35mm f1.8 and f2 users on DX... Do you even use your 50?

<p>Okay, I'm tempted to just find some fine soul who really wants a 50mm f1.8 and sell it. Since I got this 35mm f1.8 I just don't use it, and the 50 is good for portraits but not ideal. (truth is, I want a 60mm length for portraits, not 50).</p>

<p>Any of you guys finding you aren't using that 50 anymore? Are you just going to keep it "just in case"?</p>

<p>I'm really just asking DX users this.</p>

<p>I have the 50mm f1.4 AFS and it is my most used lens.... For dedicated portrait work I use a 85mm f1.4 AFD or 135mm f2....<br />I like my 35mm f1.8 but it only gets occasional use, so would be the first lens to go if I needed to sell....<br>

But I would sell the 50 f1.8 to buy a 50mm f1.4.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 30 and 50 1.4. I use the 30 about four times more often than the 50. The 30 is a general use lens and the 50 is primarily a portrait lens for me. (D200)</p>

<p>I use mine, but that has nothing to do with you. If you don't use yours, sell it and put the money into your 60mm lens fund.</p>

<p>i almost grabbed the 50 yesterday to pair with my 12-24 for a street fair but went for the 50-150 instead. i'd say it's just ok for portraits, besides the just-a-bit-shortness, the nervous bokeh just isnt as smooth as my 2.8 zooms (or the 30/1.4). however, i'm reluctant to let the 50 go as it's just so small and light. and if i ever go FX it'll suddenly become more useful again.</p><div></div>

<p>I pretty much stopped using my 50 f/1.8 since I got the 35 f/1.8 DX, because of several reasons:</p>

<p>#1 My 50 f/1.8 has a loose aperture ring. It has quite a tendency to act up at the worst possible time. <br>

#2 The 35 is a AF-S lens, and since I use my 2nd body: a D40 quite often; it's a far more usable and versatile lens.<br>

#3 The 35's MF ring doesn't rotate during AF, and it's not as noisy as the 50. <br>

#4 The 50 lacks a rear rubber gasket.<br>

#5 The 35 is a wider lens, and in many cases it's a more flexible lens for candid stuff. Its perspective is less ideal than the 50's for formal portraits. But that shortcoming can be compensated with good technique and proper/alternative composition.</p>

<p>Bytheway, if you want a 60, you really ca't go wrong with the 60 AF-S micro. It's an extremely sharp lens. </p>

<p>I reach for a 50 or a 60mm prime for lots of odd jobs, but on a DX, the 30/1.4 is my favorite fixed lens. Otherwise, I'm way off at other ends of the spectrum, shooting at the wider end of a 10-20 ultrawide, or out around 100+mm on a 70-200/2.8. So if I needed to add a new prime to the recipe, it would probably be a 105. But give up the 50? Never. Because more flexibility is always a good thing.</p>

<p>Actually, I don't have a 35 for my Nikon DX, but a 20mm/2.8. It gets only a little more use than my 50/1.4, but my main lens here is the 105/2.8. Would I sell my 50...no, because of its low light capability. I just use the tools I have as circumstances demand...not wedded to a particular lens.</p>

<p>Awhile back I used Wega to graph my EXIF data. Turns out that with various midrange zooms (18-70, 24-120, 35-70) on the D2H, I still tend to use the focal range from 35-50mm quite a bit. The usage peaks seem to favor 35mm and 50mm about equally.</p>

<p>In terms of speed, I still grab the 50/1.8 when f/2.8 isn't quite fast enough. If I had the 35/1.8 I'd probably use it quite a bit. There's a big difference in noise between ISO 800 and 1600 on the D2H so anything that helps with the speed is good. The 50 is a handy focal length on DX.</p>

<p><em>[rant]</em> After several years with various P&S digicams and the DX format D2H, I still don't think in terms of the limitations so many other photographers mention. I never think or see "crop". It has almost zero bearing on my approach. But I felt the same way when using medium format and 35mm side by side. Not once did I ever think "Oh, drat, this 'crop frame' 35mm is limiting me, how-oh-how will I ever adjust between the 80mm normal lens on my MF camera and the 85mm lens on my 35mm? It's just too much strain to deal with." Same with transitioning between DX and 35mm, which I've shot side by side on many occasions. I can't ever once recall thinking "Darn, this 'crop frame' is giving me conniptions." Even with the 28mm PC-Nikkor, I still found it useful on DX, for the same reason large format users find perspective corrections useful with "normal" lenses for their chosen format. I don't get it. Look through the viewfinder, make an adjustment, whether the lens, distance between camera and subject or other influences on composition. <em>[/rant]</em></p>

