI mount, this lets me use it on my D1 cameras and its still a hoot. It does look a little funny on that big body, almost like I forgot to mount a lens at all. Images shot with this lens compaired to say the 50mm f/1.8 are just a little more pleasing to the eye IMO, it's hard to put a finger on what is differant, just nicer for lack of any technical term. That is not to say the 50 is not tack sharp and a deal for the price. It's just that the 45 is, well .... nicer.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 14, 2005)

I was thinking of getting F3Ma with that lens as a MF system. It was a bit too expensive so I went with Canon FD for much less money.


----------



## santino (Nov 14, 2005)

for me 35mm is a normal lens.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

> I was thinking of getting F3Ma with that lens as a MF system. It was a bit too expensive so I went with Canon FD for much less money.


 
Depends on what you want. A FM3a/45mm P is expensive, about $900.00 US. You could get a mint FM/50mm f/1.8 AI for $100.00 and do the same thing. Both are all Nikon and do the same thing. Just one is the well kept Escort, the other is the new Crown Victoria.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

> for me 35mm is a normal lens.


 
For many this is true, I liked the 45 for years and really still like it's "look". Today with the DX format DSLR I find I am either at 24 or 90+ on my 24-120 zoom. Seldom do I find myself anywhere in the middle range. So, we could say I often shoot about the perspective of your 35mm when shooting at 24mm.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 14, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> Depends on what you want. A FM3a/45mm P is expensive, about $900.00 US. You could get a mint FM/50mm f/1.8 AI for $100.00 and do the same thing. Both are all Nikon and do the same thing. Just one is the well kept Escort, the other is the new Crown Victoria.


I just wanted nice manual camera to shoot BW film with. Film shooting with an EOS and AF lenses would just suck. It has to be manual.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

> I just wanted nice manual camera to shoot BW film with. Film shooting with an EOS and AF lenses would just suck. It has to be manual.


 
I usally use a Nikon FM and a 45GN or 50 f/1.8 for B&W. The FM/50 combo is very reasonable.


----------



## notelliot (Nov 15, 2005)

e_ said:
			
		

> Hello notelliot
> 
> jstuedle gives a good, brief overview
> 
> ...


the speed factor isn't a big issue. i do a lot of night photography and other low-light stuff. 

i could definatly afford a 50mm for at around 120 (which is what they seem to be, around here). the 45 i'd have to starve for -- almost worth it: sounds like what i'm looking for :er: 

thanks for your input, everyone.


----------



## foxXx (Nov 15, 2005)

the 45mm is sharper then the 50mm 1.8 if that matters.


----------

