35mm f/1.8G versus 50mm f/1.8G

[megan_herring]

<p>I'm going to be going to Europe this summer and am trying to decide which lens to buy. I'll be shooting everything from my friends to landscapes to a music festival. Which one would work better for all around?</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>For DX or FX body? Makes a big difference for most of us.<br /> On DX, 35mm is a long 'normal lens' and a 50mm a short telephoto.<br /> On FX, 35mm is a 'long' wide-angle, and 50mm so-called 'normal'.<br /> The debate between 35mm and 50mm as a 'street lens' has been raging since interchangeable lenses were introduced for 24x36mm image size.</p>

<p>The sort of range (landscapes to portraits) you're talking about is one of the strong arguments for the mid-range zoom lenses with image stabilization.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>If the camera in question is a DX digital of recent vintage, I'd be inclined to go with the 35, because there's a good bit of cropping room with all those pixels. You can crop a 35 to a 50 field of view pretty easily, but you can't back up further than the wall behind you.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>for all around, something like the 24-120mm f/4 would do it.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

According to the following thread, the OP has a D3200:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00d6I8

[andylynn]

For a D3200 I'd buy a 35mm DX lens to go with the 18-55.

[Two23]

<p>35mm, IF you don't already have an 18-55mm VR. The zoom will most likely be more useful.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I like a 35 on my D3200. I have both lengths in manual form, and though the 50 is a little easier to focus, at least with my wonky eyes, the 35 is more versatile, and cropping is easy. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Megan - from your other post it sounds like you have an 18-55mm kit lens. If you do, maybe it would be helpful to practice shooting at 35mm and 50mm. Just set your zoom to one focal length and leave it there for a while. You'll get a better sense of which field of view you prefer. You won't be able to imitate the kind of large apertures those prime lenses are capable of.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have to add my vote for the 35mm. if you are using DX. </p>

<p>-O</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I add my vote for the 35 mm for FX as well.

[5711]

<p>as the OP has a crop-sensor camera id suggest the 35 1.8</p>

<p>it equals a 50 on full frame.<br /> it comes with 1.8, which non of her lenses do have.<br /> it is small, lightweight and has a good price and as far as i can tell from a friend the photos look good.</p>

<p>to me the 35 1.8 would be a great addition to your two existing lenses and would enable you to shoot at low light or<br /> shallow dof.</p>

<p>the 50 1.8 equals more or less a 85 on full frame and thus beeing almost exclusivly a portraiture lens.<br /> you can do other stuff with it too, but it demands some commitment and training.</p>

<p>the 35 1.8 definitly is more versitile and therefore i would recomment it.</p>

<p>because everything you need is a fast 50, in your case a 35 (dxcrop)<br /> enjoy</p>

[5711]

<p>it is weird that people would recomment the zoom over the fixed focal length.</p>

<p>if you really wnat to learn how to take interesting pictures, there is nothing that makes you learn more about photography than a fixed focal length, if possible a 50, or in your case a 35.</p>

<p>you can take photos of anything from architecture, landscape, portrait, street, detail..everything...just everything with it</p>

<p>as you cannot zoom like a mad man you will have to think more.<br /> your photography will improve if you force yourself to take alot of shots with the fixed focal length.<br /> the zoom are your feet.</p>

<p>i have got quite a number of fancy lenses.<br /> when walking around for fun i always have a 50 on my camera. <br /> i do carry all the other stuff with me, but thats just because i am crazy.<br /> and you probably will have to do so too, as you will not get back there so fast..</p>

<p>all you need is a fast 50.<br /> period.<br /> i went to jobs like that.<br /> including the european space agency.</p>

<p>get a 35.</p>

<p>if you miss your zoom..hang in there.<br /> you will be rewarded with good photos !</p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>If full format, I use to take a 35mm except if I`m more oriented to portraiture or open spaces where I use to prefer a 50mm.<br /> So for everything else (and specially for street shots) I find a 35mm more suited to my needs.</p>

