Nikon 50mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2

[mikepalo]

<p>OK based on my last fourm post I answered some Q's I had and others arose, thus is the path of knowledge... Now im looking at these 2 lenses:</p>

<p>AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D<br /> AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D</p>

<p>Which lens do you feel is better for indoor informal Portraiture, AVAILABLE lighting only, no light boxes or studio set-ups. Pros/Cons for each lens against the other?? I am looking for a worth its cost portrait lens to use informally for some individual portraiture as well as family gatherings and the such.... (more for the informal portraiture tho...I can use my 24-85 for the family stuff :p )</p>

<p>Since I always forget to add this info:<br /> I shoot the Nikon D200 and will not be changing to FX any time soon.</p>

<p>(anyone who followed me over from the other 50mm f/1.8 thread .....i referenced the /1.4 here instead of the /1.8 ive been looking at just to see about which lens would be preffered more excluding the money issue the /1.8 would present in comparison)</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D for single portraits, the extra stops of light over the 35mm f/2 are really very significant in my experience and I don't like how close you have to get to the subject with the 35mm lens for portraiture, I prefer a little more distance.</p>

<p>The 35mm is better suited for group shots and general walk around photo useage - this was my experience with these two lenses on D200 /300.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The 35 f/2 would work as a normal lens on DX, while the 50 f/1.4 would be a short-tele. For portraits, or more specifically to prevent the "big nose" effect, the 50mm FL should the more preferred FL for portaits. On the other hand, the 35 could be useable for full body formal portaits or environmental portraits. The 50 f/1.4 is noticeably faster than the 35 f/2, which's a good thing for low light situations and background blurring.</p>

<p>As far as the 50 f/1.8 is concerned, I think it is a lens with a better price/performance ratio than both the 50 f/1.4 and 35 f/2. For $100, it already feature a metal mount, and a rubber MF ring with a distance scale. It is also extremely sharp from f/4 to f/8 (if not sharper than the f/1.4 50mm lens); it also has less distortion and CA than the f/1.4 lens.</p>

<p>Maybe you should just get the 50 f/1.8 for now, since it's good and cheap. You should be able to determine what lens to get next from your own experience with the 50 f/1.8.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Indoor portraits... that covers a lot of ground. If you have one of the kit zooms (like an 18-70) you can do some experimenting to understand what a given focal length presents you in terms of the perspective that results from where you stand. <br /><br />For torso and headshots, 50mm on your D200 makes pretty good sense. If you need to shoot a head-to-toe portait, and have a little room for compostion and cropping, you'll need to be at <em>least</em> 15-17 feet from your subject (and don't forget to leave room between your subject and what's behind <em>them</em>. For a group of people, 50 can feel very long. For a head shot 30-35mm can feel too wide. Hence the justified popularity of Nikon's 17-55/2.8 for social shooting on a DX body.<br /><br />I spent the evening of last Tuesday's inauguration day doing event portraits at a big reception/ball. I used Sigma's 30/1.4 almost the entire time, despite having many other options in my bag. I was shooting in low light (using a D200, like you) and appreciated the help that an f/1.4 lens was giving to the camera's AF system. Remember, even if you don't actually shoot at f/1.4, it's still making for a brighter viewfinder and gives the AF system more to chew on.<br /><br />You've definitely got to consider what style of shooting and what physical circumstances you're facing before you'll know if the 30-ish-mm or the 50mm focal length is most helpful to you. If you DO decide that the "normal" (non-telephoto) field of view of a 30-or-so lens is going to be generally more useful, then yes... you've got to decide which lens you're after. Don't rule out the Sigma. You'll find the faster (and substantially quieter!) focusing to be very noticeable, and I find that it's important to serve as a personal counterweight to the loud but small group who insist on telling you that lens isn't worthy of a look. Mine has been a true gem, from the moment I started using it, and through lots of rough handling.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Do you live in an 8,000 sq ft McMansion, or an 800 sq ft. apartment? In this case, it matters. Indoors, the 50mm (effective 75mm on your dx cam) is going to have you backing into corners, but that perspective will be more flattering than the closer one afforded by the 35 (effectively 50mm). Neither will get you much background, so things like your daughter's Barbie collection will end up lost in time.</p>

<p>All lenses are a compromise. Here, it's the short tele vs normal thing. One has a wider coverage, the other forces you back into a more flattering perspective -- for a given crop.</p>

<p> You must already have some sort of kit lens. I know you're big on available light for this prime lens acquisition, but you could extend the range of focal lengths available with a good Nikon flash on your camera, and learning bounce flash. It's an extremely useful skill for the family chronicler, and all photographers to know.</p>

<p> </p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>I have the 35mm f/2. Great lens but hardly what I would call a portrait lens. Quick story....... I attended a wedding a couple years ago. The second shooter was doing portraits of all the guests. Nice background, good lighting, and of course, the hope was people would buy prints. </p>

<p>After he took the photo of me and my wife, I asked to look at it in-camera. The top third of the photo was background. Why? Because he used too wide a lens. For whatever reason, he used the 35mm on a D200. To be turned into a nice print, every portrait photo had to be cropped. Big mistake.</p>

