Let me say first that there is no one, perfect lens. I know that and I have accepted that. The perfect lens in a given situation differs wildly depending on who is taking the photograph, among other things. How is the photographer feeling? How is the subject feeling? How comfortable is the photographer with the gear they have? I’m certain if you handed me the same location and equipment used to take this picture, I wouldn’t have been able to do it. I don’t know the workings of the cameras that were used, the lenses, and I don’t have a feel for action or sports photography. All of that said, I do have a lens that I have treated as if it is perfect for quite some time. Sadly, the honeymoon is drawing to a close.

The lens was a Christmas gift from my parents in the winter of 2005. An AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D. I was about to move home from the UAE (for a very short period, it turned out) and they had come to visit me. I remember all of this very distinctly, as I took some excellent pictures of them on that trip. However, I have now used and loved the lens for 5 years. And I must say, while it’s depth of field is amazing, and at f/2.8, it’s incredibly sharp, and it allows me to take so many photos in low light conditions that I never could have thought of before – I find it’s slow and loud to focus, has crazy lens flare if I don’t shield it well, and doesn’t offer a lot of versatility in terms of framing. People everywhere talk about the nifty-fifty, referring to 50mm lenses on 35mm SLRs – but this is, in effect, a 75mm lens for those bodies. It’s an excellent portrait lens. It’s indispensable when shooting in available darkness. But it’s not a great lens to take pictures of a moving baby – it just can’t keep up with focus, especially at f/1.4, where the depth of field can be measured in finger-widths.

This leaves me wondering, should I try to replace the lens with it’s newer brother, the $430 USD, AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G? It’s pretty much the same lens, but with a fast, quiet focusing system. Or should I be looking at something more like the Pioneer Woman’s current favorite, an AF 35mm f/2.0? It will give me the larger framing area, and still be mighty quick. It’s also nearly $100 cheaper. But, it’s a full stop slower, and I’m often hanging out on the edge of light, with my ISO cranked all the way up to 1600 and trying as hard as I can not to breathe, so the 1/40th of a second exposure comes out somewhat sharp. Another part of me says that I should replace the camera body, not the lens – move to a full frame sensor (which fixes the framing problem) and gives me ISO 6400 as a regularly useable setting, with 12,800 available in ¹⁄₃ stop increments as needed. Of course, a full frame camera costs serious money, as do a wide assortment of fast primes, or an f/2.8 professional zoom.

While I like to daydream about what a new lens would do for my photography, I do recognize is the old adage about cameras applies to lenses as well – the best lens is the one you have with you.