<p>Maybe consider both? Or perhaps a 28 and a 50 instead?</p>
<p>I know many say the 35 and 50 are both 'normal' lenses, but in my opinion they're quite different and I use both. They're my two most-used focal lengths, actually.</p>
<p>Granted I'm something of a minimalist when it comes to gear, but I've done quite a bit of documentary and journalistic work with just 28, 35 and 50mm lenses. This includes professional work on assignment as well as my long-term projects. I don't shoot sports so really this is all I carry most of the time. I shot an entire assignment for a national news outlet the other day with just a 35mm. It's a really great focal length since it can feel wider or more 'normal' depending on how you use it.</p>
<p>The new 35/1.8G FX lens is a very good lens. I never liked the Sigma 35/1.4, honestly the sharpness didn't blow me away at infinity and the rendering and color never really impressed me, but of course this is a personal opinion and also I might have tried a bad copy. There seems to be a lot of variation. I had been using the Zeiss 35/2, but now I'm happily using the Nikkor. Nikon seems to be focusing more on the look--the color, contrast and rendering of their latest lenses more than absolute sharpness, and I think that's a great decision. That's not to say they're not sharp. The Zeiss 35/2 is said by many to be one of the sharpest 35mm lenses out there. I tested them side-by-side and the new Nikkor is sharper at every aperture right out to the corners. </p>
<p>Your needs might be different from mine, it's really a matter of personal taste. My point is simply that the two focal lengths you mentioned are not always redundant. I'm not sure what your budget is, but the 50/1.8G is pretty affordable, so maybe it combined with a 35/1.8G or 28/1.8G (also a very good lens) would give you more options. </p>
<p>But if you really just want to know what fits in better between 20 and 80mm, I'd say 35mm if you consider the look of the images instead of the numbers. </p>
