# Loaner lens: What the hell good is a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lens?



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Cliff said:


> It's the 3.5 G lens. I bought it for the D100 I had after reading Thom Hogan's strong review of the lens. Nice pack - I have a LowePro Nature Trekker and I like LowePro bags. I'm taking a Tamrac shoulder bag on this trip. It holds my notebook, the body, several lenses, a couple of flashes, and related stuff, and slips over the trolley handle on my suitcase. My biggest concern at the moment is weight. I need to call the airline and see if they place any weight restrictions on the "personal" item we're allowed to bring aboard. There's a 15 pound weight limit on carry-on luggage - that's the case, my body, the 17-55, and my notebook. Nothing more. This case will probably spend the trip under the seat though and not in the overhead.


I'm flying Sat with Frontier and their weight restriction is 35 lbs. for carry-on. I guess I won't be taking all the photo equipment with me .

I looked closely at the Nature trekker, however with the new D200 coming, I've got 3 cameras, 5 lenses, camcorder, and of course a ton of accessories to carry now so I went with the big boy.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Patrick said:


> Nice bag and at a great price!
> 
> I have a theory that Canon shooters use Tamrac bags, and Nik*n shooters use only Lowepro. :eeps:
> 
> ...


Strangely enough, I've noticed that too...:eeps:

Crete for a month... *sigh*.....I hearby bestow upon you the label of Alee Excellence.....you suck!


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Cliff said:


> I think they're good for forum discussions of l337 sharpness. They also weigh down the back of the drawer they live in nicely so the front doesn't dip down so far when I open it.
> 
> I'll be traveling to Asia in a couple of weeks. My 50mm lens won't be coming.
> 
> (edit: I am taking the 17-55 f2.8, 85 f1.4, and I am trying to convince myself that my 80-200 f2.8 AF-S is too heavy and I really ought to take the 70-300 ED instead. The 50mm, 60mm micro, 24-85, and 300 f4 are definitely staying home.)


I thought you had the 18-200 VR. If you had it, would you take it to Asia?
And no, they cost less and are easier to find here in the USA.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Cliff said:


> My biggest concern at the moment is weight. I need to call the airline and see if they place any weight restrictions on the "personal" item we're allowed to bring aboard. There's a 15 pound weight limit on carry-on luggage - that's the case, my body, the 17-55, and my notebook. Nothing more. This case will probably spend the trip under the seat though and not in the overhead.


In my experience of traveling a fair amount with camera gear, no one ever gets anal about a camera bag (backpack or shoulder bag) WRT the weight.

I was asked once, flying Helsinki to Copenhagen, on Finnair (horrible airline), to have the backpack weighed. It was way over the 8kg limit and also too wide due to the lens cases on the sides, but when I told them that I won't be checking 16,000 EUR of camera gear to the luggage hold unless their insurance would cover theft, they said no problem. And since the bag was not the size of a Beta Cam hard case that weighed 60kg, I am sure that it really was Ok.

I doubt that you will have any problem, even with your long-haul flights!

.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

I was dinking around with the 50mm f1.8 lens this week-end.

It's pretty nice for an under $100 lens. I might add it to my bag.

This shows the suspended particulate in the water, and *unfortunately* shows the dirty glass of the fish tank on the exterior as well...:eeps:


----------



## alee (Dec 19, 2001)

The 50mm is stupid sharp, and for the price you won't feel guilty for leaving it behind 99% of the time. In many instances, I find it TOO sharp.

My camera is heavy enough... with premium glass like a 17-55, it's 4+ lbs of heft strapped to my neck. The 50mm requires you to walk a little more to get the shot (the human zoom)... but the size, weight and razor sharp results make it a worthwhile lens for me to use for every-day casual use. Plenty of reasons why it isn't the best lens for the critical shot (crappy bokeh is a big one), but for the price, it's pretty damn good.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Boile said:


> I thought you had the 18-200 VR. If you had it, would you take it to Asia?
> And no, they cost less and are easier to find here in the USA.


If I had to travel light and had a camera body that didn't outweigh a brick, I might consider it. If I was backpacking or doing some similar sort of activity (and didn't have a sherpa to carry my crap like JustinU did on an infamous trip with Pete Teoh a couple of years ago) I would strongly consider it.



Patrick said:


> In my experience of traveling a fair amount with camera gear, no one ever gets anal about a camera bag (backpack or shoulder bag) WRT the weight.
> 
> I was asked once, flying Helsinki to Copenhagen, on Finnair (horrible airline), to have the backpack weighed. It was way over the 8kg limit and also too wide due to the lens cases on the sides, but when I told them that I won't be checking 16,000 EUR of camera gear to the luggage hold unless their insurance would cover theft, they said no problem. And since the bag was not the size of a Beta Cam hard case that weighed 60kg, I am sure that it really was Ok.
> 
> ...


