Nikkor 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8?

<p>Hi Guys,</p>

<p>I have yet to check out these lenses. I planning to buy a prime lens. So before I go venturing off to buy I would like to hear everyone's experience, opinion or advice on which one to choose.<br>

<br /> Thank you in advanced.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Mark,<br>

Well, it depends on what kind of work you will be doing with the lens, and what kind of camera/sensor size you have. If you have a digital sensor, you won't get the actual focal length that the lens is offering. So, with a digital sensor, your 35mm will be more like 55mm, and your 50 more like 80. So, it depends on which focal length you see yourself using, or needing, more. You can always crop in from a wider angle, but you obviously can't "gain" more of the scene later. Other than that, I think the ruling of which is the better lens in more 50/50.</p>

 

<p>To start with, the 50 f/1.8 is a lens that everyone should have. At its price it is a bargain and you won't find any bad comments about it. It is a very fast lens with a very nice bokeh. Very useful for portraits when use with a DX a camera and it's consider to be an standard lens on FX. It's small and light. easy to carry and very useful when shooting in dim light. <br>

The 35 f/1.8 is DX lens. So it will depend on what cameras(s) you have to see if it is convenient for you. I don't have any experiences with it but all the reviews tend to talk good about it.</p>

<p>i have a nikon d90. . any idea which lens would be better for this?</p>

<p>Mark, a D90 is a cropped camera. What that means is that a 50 mm lens will have an angle of view equal to 75 mm and the 35 will have an angle of view of 52.<br /> If you have a kit lens with your D90 you can easily compare what would be best for you. Let's say if you have a zoom lens like 18-55 or 18-70 you can easily set the lens to 35 mm and shoot with it. then do it again with the lens set to 50 mm and you will see what kind of lens is more favorable for you.<br /> The only difference will be that the 50 can be used with either DX or FX cameras but the 35 can only be used with DX cameras like your D90.</p>

<p>I used to use the 50mm lens on my D90 but switched to the 35mm; I don't do portraits so the 35mm was a better choice for me as a walk-around prime lens and I haven't had any regrets. cb</p>

<p>I see. . I would try that out. Thanks for the info. It gave me a clear perception between the two. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>You need to decide on the use of a lense before purchase. Either lens will work on your D90. They have different fields of view. You need to decide what field of view you require then purchase the lens that fits the need. The 50mm f1.8 is a bargin only if it works for you. I have used a 50mm with a D70 and D200. I now use it on a D700. Since the D90 has a focus motor you could also look at a used AF-D 35mm f2. Lots of folks here like the Sigma 30mm f1.4 but I have not used one.</p>

<p>Hi Mark, I have D90 as well as the Nikon 50f1.8 and a Sigma 30f1.4. Nothing wrong with owning both. I love the "nifty 50" as I call it. When you are just walking around it makes a great one to keep on your camera. So small and light it makes it a pleasure to carry. For portraits is also very good and great Bokeh, but I will say the Sigma 30 f1.4 has the best Bokeh out of any lenses that I have. <br>

I'm with Rene who said for the money it should be in all bags of those that are interested. I do not believe you could go wrong with it.<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>Mark - I had asked the same question last week - so you can gleam over that thread here as well <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VgDV">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VgDV</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is a very fast lens with a very nice bokeh.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>sorry, rene, beg to differ. the 50/1.8 has bokeh, but it's somewhat nervous and jittery. same thing with the 35/1.8.</p>

<p>to the OP, for a general purpose low-light lens on a Dx body, the 35 is the way to go. the difference between it and the 50 is that the 50 is better for portraits, but the 35 is better for everything else, especially indoors where the 50 might be too long.</p>

<p>Considering the price of the 50, there is no excuse not to have one.</p>

<p>I'd get the 35/1.8. I'm very happy with it on my D90. The ergonomics are terrific, it focuses very quickly and it's excellent close-up.</p>

<p>I'm not of fan of 50mm on DX - 75mm just isn't a pleasing focal length for me.</p>

<p>I have both lenses for my D 300. Both are great. I use the 35mm more than the 50mm when indoors because I prefer its faster AF. Other than that, if would come down to what focal length is better for your applications. If in doubt, get both. Joe Smith</p>

<p>Both is nice.</p>

<p>But I have to say, I used to be a big fan of 50mm lenses on film. I had a 50mm f1.8 when I first got my D50 and loved it. But when I got the 35mm f1.8 I haven't used my 50 for one single significant image since I got it.</p>

I have both lenses. If you asked me to give one up, I wouldn't be able to decide.

<p>Would it tip the decision either way if the 50mm lens was actually 50mm 1.4D instead of 1.8D ? </p>

<p>seems like both are really good lenses. . but I think I'd lean towards the 35mm. . in terms of appearance though. .</p>

<p>Appearance? Are you planning to actually use the lens to take photographs, or what?</p>

<p>Mark, i always strongly recommend 50mm lens whether it's f/1.8 or 1.4. it's versatile, the quality of images are amazing, and it helps you with vision sort of speak. i've been using it on both film and DX bodies. here are some samples (all with 50mm f/1.8 lens)<br /> <a href="http://mooostudios.com/Peru_Rural/peru_rural.htm">http://mooostudios.com/Peru_Rural/peru_rural.htm</a> - film body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. but I think I'd lean towards the 35mm. . in terms of appearance though. .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>both are really cute lenses, actually. the 50 is probably cuter as its just so small and tiny. but as an owner of the 50/1.8 and the (sigma) 30/1.4, i can say the sigma gets used a lot more. i like the 50 for its size, weight and sharpness (not to mention price), but 30 or 35 is just a better focal length on DX than the 50.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 50 1.8 is a very sharp lens. You won't be disappointed. I shot many candid people and portrait shots with this lens on my vacation. It was much sharper than the 18-200 that I had. I shot with the 50 whenever I could.</p>

<p>I have the 50 1.8D and while I love the IQ, it's a little long for landscapes that I usually do now that I've switched to a crop sensor DSLR. I don't have the 35, but I have a 24mm 2.8D and I find myself reaching for it more than the 50 these days. I still use the 50 and plan on keeping it. I just use it differently now, more for things that are closer to me (macro-ish). If I ever win the lottery, I might switch to full frame, and then I'd go back to using the 50 a lot more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To start with, the 50 f/1.8 is a lens that everyone should have. At its price it is a bargain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You know, I've never understood that sentiment. If I followed that advice, I would be up to my eyeballs in junk I don't need, but bought because it was a "bargain." If this will be OP's first prime lens, then I'll assume he has a zoom. If he just takes a few minutes to look at his own pictures to see what zoom setting he uses most often, that will be his best clue as to whether 35 or 50 is the way to go. The next best way would be to walk around with the zoom locked at 35 for day, then at 50 for a day, and decide which setting feels more comfortable.</p>

<p>That's how a real photographer would decide. Who cares what anyone else thinks, or how "cute" or what a "bargain" a lens is? All irrelevant to photography.</p>

<p>Get the 35 mm. It's super sharp (scary!) and lightweight.</p>