<p>I prefer the longer lenses for portrait work unless you want full body shots. In that case, the 50mm f/1.4 will be far more practical generally unless you are very squeezed for space.</p>

 

[roman_thorn1]

<p>35/f2 for enviromental portraits..when I want plenty of background<br>

50/1.8 for studio portraits where I don't have much working space<br>

85/1.8 for field portaits where I have plenty of room and can shoot in a candid fashion<br>

I use DX and FX: usualy the 35/f2 stays on FX and my 85 on DX. For me, this is a great set up. Honestly though, the 35/f2 for intimate portraits is not very flattering.</p>

[sebazzo]

<p>I can attest to the usefulness of the Sigma 30 1.4 as a general lens but for portraiture this is in IMHO not the lens to go for.</p>

<p>On top of the 30mm focal length (perspective-wise, it stays a 30mm also on a DX body, the picture is only cropped due to the smaller sensor), you get a barrel distortion that enhances the effects of the focal length even more. Personally, this doesn't bother me as I'm using it for night walkaround, but as dedicated portrait lens you're better off with the 50mm.</p>

<p>Of course, you asked for the 35 f/2 in comparison with the 50mm, but apart from the better behaved distortion of the 35mm Nikkor (compared to Sigma), you will have a similar outcome, i.e. portrait = 50mm and up.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Hi Michael - I responded to your last thread and am interested in your deliberations. I also own both of the lenses you mention here.<br>

In terms of your SPECIFIC question as to which of these 2 lenses is better for indoor informal portraiture on a D200, then its clearly the 50/1.4<br>

But having answered what you specifically asked I'll now re-put my broader opinion for you to think about which is that while probably good for the specific situation that you describe, the 50/1.4 is nowhere near as versatile a lens on DX than the 35/2 and as I said in the other post is in a 'no-mans-land' in terms of equivalent focal length.<br>

Speaking personally, when I had a 50mm as my only prime (on DX) I was always frustrated. It was not wide enough for indoor general use or to give any width out-doors, nor was it tight enough to get 'right in' to a face or feature without being quite close to the subject.<br>

A 30 or 35mm focal length is far better for general indoor shots (and as it becomes a normal lens on DX pretty much anywhere) and an 85mm especially with DX crop factor is much better for close portraiture. I'm keeping my 50/1.4 as its a nice bit of glass and I use it from time to time, but I actually don't think it will really return to being a frequently used lens for me until I switch to FX at which time it reverts to being a 'normal' lens and takes the place that my beloved 35 occupies now.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Thank you all for your opinions and feelings. It seems in this area the more information I have the simply more confused I get as to which lens would be best. That may be because I do not have a specific use in mind that this is occuring. I am jsut looking for a lens which i can use to play with. I have rather limited experience shooting people and would like to gain some experience and experiment.</p>

<p>I know I want a fast lens because shooting people most of my opportunities will be indoors and I don't like the flares that pop up flashes tend to create in tight settings (and no I do not have the money to buy a speed flash. I would love to but its kinda, a Lens or a Flash, scenario).</p>

<p>I know I would like a prime lens in this scinario because I have a prime 60mm macro and fell in love with the sharpness I get from the lens being a prime...also zooms indoors personally are kinda a lazy man's out in my eyes... unless u do live in an 8000sq ft mansion....move ur feet a lil bit to get ur shot framed as ud like, it will be one or two steps for crying out loud lol.</p>

<p>Also I am not to interested in just headshot portraiture so thats y im leaning away from the 50mm. I would like to work more with the full body, and possibly some environmental portraits more then jsut with stoic upper body shots.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>35 is wide enough to make a face un-flattering.<br>

It's simple. You need both. Also, that 60 is not a bad portrait lens either!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Indeed! If you've already got the 60mm, then by all means, you want the 30mm as your next stop. </p>

[mikepalo]

<blockquote>

<p>35 is wide enough to make a face un-flattering.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is only when shooting up close like if i was using a 30mm to shoot upperbody/headshot correct??</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>This is only when shooting up close like if i was using a 30mm to shoot upperbody/headshot correct??<br /></em><br />Right! Actually, even torso shots aren't horrible at 30mm - but close head shots would be.<br /><br />Just because I can't stop myself... below is one of a series from Tuesday night. Yes (*sigh!*), I got talked into shooting an inaugural party, and they had one of those campy stand-up cut-out Obama posters there (which everyone just <em>had</em> to have in their pictures - so, there you have it!). Much to my surprise, I had over 100 group customers - but that's another story. This shot was taken from about 9 feet away, using a 30mm lens on a DX body. It's cropped down to a 5x7 aspect ratio, so a bit is missing from the top and bottom of the original 2:3 formatted framing - but the width is basically just as shot. I was printing on the spot, right from JPGs (though I kept the RAWs as well), so I had to get the image as right as possible, right out of the camera.<br /><br />If I'd needed to make the same image with a 50mm lens, I would have been the better part of 20 feet away, to leave room for any cropping at all. In my case, I would have then fallen off of the stage where they had their backdrop set up. 50mm would have been completely unworkable. Notice that there's nothing at all wrong with the perspective on these two nice ladies.</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>And if it helps with your spatial orientation and sense of scale, here's a longer shot of the set where that was taking place. Picture me at the lip of that stage, with one foot on the stop step, achieving the point of view that you see in the image above. A "normal" (on DX) focal length of 30mm is incredibly handy, that way.</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>And for the pixel peepers out there, here's a 100% crop from the top example, just in case there's some fretting over the Sigma 30/1.4 used in this way.</p><div></div>

