35mm or 50mm prime lens?

[jessica_brighton]

<p>Greetings! I'm brand new here. I have a Nikon D5000. Currently, I just have the kit lens, which is 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6<br>

I'm looking to get a fast lens for indoor photography and portraits. I think I've narrowed it down to two Nikon prime lenses - the 50mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/1.8, but I need some guidance with my decision.<br>

I'm leaning toward the 35mm, and here are my thoughts:<br>

<br />- both lenses are around $200 and both get great reviews<br />- my camera is a DX format (non-full frame, for any non-Nikon users), so I'm thinking the 35mm may be better. I was playing around the house with my 18-55 lens, and found that I had to be at 30-35mm for most shots due to the crop factor. And from what I understand, a 35mm lens will be the equivalent of 50mm on my camera, right? At 50mm, I was too close to even get both of my kids in the frame together if they were on the couch across from me. <br />- My main objective right now is to get a lens that is good for low light / indoor photography. Just from playing around the house, I'm afraid the 50mm (since it behaves more like 75mm on my camera) will put me too close to my subjects most of the time, and make group photos difficult. <br />- My secondary objective was to be able to take nice portraits of the kids. The 35mm scores a bit lower on bokeh, for obvious reasons. However, I am able to take decent outdoor portraits with my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, and get a nice background blur. Not as good as the 50mm would allow, but decent enough for now. And of course, my lens isn't as fast, but it's usually good enough in outdoor lighting.<br />- The only other advantage for the 50mm is that it is not ONLY DX compatible...meaning that if I upgraded to an FX (full frame) camera sometime down the road, this lens would be compatible with that camera as well (and the 35mm wouldn't). But I have no intention of upgrading any time in the near future.<br>

Am I missing anything else that I should be considering? Does anyone think I'd be wrong to go with the 35mm over the 50mm?<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

In your case, that you have no other lenses, I would get the 35mm and at a later date you could add either a longer zoom

or maybe the 85mm f1.8 which is a terrific lens, or maybe a macro lens.

[drjoder]

<p>Jessica, it seems to me you have done your homework and I think you have already made the decision in your mind. Yes, the 35mm will do you well.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I offer a 3rd agreement on the 35. I also have a D5000 and the 35 is just the right focal length and speed for a lot of family photos around the house. It's also very sharp, with excellent color and contrast characteristics. A bit of purple fringing and distortion would automatically be corrected if you shoot jpegs. And at its reasonable price these are not really critical points.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"<I>And from what I understand, a 35mm lens will be the equivalent of 50mm on my camera, right? </I><P>

 

Right.<P>

 

<I>"At 50mm, I was too close to even get both of my kids in the frame together if they were on the couch across from me. </I>"<P>

 

That's because the 50mm was the equivalent of 75mm on your camera. Get the 35mm lens.

[Alan Marcus]

<p>First a tip of the hat – you have done your homework. Tradition dictates that we mount a “normal” lens and then move up to a wide-angle or telephoto. Now a “normal” is defined as having a focal length about equal to the diagonal measure of the format. For your camera that’s about 30mm. Additionally a “normal” gives a field of view horizontally of about 45° (53° diagonally). Many consider that this duplicates the human perspective.</p>

<p>I agree that the 30mm is the better choice for an all-around fast prime. However your existing kit lens covers this range. So my question is why duplicate? Your answer is speed.</p>

<p>Your lens max speed is f/3.5 that’s only two stops slower than a f/1.8. OK, two stops is two stops or stated differently, 4x difference in light gathering power. Is two stops worth the investment?</p>

<p>If you shoot at 100 ISO you can gain two stops by bumping up the ISO to 400. Your argument might be too much noise (counterpart of grain). I say give it a try, you might like it. If by chance you can tolerate the sight noise shortfall, you might find a better use for your money. I suggest a zoom with a greater range might suit you better.</p>

[SCL]

<p>The only thing I would add, is that with a 35 you begin to see perspective distortion in portraits if you get too close (big noses, etc.), so just pay a little extra attention and you should be fine.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The only other advantage for the 50mm is that it is not ONLY DX compatible...meaning that if I upgraded to an FX (full frame) camera sometime down the road, this lens would be compatible with that camera as well (and the 35mm wouldn't). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you prepared well, just to highlight this one point. Yesterday I sold my 35 f/1.8 DX lens at a loss of ~30 euros, since I wasn't using it anymore after getting a FX camera. So even if you would change your mind on getting a full frame camera, the "problem" of having a DX lens isn't really that big - good lenses keep their value.</p>

<p>The 35 f/1.8 is a great little lens, enjoy it ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[mike dixon]

<i>The only thing I would add, is that with a 35 you begin to see perspective distortion in portraits if you get too close (big noses, etc.), so just pay a little extra attention and you should be fine.</i><P>

Perspective distortion in based solely on how close you are to a subject, not on the lens you are using.

[jessica_brighton]

<p>Thanks so much for all the input. I appreciate it.<br>

Alan Marcus wrote:<br>

<em>Your lens max speed is f/3.5 that’s only two stops slower than a f/1.8. OK, two stops is two stops or stated differently, 4x difference in light gathering power. Is two stops worth the investment?</em><br>

<em>If you shoot at 100 ISO you can gain two stops by bumping up the ISO to 400. Your argument might be too much noise (counterpart of grain). I say give it a try, you might like it. If by chance you can tolerate the sight noise shortfall, you might find a better use for your money. I suggest a zoom with a greater range might suit you better.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Help me through this one. On my 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, my max aperture is only f/3.5 when I have the zoom set to 18mm, right? Meaning, I can't get down to f/3.5 when I'm at 35-50mm. I've played around with it a bit, and if I'm at 35mm indoors, and bump the ISO to 3200, it seems the max aperture I can get is f/5. And the color is kind of yellowish. At f/5.6, I can sort of get a clear photo, but I still don't like the color. Am I missing something? Thanks for helping out a newbie. I appreciate the tips. :)</p>

[grh]

<blockquote>

<p>Perspective distortion in based solely on how close you are to a subject, not on the lens you are using.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Um, incorrect.<br>

Perspective distortion is a by-product of the geometry of focal length combined with distance.<br>

Found this with a bit of googling: <a href="http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm">http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm</a></p>

 

[jeff_loughlin1]

<blockquote>

<p> if I'm indoors ... the color is kind of yellowish.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like your white balance is off. Indoor light from incandescent bulbs will have a yellowish cast to it. The auto white balance in your camera will do its best to cope with that, but it usually gets it wrong. Try adjusting the white balance to the "indoor" or "incandescent" setting, or set a preset white balance using a white card.</p>

 

[mike dixon]

<i>Perspective distortion is a by-product of the geometry of focal length combined with distance.</i><P>

Perspective depends only on the distance of the camera from the scene; angle of view depends on the focal length. The link you provided was a demonstration that getting closer to the subject changes the perspective (which supports what I said: perspective distortion depends only on the distance to the subject). If you take a photo of someone from one meter away, the perspective will be exactly the same whether you shoot with a 35mm or a 50mm lens.

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Um, incorrect.<br />

Perspective distortion is a by-product of the geometry of focal length combined with distance.</blockquote>

 

<p>Perspective depends on where you're looking from. The lens you're using determines the angle of view. Crop the middle out of a shot taken with a wide angle lens and you get <i>exactly</i> the view you'd get with a long lens.<br />

<br />

<i>However</i> "perspective distortion" happens when you examine an image at a different angle of view from that at which it was taken. Looked at from a distance and the corners of an image taken with a 14mm lens look horribly stretched. Press your nose to the print and they look perfect - this is not an optical aberration. On a DX sensor, I'd not lose sleep over how prints will look at a normal viewing distance with either lens - on FX, you might start to worry about the corners at 35mm, but that's wider than we're talking about here.<br />

<br />

Jessica, my $.02: When you said "portraits", I immediately thought "50mm", because that's closer to the conventional focal length to use for portraits of a single person (depending on how much of them you want to shoot). However, it sounds like you want group shots, and as you said, the 50mm may be a bit inconveniently long for that, especially indoors. I'd get the 35mm and be happy with it. Good luck.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"Perspective distortion in based solely on how close you are to a subject, not on the lens you are using."

 

"Perspective distortion is a by-product of the geometry of focal length combined with distance. "

 

Either way, the fact remains that if you want a head and shoulders shot you have to get closer with the 35mm lens than with the 50mm lens and will have more perspective distortion.

[Alan Marcus]

<p>It is true; your maximum opening is f/3.5. You say only, however, this is a formidable aperture. The f/number is our measure of the light gathering ability of a lens. The focal length is a measure of the power of the lens to magnify. When set to 18mm the images of objects will be tiny. This means the lens is looking at the world with a wide-angle view. When set to 55mm the lens is magnifying everything 3 times more and the angle of view is reduced (telephoto). Let me add that the center of this zoom range is 35mm (normal angle of view for your format). <br>

As we zoom from wide-angle to telephoto the size of the images of objects increases and the angle of view decreases. There is no free lunch. As magnification increases, image brightness as projected on the chip inside the camera diminishes. To compensate and maintain the same image brightness the lens must somehow change its ability to gather light. To cause this to happen, the aperture (working diameter) of the lens must expand. Our wish would be that the f/number (indicator of light gathering power) would remain constant thru the zoom. Some zooms can do this, but they are very costly. Yours cannot maintain the same image brightness throughout the zoom. At maximum zoom your lens functions at f/5.6. The difference between f/3.5 and f/5.6 is about two f/stops. Each f/stop is a 2x (doubling or halving) of the light energy reaching the chip. </p>

<p>Your camera is sophisticated and it knows how to compensate for the light loss as you zoom. What happens is, in order deliver a proper exposure, the shutter speed is automatically adjusted; it is lengthened out. This slowing of the shutter allows more time for the light to play on the chip and this compensates for the light loss that occurs at higher zoom values.</p>

<p>Now your heart's desire is a fast lens so you can take pictures under existing conditions. If true, an f/1.8 is for you. However, you can accomplish this task by bumping up the ISO by a multiple of 4x. All I am saying is, in the early formative years, you should experiment before leaping and shelling out money. Later you may regret that you did not buy a long lens for wildlife or a super wide-angle for landscapes.</p>

<p>As to the yellowish hue: Standard indoor light bulbs have a tungsten filament that glows white-hot producing light. The camera will reproduce this as too yellow. Your camera has a setting "tungsten"; it is a countermeasure. This all falls under the topic of "white balance". Read your camera manual.</p>

<p>As to perspective: Objects close to the camera reproduce large and objects far from the camera reproduce small. In portraiture, the wrong perspective induces distortion. This is a complicated subject because camera format, lens focal length, subject distance, size of finished picture, and viewing distance of finished picture are all intertwined. Suffice it to say, experts agree, the portrait lens of choice is 2 to 2.5 times the diagonal of the format size. Your format diagonal is 30mm, so the rule-of-thumb is to use a lens with a focal length between 60mm and 75mm. Such a lens forces you to step back when composing. This action plus a presumed finished portrait 8x10 inches delivers a perspective that matches a person's view of him/herself as seen in the make-up mirror. Keep in mind this is just a rule-of-thumb and not something engraved in stone.</p>

<p>I am advising holding off on lens purchases until you get some more time under your belt. </p>

[jessica_brighton]

<p>Thanks, Marcus. Your original message said that my current lens (with max aperture 3.8) is only 2 stops away from f/1.8. I guess what I was trying to say was that my current lens, when used at 35mm indoors, only allows a max aperture of 5.6...so I'm really 6 stops away from 1.8. Correct?<br>

I will continue to play with the white balance and ISO, but I'm not getting the crisp images that I would like.<br>

Andrew's comment:<br>

<em>Jessica, my $.02: When you said "portraits", I immediately thought "50mm", because that's closer to the conventional focal length to use for portraits of a single person (depending on how much of them you want to shoot). However, it sounds like you want group shots, and as you said, the 50mm may be a bit inconveniently long for that, especially indoors. I'd get the 35mm and be happy with it. Good luck.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Andrew, yes, my desire for a new lens was for indoor photography (mostly of my children, parties, etc.) and portraits. I was hoping to find one lens to satisfy both needs, but obviously, that's not going to happen (at least not within my budget - ha ha). Since my primary need was for indoor photography, I'm leaning toward the 35mm (for reasons I mentioned in my original post). For now, I can continue to take decent/acceptable outdoor portraits with my 18-55mm lens. <br>

My old zoom lens (a Tamron 70-300mm that I used with my old Nikon D40) is broken, so a new zoom lens is also on my wish list. :(</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p> "I was trying to say was that my current lens, when used at 35mm indoors, only allows a max aperture of 5.6...so I'm really 6 stops away from 1.8. Correct?"</p>

<p>Unlikely, I think your lens at 35mm zoom position, the center of its range, is more likely functioning at f/3.5. I have never handled this camera and lens however I think I am right. Set the camera on aperture priority, then slowly zoom through the entire zoom range. Run this test outdoors with the camera pointed at a lit uniform dark gray subject like a stone wall etc. Observe the display as you zoom and watch and see when the camera reduces the f/number. I stand by my guidance, hold up buying a fast 35mm till you are sure that's your heart's desire. </p>

[requiem]

<p>Alan, the lens is 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I have a predecessor of it somewhere in a closet and 35mm is right in the middle of its range; there's no way it would make f/3.5 at 35mm. (Max aperture for the current model at 35mm is probably f/5.)</p>

<p>To the OP: Counting in full stops goes: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, so about 3 stops between f/1.8 and f/5. You can't subtract the numbers directly; just count the hops along the scale instead. (Both 1.8 and 5 are 2/3rds of the way to the next full stop.)</p>

[jessica_brighton]

 

 

<p><em>To the OP: Counting in full stops goes: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, so about 3 stops between f/1.8 and f/5. You can't subtract the numbers directly; just count the hops along the scale instead. (Both 1.8 and 5 are 2/3rds of the way to the next full stop.)</em><br>

This was very helpful. Thank you. :)</p>

And thanks again to everyone else! Really appreciate the input!

 

 

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>My main objective right now is to get a lens that is good for low light / indoor photography.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In your position I would buy the 35mm lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>My secondary objective was to be able to take nice portraits of the kids. The 35mm scores a bit lower on bokeh, for obvious reasons.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I’d encourage you to concentrate of what is in focus and the lighting of it, rather than BOKEH.<br /> You can leverage the quality of the Out of Focus background by (as well as other elements) mainly Subject Distance to Background and by the Lighting of the Background.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />The only other <strong>advantage</strong> for the 50mm is that it is not ONLY DX compatible...meaning that <strong>if I upgraded to an FX</strong> (full frame) camera <strong>sometime down the road</strong>, this lens would be compatible with that camera as well (and the 35mm wouldn't). But <strong>I have no intention of upgrading any time in the near future.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not an advantage it is a “what if” - I encourage you to buy based upon facts and not “perhaps”” and “what ifs”</p>

<p>***</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . Unlikely, I think your lens at 35mm zoom position, the center of its range, is more likely functioning at f/3.5."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don’t think so Alan.<br /> I have experimented with many types of Zoom Lenses and a good rule of thumb for these modern <strong>Standard Zooms </strong>of <strong>Varying Maximum Aperture</strong> is that the Maximum Aperture at the Midpoint of the Zoom is about 1/3^rd open to the SMALLEST Maximum Aperture of the Lens.<br /> What I am saying is the zoom is FL = 18mm to 55mm.<br /> The midpoint of the zoom’s compass is FL = (18 +55)/2 = 36.5mm.<br>

<br /> I concur with Jeremy's comments - although having not used this particular lens I would still bet a Mars Bar that at FL = 35mm: <strong><em>the MAXIMUM APERTURE available will be very close to F/5.0.</em></strong></p>

<p>Jessica: - You can test this for yourself, by setting the zoom to 35mm and finding out what maximum aperture the lens will make.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[garethleyland]

<p>Max aperture on my 18-55 @ 35mm is f4.5.</p>

<p>Jessica, the 35mm gets my vote.</p>

[jessica_brighton]

<p>Thank you for the additional responses! </p>