<p>Translated to DX, it means a 24 vs 35mm, so the only option is the 35.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If it was for <em>me</em>, I'd take the 35mm no doubt. I never liked 50mm on my APS-C cameras much. BUT....like all the advices before, that is based on my preferences, style and way of working. But it isn't for me, so the advice isn't worth all that much.<br /> The easiest way to find out is taking the photos you've taken with your 18-55, and see which of the two focal lengths you use most. And/or, as Chip suggested, set your lens to 35mm, and don't change it for a day or two, and see how you like that. Repeat that with 50mm, and this way you will know which focal length works best for you.<br /> We cannot tell you which focal length is best for you, it really is a personal preference, so you have to test and decide for yourself. Both lenses are excellent performers, especially considering their cost, so whichever you choose, you cannot go wrong much once you decide for yourself whether 35 or 50 works better for you.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>35 is a wonderful walk-around range for DX, being very close to 50mm equivalent.</p>

<p>I prefer something a tad wider for a "standard" lens these days, and use the f.o.v. equivalent of 40mm on my µ43. Like it a LOT more than I liked the 50mm fov range.</p>

<p>That would be about a 28mm lens on DX, but that gets expensive.</p>

<p>Bottom line, for the price, if you are a DX shooter, you ought to have that 35 in your bag for low light at least. When I had one, I used it indoors a lot. Outdoors in full light? not so much. The zoom works better for that.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For some reason I am reminded of the idea that you can train your left hand to be more accurate if you tie your right hand behind your back.....<br>

<em>Weird</em> is in the eye of the beholder.</p>

[5711]

<p>get a prime jdm, let it happen. do not fight it, do not resist. give prime lenses a chance! you can do it! :)</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Toss a coin? - Or evaluate what you are using with your zoom. - Personally I am a big fan of the short telephoto look the 50mm provides on DX but I am after portraits & such and walking around my hometown to maybe spot an interesting detail. The 50mm is my prime of choice for the 1st camera. - I add a 24mm on my 2nd and probably pack 14 & 135mm too, since I can never make up my mind... but still if its one DX camera & one prime, I'll take a 50mm <br>

If you have to replace your zoom with just one lens to bring maybe get the 35mm, but I suggest keeping (repurchasing) the zoom and packing a 50mm at its side.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>If it was for <em>me</em>, I'd take the 35mm no doubt. I never liked 50mm on my APS-C cameras much. BUT....like all the advices before, that is based on my preferences, style and way of working. But it isn't for me, so the advice isn't worth all that much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did a test once and walked around with the 35/1.8 on a D300 for a few hours - and I got some nice shots. Then I changed to the 50/1.8 - and I got some nice shots too. In both instances, I also missed some - because either was the subject too far away and hence too small in the frame - or too close and I couldn't fit it all in. In the end, the 35 appeared more versatile to me - and the 50 hardly ever made it back onto the D300 again. Nowadays, I would likely opt for the Sigma 30/1.4A - but that's a lot more money.</p>

<p>It's not clear from this post and the other one Shun linked to if you are still considering taking just one lens - in which case a single focal length might feel limiting. I would definitely take the 18-55 for flexibility and then choose between the 35 and 50 based on what you primarily need the faster aperture for. Closely frame portraits: take the 50. Anything else: 35 - you can always crop (you don't mention how you are going to use the images - unless you print big, cropping is a possibility).</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>get a prime jdm, let it happen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By my last count I have 196 lenses. Most of them are "primes" - Sometimes I go to shoot with just one lens, for example, a 500mm mirror lens, but it's not the most convenient lens for shooting landscapes and portraits with no other lens available. <br>

But time marches on and today's zoom lenses are often better than most 'primes' made before WWII. Most current 'primes' are designs that go back to pre-AF times. Coatings are better of course.<br>

I shoot plenty with primes and prefer a 35mm on an FX format, but I don't make a religion out of it. It's sad when ideology trumps practice.</p><div></div>

[5711]