[mikepalo]

<p>Now personally matt the 35mm Nikon or the 30mm sigma in ur eyes? All my previous lenses are Nikons but i do know that their are some lenses out there by other brands which are of = or better craft quality and that Nikon would be glad to brand as their own. You have mentioned this Sigma lens a few times now...y are u SO partial to it?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>are u SO partial to it?<br /></em><br />I'm not some rabid fanboy of Sigma or that particular lens - I just use it regularly, and like it. I like that it's an HSM (like Nikon's AF-S) focusing mechanism, which makes it silent and very fast. I like that it's f/1.4 instead of f/2. If Nikon was shipping a 30/1.4 AF-S at the time I bought it, I'd have given Nikon a serious look, of course. But they weren't... and still aren't! But even it they were, I'm not so sure that I'd prefer Nikon's recipe over Sigma's in this case, because one of the reasons I like a fast prime is for the shallow focus capabilities... and then I have to consider the <em>qualities</em> of that out-of-focus rendering. If Nikon's latest 50/1.4 is an indication (especially compared to Sigma's new 50/1.4 HSM) of how the bokeh would look on a new Nikon 30/1.4, then I might still prefer the Sigma. Sorry to make it such a complex topic!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>love the 'scene of the crime' shot, matt. nice work. now about that sigma 30 bokeh...</p><div></div>

[mikepalo]

<p>no complex is good I am a bit of a knowledge freak when it comes to decisions....I prefer to have all the information before i go in and buy something that I end up not likeing or using because of something i didnt know. ... basically what your saying...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If Nikon's latest 50/1.4 is an indication (especially compared to Sigma's new 50/1.4 HSM) of how the bokeh would look on a new Nikon 30/1.4,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>....is ur not a fan of the the Bokeh that the 50/1.4 produces?....</p>

<p>CAN ANYONE POST A PIC.. of a shot from the 50/1.4 with this harsh bokeh. Because I unsdersatnd the concept but I have not seen it yet in what is considered Harsh, I know it very subjective.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Harsh:<br /><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00Qpvt-70785984.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br /><br />Not as harsh:<br /><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QpvA-70785684.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

[mikepalo]

<p>thats what i was kinda thinking...but ....well call me a newbie....but...cnat u control that sort of thing through the manipulation of ur f/ and shutterspeeds?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Nope. Both of those images are at the same aperture and shutter speed. What you're seeing is a function of the design of the lens and the materials used. Different designs, different flavors of glass, different iris configurations, different approaches to correcting spherical distortion... all of those things impact the way that the out of focus areas are rendered.<br /><br />In the examples above, the top one (with the harsh, ring-shaped out of focus highlights) is a Nikon 50. The bottom example is from a Sigma 30. The new Nikon 50/1.4G will look a little better than the top example above, but the new Sigma 50/1.4 has demonstrated much better behavior. If you start Googling for examples of each lens's bokeh, you'll get plenty to sink you teeth into.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Another thing I am looking at. I have been reading the reviews around on amazon and across the web on the Sigma 30/1.4 and I consistently see the same argument ....that while yes at high light f/6 f/8 f/11 the lens performs spectacularly. But That down in low light situations, at /1.4 /2.8 and even sometimes at /3.5 that there are major issues with the lens with focusing forcing many people to have to manually focus at the faster stops...<br /> <br /> Also there was reference a few times to an over exposure issue.... something with "uneven blades" causeing the image to over expose...?<br /> Do you have any personal experience with either of this</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I find that most people who complain about the 30/1.4 also happen to be using their first ever lens that actually has such a wide maximum aperture. When your subject is up close and you're shooting wide open, you have a VERY shallow depth of field. That's not a function of that particular lens, it's going to be true of any lens of the same focal length and aperture.<br /><br />If you play around with a depth of field calculator (<strong><a href="http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">like this one</a></strong>) and plug in values for your camera body and a 30/1.4 (or a 50/1.4, for that matter), you'll see that in some circumstances you've got well under an inch of usably in-focus DoF. Many users don't have the initial patience to learn how to get their camera to focus where they want it, or don't understand that the marginal focus sensors on their camera aren't as accurate, or don't understand that doing the focus, lock, re-compose maneuver at certain distances will throw the focal plane well out of where they need it to be. <br /><br />To answer your question: NO. I have not experienced any front focus, back focus, incorrect exposures or unacceptable sharpness. When the lens is wide open at f/1.4, it's quite sharp in the center, but the very margins of the frame are a tiny touch soft - which is hardly surprising.</p>