<p>Scarcely. I have a 35mm f/2, which is a replacement for a Sigma 30mm. I prefer the 35mm f/2 to the 30mm and almost anything, including a Sigma 24-70. My 50mm f/1.8 gets some use at gigs and some use for portraiture, but the 35mm f/2 is a lens I feel absolutely comfortable with. I think as Lex infers this is just because I've used 'normal' length primes on three or four other formats.</p>

<p>I had the sigma 30 1.4 and since I bought the D300 I could never get the focus adjusted right... I have the 50 1.8 and the 35f2 both of which I love to death but I know it's sort of off topic... they don't leave my bag since I bought the 24-70 2.8 I find the boke and colour I get with it is fantastic... so much that I might sell the 35</p>

<p>I bought the 35mm 1.8 and used it all of the time. Then I got my 50mm 1.8 and I have not used my 35mm since. I get so much better pics with the 50 not to mention the boheh is fantastic. Its on my camera all the time, I only take it off to use my macro lens</p>

<p>I am giving my 35mm to my dad. I have no use for it</p>

<p>I dopn't use any lens shorter than 300mm very much except my micros. I wouldn't use a 35mm much unless it was a macro.</p>

<p>Yes for details stuff like the shot in this thread, or sometimes for group portraits (2-5 people) but I do agree that on DX it is a bit of a 'no mans land' focal length and either 35 or 85 are far more useful.</p>

<p>I do landscapes so I don't need fast lenses, a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikon 18-70 probably do it for me and it is so light or even a Nikon 18-55. Maybe a Nikon 80-200/4.5-5.6 for the small size again and a 52mm thread size. </p>

<p>For low light travel work I guess that I do have the 50/1.8 and it has been good but that has been too long for travel for me inside museums and temples and so forth so I think the 35mm/1.8 would be great for me, for travel work I may not take the 50mm. Sometime like a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikon mid zoom DX and this prime. I would like to get a 28 or a 24mm fast lens but they are just too large for me, even if Nikon did release a 24/1.4 AFS for $500US. It is not the price so much but the size.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Nikon 50mm f1.8. I very rarely use the 50mm f1.8 any more, since buying the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 last year. It's a better lens, optically. The 30mm is my "go-to" when f2.8 isn't fast enough in low light. Really, I can't justify having a 30mm and 50mm. The 30mm is a much better lens, and it's a more useful length for me. Doesn't all this depend a lot on what you shoot & how, anyway?<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Why hasn't the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 been in stock at B&H or Adorama for what seems like the last decade? How is it those lenses seem to be in sufficient amounts on ebay, at of course a much higher price than B&H and Adorama would sell them for, if they ever had any? ;-)</p>

<p>When I was shooting with D200 /300 I often used my AF -D 35mm f/2 and rarely used my 50mm f/1.4. Now I shoot FX and the 50mm makes much more sense than ever before, but the 35mm has not fallen out of favour either. On a pure focal length basis i think it's a matter of personal preference. I'm glad I kept my 50mm lens......... </p>

<p>I have the 85mm f1.8 for portraits, and find it to be a much better focal length than the 50, even on DX.<br>

Z</p>

<p>I really like the 50mm perspective on DX; it's just how I "see". I got a 35/1.8 mostly because I use a D40 and most people (esp my daughter) don't like using manual focus. But considering the 35/1.8 is $200 and the 50/1.8 is $120, I see no reason to not have both.</p>

<p>I use my 50mm f1.8 a frequently as I can. It's fast, sharp and light. It gives me just enough background separation to make it fun. The 35mm is great if you really need to get in close.</p>

<p>Since getting the 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.8, the 50mm hardly is used anymore. But it is too low value for resale, and I rather keep it around, just in case.</p>

<p>I have both 35 & 50 f/1.8, and while 35 has seen more use, I still find 50 quite useful, for example last weekend I had both of those lenses with me, but used the 50mm for 90% of the pics I took. But in all honesty, 35mm + 60mm would be better combo for me. Then again the 50mm f/1.8 is so cheap that in my case I see no reason to sell it.</p>