Just found the Nikon f1.8 for 90 notes including delivery from Simply Electronics. Anyone heard of them or done business with before?

So tempting.

*must not purchase*
*must not purchase*
*must not purchase*

I might sell my nikon 50mm F1.4 its so frustrating

Early on in this thread you hated it, then you loved it, now you hate it again. You'll be able to get a good price on ebay, but should you decide to bin it you know how to get in touch.

Still wouldn't be without my 1.8...

Stick with it, it'll be worth it in the end!

Found the Nikon for 76 on what appears to be an unsecure website which would charge 20 for delivery. Another website was offering a price match and free delivery. If they can match then I'll buy it. [/justification]

*crosses fingers*

They've been around for a few years now; I've certainly heard of them but not done business with them. I use them as a price yardstick as they are usually very competitive.

Has anyone seen (and can perhaps post a link to) a comparison of two identical photos, one 35mm on a crop and the other 50mm on full frame?

If you can hang on a day or two, I can go out and furnish you with something very close (50mm on a 35mm body, and a 35mm from the kit zoom on my DSLR).

Cheers, I've not managed to find anything on the internets other than the difference of the crop for subjects at some distance, where FOV is more obvious than perspective.

Perhaps not the most inspiring of subjects or original framing, but here we are.
Matched the f-stops on both, the exif tells me I was actually on 34mm not 35mm, so apologies.

Film body, 50mm Prime:


Digi body, kit lens at 34mm (doh!):

Alex, you've gone to a lot of trouble and I really appreciate the effort, thanks.

Now to say my eyes are untrained is probably an under statement, but to me those images look almost identical. For some reason, probably because of only seeing the crop comparisons beforehand, I was expecting the perspective to be quite different between the two. It isn't, or maybe not enough to make a difference, and so why all the magazines and websites rely on the crop factor to make an impact on the images they use.

Having a D90 I've been trying to decide on a 35 or 50 and wasn't that sure despite what I had read that a 35 would be a good choice. Now all I need to do is to include what I've seen here with the likelihood of going full frame down the line, and the costs of the relevant 35/50 lenses that are available now.

What do you think of the results you've produced?

Thanks again.

I'd like to have another go, with a better composition.
I'm not sure there's enough range (foreground to background) to make a really good go at things, so perhaps next week I'll take both cameras out to the beach and get a shot from there, see what I can come up with.

I disagree. Nice Camero!

Tamron and Nikon both have focal length comparitors (?) on their websites. It makes it quite easy to jump between focal lengths and fx/dx bodies. The trouble is that because they cater for 600mm lenses the scene is massive and won't show a perspective difference, also I'm not sure if the imgae they show for the settings chosen is effective or real. I think the Nikon is more real as a subject in the image they use does move, showing that different shots have been taken, but again you can only see this when you are between 500-600mm.

Anyway, it sounds like you are quite interested as well.

Could you do 50mm on the digi body to see how it compares to 50mm on the 35mm body? If I understand it the perspective will be the same but the FOV different? (I guess which is why on the camaro pics the 'crop' if you will looks identical even though the focal lengths of the lenses are different yet the perspective looks a little different).