35mm vs 50mm

[matilda]

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.

[maccaroneski]

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.

[matilda]

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

[maccaroneski]

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

[matilda]

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.

[Cage]

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

[I @ M]

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

[arthurking83]

+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!)

[DJT]

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

[maccaroneski]

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

$348 + shipping

[kiwi]

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

[R1titan]

On the D90 i'ld go with a Sigma 30/1.4 for value.

[ving]

i have a d90 and 35/1.8... good combo

[arthurking83]

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?

[matilda]

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.

[N*A*M]

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

[I @ M]

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.

[matilda]

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.