User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: 35mm vs 50mm

  1. #1
    Member matilda's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2008
    Location
    Stawell, Vic
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    35mm vs 50mm

    ok i'm tossing up if i should go a 35mm f/2d or a 50mm 1.4d prime lens.

    I am much preferring prime lens over the kit lens (which i'm selling).

    At the moment I am leaning more to the 35mm as I like the flexibility of the wider angle.

    ooh i can't decide so i'm asking for your opinion.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Get the 35mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8 and get both for less than the cost of one of the two options mentioned....

    I am assuming that you are looking at the 35 f2 as opposed to the 1.8 for future FF compatibility? I think that it will hold its value well if you ever go FF and need to sell it.

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    matilda's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2008
    Location
    Stawell, Vic
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well as i have been searching online, all the 35mm i have found have been the 2, i haven't found any 1.8's

    hmm, looks like I need to do some more browsing. It would be awesome if I could get both, but atm, i'm leaning towards 35mm

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/...idProduct=2218

    I have it on a D90 and it is a cracking little lens for the money.

    $227 for the 1.8 versus $320 for the f2 - and the 50mm 1.8 is only $121. So I lied - $27 more for the two lenses than just buying the 35mm f2

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter
    matilda's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2008
    Location
    Stawell, Vic
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i was just on that website, omg how did i miss that one!

    Thanks heaps.

    hmm.... it's tempting to get both that's for sure.

  6. #6
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,350
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Matilda,

    I notice on your wish-list is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, so it's really a no brainer.

    The 35mm isn't really a wide lens, and with the extra stop the 50 f/1.4 should win hands down, IMHO.

    My kit consists of a 15mm, 40mm, 70-210 (which I will update for a faster version when I can afford it) 105 macro and a 300mm.

    Hope this helps.

    Kevin
    Cheers
    Kev

    D600 : D7200 and too much stuff to list

  7. #7
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

    Bought one a few weeks back and it is far more suited field of view IMHO than the 50mm on a DX body.

    AF 50mm f/1.8D

    Had this one for years and it has always been a fantastic lens for the price and now using it on an FX body it feels so much more at home than on a Dx body.

    I reckon you should be able to pick both up for under $350.00
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  8. #8
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    +1(million) for getting the f/1.8 versions of both the 35mm and the 50mm.

    this way you get more variety as the need arises.

    for roughly the same price of a single 50/1.4D, you get .. more(variety!)
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  9. #9
    Member DJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2009
    Location
    Werrington, NSW
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you can grab the 35 f/2 that way if you go full frame in the future you don't have to buy it again it is an absolute gem of a lens on dx. Though I'm sure the 1.8 is also a great lens .

    I also have 50mm f/1.4, but crikey I can't remember the last time I put it on the camera. If I ever go FF that will probably change, so I'm hanging on to it.

    If just portraits is your thing then go 50 over the 35. If it's a bit of an allrounder and you can only get 1 then go the 35 you wont be sorry

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post

    I reckon you should be able to pick both up for under $350.00
    $348 + shipping

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yep, agree with all that. But, I think having a 35 and a 50 is silly if youre still building up a collection, just go the 35 1.8
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  12. #12
    Member R1titan's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    702
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On the D90 i'ld go with a Sigma 30/1.4 for value.
    Canon User

  13. #13
    Amor fati!
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i have a d90 and 35/1.8... good combo

  14. #14
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Isn't the Sigma more expensive than the Nikon 35/1.8?

    They're both Dx only lenses.. even though many reports seem to indicate that the 35/1.8 can work ok on fullframe bodies, at/or close to full frame situations.

    According to Bjorn, and some of his image results, I think the mechanical vignetting is minimal close in, and only vignetting at infinity. Andrew, can you confirm that?

  15. #15
    Member
    Threadstarter
    matilda's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2008
    Location
    Stawell, Vic
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i need to update my wish list, cause i'm not sure if i want the Tokina now lol.

    I'm in no rush for it, i need to sell gear 1st.

    I am more after a all rounder. I might go the 35mm and then save up and get myself the 50mm as my chrissy pressie.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    271
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hi matilda,

    i've owned the 35 f/1.8, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, and the tokina 11-16 f/2.8. the only one i still own now is the 35 f/2, which says more about my needs than the quality of the equipment.

    the AF-S 35 is a no brainer if you want to stick to DX. it's cheap, works well, is AF-S, is more weather sealed, compact, "normal" field of view is perfect for DX.

    the AF-D 35 is worth it if you also shoot film or full frame. it is a very good performer, focuses very fast, has a very short minimum focusing distance and gives a medium wide field of view in full frame. i use this lens heavily on DX and on film. i am hanging out for a 35 f/1.4.

    the AF-D 50 f/1.8 really is a thrifty lens - bang for buck it is up there. i find the effective focal length neither here nor there on DX. it's too long to be wide and too short to be tele, if you know what i mean. it works very well for loosely composed headshots. on film, it's field of view is "normal" and thus quite easy to compose with.

    the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is a good performing, fast and ultrawide lens. solidly built, quality optics, fast aperture, but let down by chromatic aberations. if you need it, you need it. i could be wrong, but i don't think you can get 11mm f/2.8 any other way. but it is a different beast to the other primes. definitely worth trying out one day, but it wasn't a keeper for me. i just don't shoot ultra wide.

    hth
    Thanks,
    Nam

  17. #17
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    Andrew, can you confirm that?
    You had to do something to destroy the peace and quiet around here didn't you.

    All images straight from the camera/s as NEF files and then all image adjustments turned off in Capture NX, resized and saved as jpegs.

    It doesn't take but a few minutes in Capture NX to turn the DX lens images into useful shots on an FX body.










  18. #18
    Member
    Threadstarter
    matilda's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Nov 2008
    Location
    Stawell, Vic
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    fyi i ended up getting both.

    i use the 35mm a little more over the 50mm but i love them both, so glad i got them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •