Nikon 35/1.8 and Nikon 50/1.8

[skip_wilson]

<p>Could readers offer some points regarding these two lenses? Differences in build, optics, DX or FX, comparative uses, bokeh, etc. I see both seem to rate well optically but wonder does one really offer advantages over the other. I assume for indoor portraits the 50/1.8 probably is favored but would like peoples' opinions. What other uses do these lenses have beyond portraits which is probably what I would use them for in addition to my other lenses? I have a D7100 now with the 16-85 DX and the 70-200/4 and expect to stay with DX rather than go up to FX. Which one of these two primes would be suggested? Thank you. Skip Wilson</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>My comment for 'other uses' is that on DX, 35mm (appr ~50mm equivalent on FX) is a more flexible lens for other uses. The field of view is big enough to get a couple of people in pictures at reasonable distances, or broader use in a variety of situations. In comparison, 50 mm (~75mm on FX) is a narrow enough field of view to be limiting for general use - but liked because good for indoor portraiture (single subject) with nice isolation from background due to the narrow depth of field. You could always still use the 35mm to crop smaller subjects, and quality difference would probably not be noticeable except at large magnifications.<br>

Obviously you can compare these focal lengths using your 16-85 to get a general sense of the difference in field of view.<br>

What you may find the 35DX/50FX most useful is general use in low light situations. As an example, the field of view and low light capabilities makes it a very good lens for quick snaps at parties, gatherings, whatever. It's a two stop difference which in marginal light situations is significant.<br>

Almost all the variants of both lenses focus quickly, are small, and reasonably light. Obviously the 35mm DX is a lot cheaper than the FX version. In short, I doubt you'd be unhappy with that lens at the price - although if you want a lens exclusively for portraits, it may not be the right one.</p>

[hapien]

<p>AF 50mm f/1.8D cheapest, small, lightweight, sharp, fast focusing and some say, has uneasy bokeh<br>

AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX sharp, nice bokeh, has no distance scale<br>

AF-S 50mm f/1.8G relatively big size for 50mm, nice to shoot with, I have not seen the pictures yet <br>

AF-S 35mm f/1.8G is allready in stores, dxomark says it's good<br>

And there are many manual focus versions</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>When I had DX, I had a 50mm f1.8D and a 35mm f1.8 DX. The 50 was a lovely lens, decent for portraits, but I just never used it, as I preferred longer when I could get away with it. The 35 was a great "leave it on the camera" length for me sometimes... but not for portraits. I didn't miss the distance scale. I thought I would, but I didn't.<br /><br />That said, a "standard zoom" was more practical nearly all the time.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Differences in build, optics, DX or FX, comparative uses, bokeh, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apart from the very obvious: 35mm isn't the same as 50mm. At all. Two distinct different focal lengths, with distinct different results. Since you have a D7100, I'll only comment for DX use - the story on full frame would be vastly different.<br>

On DX, to me a 50mm lens (any!) is not here nor there. It's too long to be all-round use, and just a bit too short for portraits and particulars. It's a focal length that completely fails to resonate with me on DX. A 35mm on DX is (for me!) like coming home. It's the focal length that seems directly wired to my brain.<br>

Now, this is really the most important bit, and you have to decide this for yourself.Do as Greg suggests; set your 16-85 to 35mm, and shoot for a day like that. Next time, set it to 50mm, and shoot like that. That way, you know which focal length works for you. We cannot tell that for you. But this is by far the most important part - not bokeh, build quality or whatever. A fixed focal length with an angle of view that doesn't work for you is useless, and hence wasted money.<br>

If it really is all about bokeh, both 35mm and 50mm lenses have no great reputations except some exotic lenses - 85mm lenses is where you'll find the smooth out of focus lenses.</p>

<p>Short version of the above and below: the most likely right choice is the <em>AF-S 35mm f/1.8DX</em>.</p>

<p>I've got first-hand experience with some 50 and 35 lenses;</p>

<ul>

<li><em>AF 50mm f/1.8D</em> - dirt cheap, build quality is mediocre, not very sharp below f/2.8 and out of focus areas are not very attractive. Only consider when the low price restricts you to other choices.</li>

<li><em>AF-S 50mm f/1.8G</em> - Twice as expensive and still cheap. Build quality is much nicer, its size is completely normal (it's not large at all), sharp from about f/2 on and very decent out of focus rendering for a 50mm. If 50mm is your thing, the most sensible choice.</li>

<li><em>AF-S 35mm f/1.8DX</em> - Brilliant value for money. Build quality is fine, small and light, not expensive at all, sharp from wide open on. Out of focus rendering is typical for a wide-angl-ish lens. Not great, but not too terrible either.</li>

<li><em>AF 35mm f/2D</em> - All newer lenses are better. It's small, light and really good as a landscape lens. But wide aperture performance is really lacking.</li>

</ul>

<p>I left out the manual focus Nikkors I have and some other toys, as they're the kind of lenses that you either know you want, or you better avoid them.<br>

Other 50mm lenses that I'd consider would be the 50mm f/1.4D (small, relatively cheap, a bit wider aperture, otherwise not much better than thr f/1.8G) or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art (huge, expensive, but comes out of tests as king of the hill, apart from the very expensive Zeiss 55mm). An odd-ball lens to consider might be the AF-S 60mm f/2.8G Macro.<br>

Other 35mm lenses worth thinking about: if you'd want FX soon, the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 FX (but much more expensive than the DX lens), the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art (as above for its 50mm brother) or the Zeiss 35mm f/2 (manual focus, expensive, but the results got something - not for everyone a clear choice but worth contemplating). Not sure how the current version of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (DX lens) is, the old version was a nice option.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>On the issue of focal length (not the lenses themselves, none of which I have), I would agree with Wouter W. above that 50 is not as useful all around in DX format. I find myself more often using 35 or 28 as primes. Fine as the 50 is, it somehow rarely gives the angle of view I want. Given the pixel density of the D7100, if the 35 is a little wide, you lose little by cropping, whereas if you can't include something, the result is final. If you "zoom with your feet," it's often easier to move closer than it is to move back.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Owned the 50/1.8, 50/1.8G, and 35/1.8 G DX. Agree with Wouter: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>On DX,to me a 50mm lens (any!) is not here nor there. It's too long to be all-round use, and just a bit too short for portraits and particulars. It's a focal length that completely fails to resonate with me on DX. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sold the 50s and kept the 35. However, with it FOV similar to a 50mm on FX - which I also find a bit "in-between", even the 35 on DX doesn't see all too much use and mainly is in the bag because it's light, cheap, and fast. Also at the time, it was pretty much all there is in DX prime land - unless one was willing to spend more than twice as much or to cope with the inadequacies of the older FX primes.</p>

<p>If smooth OOF rendering or "bokeh" plays a major role in your considerations - then I suggest to have a look at the Sigma 30/1.4. If your "focal length testing" with the 16-85 reveals that you rather have something shorter still - consider the Nikon 28/1.8 or even the 20/1.8. Fairly certain that a 24/1.8 will before long be added to the line-up.</p>

<p>As Wouter says, the 60/2.8 Macro might be an option - or the cheaper 40/2.8DX Macro.</p>

[andylynn]

The 35mm DX is a heck of a good lens. I used it all the time when I had a DX Nikon. The 50mm 1.8G is excellent and

worth the money over the 1.8D but for indoor portrait shooting specifically I think I'd opt for the 35 because you're often

shooting at too close a range for a short tele.

[skip_wilson]

<p>Many thanks for the above perspectives. Wouter, when you mention the AF-S 35 mm/1.8 DX lens are you referring to the AF-S 35/1.8 G DX lens which is about $197 ? And what would you all suggest makes the best indoor portrait lens for DX cameras such as my D7100 ? Thanks Skip Wilson</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>I'm sure that's the lens Wouter was referring to, Skip. It's a great, small, and very reasonably priced lens for what you get, and I doubt you will be disappointed.<br>

You ask about 'best indoor portrait lens.' Frankly I think that question is impossible to answer unless someone knows what types of portraits you like to do and the space you're working in. I'm not trying to dodge the question, but it really is less about the lens than the way you work, the images you like to make, your subjects, etc. Some people might use wide angle lenses, others prefer longer lenses.<br>

If you wanted a versatile zoom lens that could be used for different types of portraits, a 17-50mm fast zoom lens (f2.8) might fit your needs. But I'd experiment and practice more before searching for the perfect lens, the 35mm above would be a good start.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon has only one DX format 35mm/f1.8 AF-S lens: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.8G.html<br /> There is no other version. (The other Nikon 35mm/f1.8 AF-S is for FX.)</p>

<p>It is a fine lens, especially for that price. Please keep in mind that it is well known for its chromatic aberration, though.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>As you have a D7100 and you don't intend to leave DX crop format you need to consider what you want the lenses for and how the focal distance match your preferences/needs.<br>

If you were using a FX body focal distances would be the ones written on the lenses but with DX you need to introduce the "equivalency" factor that makes a 24mm lens to be the closest equivalent to 35mm in FX and the DX 35mm to do the "equivalent" to a 50mm on a full format body, while a 50mm will be "equivalent" to a 85mm.<br>

This will mean that the "natural" (according to the sensor size) uses will be the same of a "standard" or "portrait's tele" for the 50mm, a "moderate wide" or "standard" for the 35mm and a "wide" or "moderate wide" for the 35mm.<br>

Therefore, if you need/want a "moderate wide" that can be used almost like a "standard" and is the preferred one for many people you shall consider the 24mm, but if you consider that a "real standard" is the way to go you shall go for the 35mm and only choose the 50 if you intend to use it mostly as a "portrait" lens.<br>

IMHO only after this decision you should look for the best lens for you as you already have all the focal distances covered by your zooms.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Skip.</p>

<p>I would add one more lens to this discussion and that would be the 50mm 1.4 G.<br>

I have used this lens a great deal on my d7100 as well as my d810 and it is superb. If you can afford it I would consider the 35 2.8 DX. It is razor sharp and is an incredible bargain.</p>

<p>If you do move to FX in the future, the 50 1.4 will serv you well there as well.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Ditto Wouter's thorough post.<br>

When my granddaughter started moving around on the ground, I tried my Nikon 50mm f 1.8 D. AF was too slow. So I bought a Nikon 35mm f 1.8 G DX lens for about $200 and used my DX body, a D 300s. Its image quality was great and its AF was much faster than the 50mm. For a DX camera you cannot go wrong with the 35mm f 1.8 G DX especially at $200. I have never noticed any chromatic aberration unless my RAW processor corrects for it automatically. If you had plenty of money you could consider the Nikon 24mm f 1.4 G AFS lens. I rent this lens when I need this focus length for my FX body, D 800E. Its just outstanding. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I started my photographic career in the days before zooms became common. One of the first serious lenses I owned was a 75mm f/1.5 Zeiss Jena Biotar, and I just loved the field of view. Much more so than that of its 58mm companion. By today's standard the IQ at f/1.5 was pretty poor, so it nearly always got stopped down to f/2 or smaller.</p>

<p>Anyway, to cut to the chase. The 50mm f/1.8 will give you that magic field-of-view on a DX camera. Not too long and not too short IMHO, but just right for all sorts of photography. Candids and portraits especially. I've never understood the appeal of the "standard" lens (35mm on DX) - it's so boring!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Skip, sorry to reply late, but as others said, that was indeed the lens I meant.<br>

As for a more portrait lens - really do use the 16-85VR to determine which focal length you prefer - as you see, some people think 50mm on APS-C works brilliant, some thinks it's near useless. My preference on APS-C for portraits was 85mm - many find it too long, I liked it. In short: only you can tell what you will like.</p>

[5711]

<p>http://www.photozone.de/</p>

<p>for all the technical stuff.<br>

for anything else, like bokeh, put it on your cametra, take a couple of test shots and judge by yourself.</p>

<p>i find it to be always better to actually check stuff out on your own rather than have ppl say which lens ahs better bokeh and so on..</p>

<p>cheers</p>

[skip_wilson]

<p>Many thanks to all of you for your experiences and opinions. They can always be counted on for being timely and informative and offer more cumulative experience than I have at this point. Thanks Skip</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>What are you missing using your 16-85? I have a D7100 and do a lot of portraits, indoor and outdoor, natural light. I have many lenses, including 50mm, 28mm, 35mm and 105mm. I use my kit zooms (18-70 and 18-105) more than anything else because of their versatility. Just peruse my People folders and see lots of examples of portraits using all these lenses. Many people say the 50mm is too short for portraits, even on DX. I would disagree. At about f2-2.8 you get a nice blurring of the background and a nice distance from the subject. I have many examples of this too.</p>