Thinking of one of these for my Nikon D3100:
AF-S DX 35mm F1.8
Will it do the business of helping me get reasonable pics of my daughters band when they play? Without flash is the aim. I’ve tried all the usual tricks, ISO about 800-1600, kit lens (18-55mm) wound out to 18mm, being as steady as possible…

Photo boffins please help.

f1.8 is two stops faster than f3.5.

A stop gives double the light, so assuming both lenses are wide open you’ll get 4x the light at f1.8 versus f3.5.

This will in turn allow you to use a faster shutter, drop the iso or both.

The side effect is a shallower depth of field, which may be desirable.

Also wide open is never the sharpest setting for a lens so even at f3.5 the 1.8 lens should take a better image. A prime is usually sharper too.

Thanks Grav, off to the good burghers of fine lenses I go…

Not sure about your shots specifically, but I have that lens on my D90. It’s brilliant. I love the clarity of the shots it produces. Good lens.

I’ve often wondered how people manage to shoot bands, as its invariably dark and fast moving.

Couple of shots my good friend Mickey Rose managed to capture.

I have the same lens on a D3100 and it’s great. I bought it as a cheap experiment but I’ve hardly used the kit lens since I got it. Can’t vouch for photographs of bands but the clarity is great and it’s really useful for indoor shooting (I don’t use flash as I can never get any decent shots using it).

i have the same lens on my d5000, its superb, very sharp, i bought it for my friends wedding, many of the shots were (semi) low light, it was a success.
ive barely used anything else since.

There’s a 35mm f1.8 Nikon lens on hot uk deals at moment sold by argos

I have an 50mm f1.8 for my Canon 600d, and have managed reasonable results of shots of bands in low light with it.

Untitled by onemozza, on Flickr

Different lens and camera but f1.7 and no flash

[/url]
Beth McCarthy by davetheblade, on Flickr[/img]

[/url]
DSC04031 by davetheblade, on Flickr[/img]

[/url]
Anwyn Williams by davetheblade, on Flickr[/img]

Aye, I have the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens which looks very similar and the results it can achieve in low light are very impressive.
I have borrowed a *much more* expensive f1.4 lens though which was awe-inspiring but couldn’t afford it 😉

yes it will help but……

Don’t right off using the flash or taking photos outside as solutions as well

You could go for the nikon AF 50mm f1.4.
It’s 50mm on a full frame [35mm] sensor so works out about 75mm on a Dx size sensor

An absolutely amazing lens, stunning clarity, the ultra shallow depth of field elevates the image to give a real pro look, even with a more basic Dx camera,. Not to expensive either.

Fantastic for portraiture and probably ideal for photographing bands, giving you a closer crop of the action. Future proof as well for when full frame cameras become more affordable.

Cheap zooms suck. Prime lenses rule.

There’s also the Sigma 30/1.4 which is an excellent lens for low light on a DX camera. (Not sure if it’s kosher to mention here but I have one for sale)

I picked up a sigma 24mm [works out about 35mm focal length on a DX camera] second hand for £100 and it’s as good as the nikon equivalent IMHO.

Sigma have made a lot of awful cheap zoom lenses but their primes can be fantastic.

I picked up a sigma 24mm [works out about 35mm focal length on a DX camera] second hand for £100 and it’s as good as the nikon equivalent IMHO.

Sigma have made a lot of awful cheap zoom lenses but their primes can be fantastic.

Wow, Thanks for all the responses, and especially the sample photos that have been put up. No hesitation now.

😀

Any one had any joy taking one of these on a ride for a smaller lighter camera

TheArtistetc, those photos are stunning, really excellent!

CountZero – Member

TheArtistetc, those photos are stunning, really excellent!

Really? I thought they were nothing too special tbh (obviously apart from the lovely Mrs STR in the middle), but just posted them up to show what a fast lens can do. Thanks though!

Have another

[/url]
DSC03934.1 by davetheblade, on Flickr[/img]

Cheap zooms suck. Prime lenses rule.

Whereas that might have been true once upon a time, with the advent of digital, and in particular smaller sensors, many old skool expensive primes are easily outperformed by even some kit lenses in the wider angles.

If you’re happy with a basic kit zoom then fill your boots!

The op isn’t looking for a wide angle lens though. he needs a wide apeture to let more light in so as to use a faster shutter speed or lower iso. for shooting bands in low light situations. Also a standard or slight telephoto will be more suitable for the portraiture aspect of his requirements.

You cant get that on any cheap kit lens that i’m aware of [correct me if you know of a cheap zoom that will do standard to tele with a 1.8 / 1.4 apeture]. Shallow depth of field is great when it comes to portraits, its one of the great things about medium format cameras, the larger the format, the shallower the depth of field will be for the same apeture on a smaller format camera.

Personaly, i think a prime lens will always have better optics / sharpness than a zoom at a given price point.

Whilst not as versatile, i believe using a prime lens will generally improve your photographic skills with regards composition, you have to think about things a little more.

Being a little facetious, you can often use your feet to move closer or further away from the subject. Think of the Father Ted cows sketch, “these cows are small, those ones are far away’

Any zoom lens is a compromise. Cheap kit lenses are generally terrible when compared to a prime. The Nikon 18-70mm is an exception, but it’s slow. Expensive zooms are pretty good – my old 17-55 was a lively lens but weighed a ton and was only 2.8 (and expensive!). My 24-70 is a lovely lens but I use it only for its versatility and so I don’t have to change lenses every 10 minutes.