|
Post by yashica1943 on Jan 11, 2014 18:51:32 GMT -5
I have been considering buying the above lens for my new Nikon. I thought that they were around £140, so started looking into buying a good used one from ebay or Amazon. Then when I really started investigating, I found new ones for sale from apparently reputable U.K. sources for as little as £86. It seems that even the big distributors/warehouses are getting their prices down to around £110.
Strange then that they regularly sell on ebay used at around £90 and there are still used ones advertised that people are hanging on to try to sell for at £110. I wouldn't now pay more than £55 for a used one in original box with no signs of use.
A used 50mm f 1.8 D AF sold on ebay in the last few hours for £101 ! Madness.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 11, 2014 21:34:31 GMT -5
ebay can be great. I'm sure many sellers rely on those who think everything is cheap because it's on ebay.
I was looking in a second-hand camera shop in Chester last week. There was some good equipment, but some of what I saw is available elsewhere cheaper and in better condition. The Photographer's Bag on ebay gives accurate assessments of what it has for sale. That said, it's surprising (or maybe it isn't) how few standard prime lenses come up for sale. There are always plenty of the "cheap" zooms. I suppose that is just a reflection of what the public buys in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 12:41:00 GMT -5
The 50mm f1.8 usually runs from $90 to $120 US (used) I have one but sever use it because my D50 and D300 are both DX which means the lens cover about the same area as a 75mm lens on a film camera no it's not a "normal" lens unless you have a full size sensore or are shooting film. Personally I've always thought the 50mm was a little long even for film. I consider a 35mm lens more normal.
There are two versions of the 50mm f1.8 D AF lens. The early version was made in Japan and commands a higher price than the later Chinese-made lens. Quality-wise I don't think there is any real difference. W,
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 12, 2014 18:46:23 GMT -5
Wayne, I always found 35mm to be a "nothing" lens. It's not wide angle enough to be "wide-angle" and it's not the best focal length for portraits (on full frame). I had 35 mm lenses for all the film 35mm cameras (SLR and rangefinder) I had but hardly ever used them: particularly after I bought a 24mm Cosina lens. (One of the items I gave away, a few years later, to someone who needed it more than I did.)
50mm on 1.5 or 2 "multiplier" sensors is good for portraits, giving a relatively undistorted image and, being fairly fast lenses, differential focus is possible in camera.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 22:47:03 GMT -5
35mm lens has more depth of field than a 50. Actually on full frame my favorite lens is the 24mm. All depends on your focal length preference. A majority seem to like longer lenses. I always preferred wides -- possibly because when I was a newspaper photographer I often had to shoot in confined space or need the extra depth of field. If I remember a true "normal" lens (mathamatically) on a 35mm camera is somewhere in the mid 40mm range.
(I don't care that much for a 35mm lens in the DX format because it's too long for my tastes.)
|
|