That's really good to hear Patrick. I have no intention of checking the US$10k worth of gear I'll be bringing. I'm guessing the weight restriction is as much a function of the airline steward union rules as anything else. The case itself is smaller than a typical carry-on bag.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

alee said:


> The 50mm is stupid sharp, and for the price you won't feel guilty for leaving it behind 99% of the time. In many instances, I find it TOO sharp.
> 
> My camera is heavy enough... with premium glass like a 17-55, it's 4+ lbs of heft strapped to my neck. The 50mm requires you to walk a little more to get the shot (the human zoom)... but the size, weight and razor sharp results make it a worthwhile lens for me to use for every-day casual use. *Plenty of reasons why it isn't the best lens for the critical shot (crappy bokeh is a big one),* but for the price, it's pretty damn good.


Due to it being poorly corrected for spherical aberration? I guess my eye isn't trained enough to understand what is a good brokeh and what is a poor one.


----------



## #5880 (Feb 11, 2006)

I got a KM 50mm 1.7 for indoor wrestling events. 

It then quickly became my "all around' lens. It does lose Bokeh with the cropping, but what a great portrait lens.

Play with it some more.

Most 50mm 1.4 1.7 and 1.8's need to get up around f4 for them to really stand out.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Cliff said:


> If I had to travel light and had a camera body that didn't outweigh a brick, I might consider it. If I was backpacking or doing some similar sort of activity (and didn't have a sherpa to carry my crap like JustinU did on an infamous trip with Pete Teoh a couple of years ago) I would strongly consider it.


Exactly the reason (or one of them) that I am leaving _everything_ at home for this year's R&R on Crete. I don't want to carry all that gear around in 90F/70% RH weather! Last summer, I schlepped my gear on some day-long hikes and city tours, and everything inside the bag was moist inside after that. Not to mention that many times, the camera body was seriously slippery from hand perspiration (I sweat a lot in Greece!). 

I have had everything with me for three years in a row (even brought a huge tripod + monopod). I have a lot of landscape, beachscape, US Navy, Greek Air Force pics from those three trips, and that is enough.

If I was going somewhere new, I would get in better shape before the trip, and then have no qualms about taking everything with me.

Me = lazy.

.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Patrick said:


> If I was going somewhere new, I would get in better shape before the trip, and then have no qualms about taking everything with me.


This is my first trip outside the US (Canada and the Caribbean don't really count) so I'm taking a subset of my gear with me. I'll also be taking a little Canon SD450 point & shoot for those times when I don't want to pack around the big artillery.


----------



## Richard in NC (Oct 23, 2005)

Patrick said:


> Nice bag and at a great price!
> 
> I have a theory that Canon shooters use Tamrac bags, and Nik*n shooters use only Lowepro. :eeps:
> 
> ...


You're 1/2 right! I'm a 22 year Nikon SLR user. My main bag is a Beseler but I've got a Lowepro fanny pack. The fanny pack is great for day trips. Its smaller and less hassle than a back pack. The D200 and mounted 18-200 just fit. I also have room for a 2nd lens, spare battery & memory, filters, lens cloth, etc. The 70-200 is a bit big for it unless I carry the camera around my neck.
When traveling long trips, I've got a multipurpose carry-on that has room for the camera, lap top, some accessories, and a change of clothes. Or I carry the lap top seperately as a 2nd carry on when I need more space for business. I check a suit case with the majority of clothes and remaining accessories (fanny pack, etc).

I've learned my lesson travelling: Since 2004 I've flown 4 round trips and have had checked luggage not arrive with me 3 of the 8 travel times.


----------



## yahtzee (May 30, 2007)

The attached pic is my favorite reason for owning the 50mm 1.8. At $100, it is a no brainer to own and doesn't take up any room in a bag. I shoot with a D200 and mainly a 17-55 2.8. Also have been shooting with the 85mm 1.4 and the 70-200vr 2.8 for a while but sold them both recently as I wasn't using them as much anymore.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

not to take any credit from you (that pic is fantastic) but if that lens had VR, you could read the print on that bracelet.


----------



## yahtzee (May 30, 2007)

Boile said:


> not to take any credit from you (that pic is fantastic) but if that lens had VR, you could read the print on that bracelet.


Thanks, but I didn't want the bracelet in focus. If it were on the same focal plane as my finger it would have been in focus. Another benefit of the 1.8 is the shallow depth of field that it provides. (you should see the 85mm 1.4)


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

you could be right... what was the speed on that shot?
At first glance. I saw that as a vibration and not focus issue.
But I do see your finger print clearly, so...


----------



## yahtzee (May 30, 2007)

Boile said:


> you could be right... what was the speed on that shot?
> At first glance. I saw that as a vibration and not focus issue.
> But I do see your finger print clearly, so...


1/40th at 1.8. It's tack sharp and in focus......I have an 8x10 in my living room of this shot. My all time favorite picture.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

I agree with Yatzhee. The OOF bracelet is due to the shallow depth of field, nothing with focus or vibration. I think it looks great.

Alex


----------

