35 f/1.8 vs 50mm f/1.8 ??!

evphotography

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens vs Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens


trying to decide which one I want to get. can you give me pros and cons of each!

Thanks Emily!

evphotography

ziggy53

Is this for use on your Nikon D60 camera?

What applications do you intend for the lens?

cab.in.boston

evphotography wrote:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens vs Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens


trying to decide which one I want to get. can you give me pros and cons of each!

Thanks Emily!

evphotography

I have both, and they're both good. The 35mm is very close to the "normal" or "standard" length on the crop sensor in your D60. The 50 is a short telephoto length for your camera. Further, being an AF-S lens, the 35 will autofocus on your D60, but the 50 will not. To AF the 50, you need a screw-drive motor in the body of the camera, which means you need a D90 or above (D300, D700, D3).

So like Ziggy said, what do you want it for? The 35 is a nice lens for general purpose use, and will autofocus for you. The 50 is a nice short telephoto, can be used for some portrait applications, but you must manually focus it. Both are small, light, relatively inexpensive, and produce nice pictures.

Mav

I've just bought the 50mm for my D90 - as others have said, it's actually more telephoto than you expect. I've also found that, using autofocus, it's not always been that sharp, even with a deeper DOF. Although that could well be user error on my part.

What is a revelation is indoor photography and how much light it can let in compared to my 18-200mm.

Ozzwald

35mm 1.8 vs 50mm 1.8
Christmas is right around the corner, so i started my Christmas list and came upon a dilemma...

So first of all, not really sure what the specific type of shooting i'll use either lens for. guess kind of just a nice do it all walk around, like a point and shoot almost.

I am basically torn between the two...i could purchase both, not to expensive...but would like to save some money. I was wondering which one you guys prefer, would like to hear from the people who own both. Is it worth getting both?

I know a lot of people refer to the 50mm as the nifity fifty, but after looking around started seeing people who used their 35mm as much as a fifty. I have used a fifty and like the fast aperture, but would just like some thought on the 35 as i have never used it before.

-P.S. also just another thing i was wondering, when do camera companyies such as nikon usually release/press release their new lens line ups?

*EDIT*searched this topic...didn't know the other thread was recent, sorry for double post.

ziggy53

Ozzwald wrote:

... *EDIT*searched this topic...didn't know the other thread was recent, sorry for double post.

No problem. Threads merged.

Like any lens you should base your purchase on need. If you need the FOV that the 35mm lens provides, roughly normal on a crop Nikon "DX" series camera, then that is probably more apprpriate.

If you desire a bit more reach, the 50mm is a bargain.

Many photographers will have both in their lineup and they are both good lenses to have.

Ozzwald

Would you guys rather back up with a 50mm or switch to a 50mm from a 35mm?

cab.in.boston

Ozzwald wrote:

Would you guys rather back up with a 50mm or switch to a 50mm from a 35mm?

For a while after we got our D90 before the 35 arrived, the 50 was the widest lens we had. I got very frustrated sometimes because when you're indoors, you can only back up so far before architecture interferes. Since you have down to 28 on your zoom, perhaps this won't bother you as much.

It's really a question only you can answer. Try setting your zoom to 50 and using it without adjusting for a while, then repeat with it set at 35. Do you prefer either FOV? I really can't recommend either lens over the other. Both are nice, small, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. I'm guessing that the D80 has the AF motor in the body, same as the D90, but if it doesn't, keep in mind that the 50 won't AF.

The 35 is also nice because it is AF-S, meaning you can always manually override the focus without damaging anything. But the 35 doesn't have a distance scale on it, while the 50 does. Like I said, it's only a question you can answer. Having both is nice, because sometimes I want the extra reach of the 50 but want the f/1.8 (like when my daughter is in swim class and I can't get up close to her, but there isn't much light at the indoor pool), but I really like the FOV of the "normal" 35 lens. You could always get both, see if you use both, and if not, sell or return one.

Ozzwald

What about in a party or family gathering situation, which would you rather have a 35 or a 50...i know you said you liked the 35mm for cramped situations, is the 50mm to long for typical small to medium gatherings?

cab.in.boston

Ozzwald wrote:

What about in a party or family gathering situation, which would you rather have a 35 or a 50...i know you said you liked the 35mm for cramped situations, is the 50mm to long for typical small to medium gatherings?

That depends. It depends on how many are in the picture, and how big your room is. The 50 may be fine if you have only a few people at a time or a larger room where you can back up further. It's not like the 50 is a super telephoto or anything, you should easily be able to get at least a few people in the frame together. But it will compress the distance a bit more than the 35, which is why I say I like having the "normal" length of the 35 as well. FWIW, my wife's favorite lens is the 35. I tend to prefer our newish Tamron 17-50 2.8, b/c I like the wide angle it offers, but my wife really loves the 35. Neither of us use the 50 all that much anymore, but it is nice to have in the bag.

Again, the best advice I can give is to just set your zoom to 35 and 50 and play around for a bit without changing focal lengths. Does one appeal to you more? Do you like both? You'll have to imagine what the extra 1 1/3 stops that the f/1.8 will get you in the prime, but for FOV, you will be able to tell what the difference is. It's not a monumental difference, but you will notice it.

Ozzwald

Hmmm, took your advice and took some pics...i also went back through some of my older photos with my 18-50...seems like an even split between ~35mm and 50mm.

i think ill end up picking up both...still cheaper then a 17-55mm F/2.8 nikon lens. I hope i like the 50mm though, since i think ill be picking up the 1.4. Will see if i get tired or switch lens to often to where it is inconvenient...

cab.in.boston

Ozzwald wrote:

i think ill end up picking up both...still cheaper then a 17-55mm F/2.8 nikon lens.

That's an understatement!

I hope i like the 50mm though, since i think ill be picking up the 1.4. Will see if i get tired or switch lens to often to where it is inconvenient...

That is supposed to be a very nice lens, the extra 2/3 of a stop over the 1.8 should be quite useful. And of course, if you don't love it, you can either return it (if you decide soon enough that you don't like it) or put it up for sale and you should be able to get most of the price back for it. Good luck!