<p>yeah thats true.<br>

i see fixed focal length lenses as a good tool to "train" photography, learn and find ones personal style.<br>

i found it to be very useful in that respect and therefore i recomment a fast 50 or 35 on full frame to anyone who asks me about them.<br>

it's not ideology, it is more a way to force yourself into more active seeing, as i would describe it.<br>

thats what i was trying to say really..</p>

[tombest]

<p>If this were a test and there could only be one right answer, the correct answer would be the 35mm f1.8. The key words from the OP being 'better for all around'. The 50mm is more of a specialty lens on Dx, the 35mm more 'normal'. I got both of them this year for Christmas. They are both wonderfully sharp and contrasty on my D7000 but I prefer the 35.</p>

<p>What concerns me about your question is the mention of a music festival. Neither might be appropriate depending on how close you will be able to approach your subjects. For that, a zoom with some reach is a better choice. And unless travelling to Europe is commonplace for you, throw a little caution to the wind. Perhaps renting a lens would be an option? You might be able to rent something you wouldn't consider purchasing due to cost considerations and have what you really need. I'm doing that with a buddy this weekend. We're spending a little mad money to rent both a 300mm f4.0 and a 150-600mm zoom to see what we like best for birding. I'd rather spend $100 and make an educated decision than $1000 or more and regret what I bought later. You're looking at $200 lenses so it's not a great loss if you find you purchased something you won't use all the time but renting is a viable consideration unless you're going to be gone all summer.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>A fast(ish) prime is not the same as a slow(ish) zoom. I personally don't usually feel the need for a fast, wide lens - you can already get away with a slower shutter speed with a wider lens just because of the field of view, and the depth of field is still pretty substantial even with a really fast wide lens. With a longer lens, a wider aperture is more important: the increased magnification means you tend to want a higher shutter speed, and the magnification and larger physical aperture give you more subject isolation for creative blurring of the background.<br />

<br />

So if you already have a zoom covering the range of both lenses and unless you're worried about its quality, I'd actually give more priority to the longer option. On a DX crop body, 50mm is nearer to a conventional portrait focal length - although arguably it's still a little short. If you just want to shoot in the dark, go with the 35mm - you'll get a bit more hand-holdability, and 50mm equivalent is a very popular focal length - although bear in mind that neither of these primes has VR, so you won't do much better in the dark than your zoom lens (if it's the VR version) unless you're trying to catch a moving subject. If you want something to give you an effect that your 18-55 can't, the 50mm is "more different" than what you have (and the 18-55 VR is still at f/5 at 35mm, compared with f/5.6 at 50mm). I'm assuming you're taking this prime <i>as well as</i> the kit zoom, so I'd be minimising overlap - otherwise I'd agree with the 35mm prime idea.<br />

<br />

I've not used the 35mm DX, but the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S is hardly huge - although it <i>is</i> somewhat bigger than the (optically inferior) AF-D version (that won't autofocus on a D3200). But if you can manage a little more size and money, I'd also think carefully about either the 60mm f/2 Tamron lens, which gives you something slightly closer to the classic "short portrait" focal length and is also a macro lens, or the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S, which will do a much better job of separating the subject from the background, and also gives you a bit more reach than the long end of your 18-55. Not that I'm wanting you to blow your budget, it's just that my strategy has been to buy lenses that let me do things I can't already do - and I've given priority to bigger differences in capability (then came back to fill in the gaps).<br />

<br />

Good luck, and enjoy your trip!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The OP has asked a similar question about a month and half ago: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00d6I8<br>

where she points out that she has a D3200 and:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I already own the kit lens 18-55 (which I kind of dislike) and the 70-300 (which I don't love as well).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But there isn't much detail, and it is not clear to at least me why she dislikes those two lenses. While the 18-55 is well known to be a very consumer-grade lens, the 70-300 (I assume that is the AF-S, which is the only version that can AF with the D3200) should be quite decent.</p>

<p>A little more info from the OP will help fine tune the answers here. However, the wider 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S should be a safe choice for any DX-body owner.</p>