Camera Nikon AF-S 50mm and 35mm for 8.3K

onlyravi

onlyravi

Godly Modly...
Skilled
Mar 13, 2009
1,450
622
202
Pune
Out of the two I would say 35mm.
1) It has a higher f stop (or lower as per what terms you use) f22 as compared to f16 of 50mm
2)The min focus distance is 0.3m for 35mm vs 0.45m of 50mm
both are prime so nothing diff there but 35mm seems to be DX already.

You can also consider your current lens size if you are thinking of sharing the polarizer/filters.
Again... just my opinion. Both are very close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onemufc
R

random2

Adept
Nov 1, 2006
939
150
131
Firstly, it depends on your needs. What exactly you need the lens for.

And what body do you have?

If you are not certain on your need and there is a chance that you might go for a FX body some day, go for 50mm.

If you are looking for ~50mm focal length including the crop and dont have any plans to go FX, get the 35mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onemufc
Onemufc

Onemufc

Skilled
Apr 16, 2011
1,976
339
177
I have Nikon D5200 and my photography is quite irregular and random. I am mostly into landscapes but for that I am targetting a 70-300. N

I am not going to buy an FX and I am very sure about it.

I am torn between the two but I am sure I will pick one.
 
R

random2

Adept
Nov 1, 2006
939
150
131
Have 50mm 1.4D. Though its a very nice lens, I feel that I need more wider angle. Sometimes think that I should have gone for 35mm. This is just my opinion.

And if you are into landscapes, shouldnt you be looking for wider lens like 10-20 kind of ones?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onemufc
Onemufc

Onemufc

Skilled
Apr 16, 2011
1,976
339
177
random2 said:
Have 50mm 1.4D. Though its a very nice lens, I feel that I need more wider angle. Sometimes think that I should have gone for 35mm. This is just my opinion.

And if you are into landscapes, shouldnt you be looking for wider lens like 10-20 kind of ones?
Click to expand...

I am at a very novice level and 10-20 ones are out of my reach right now. I am also thinking on terms that I would prefer to zoom using my legs.
 
A

AK3D

Adept
May 8, 2007
464
196
132
www.flickr.com
The 35 mm makes sense, it's a very sharp lens even at 1.8. On a DX camera (it is a DX lens btw), the focal length comes to about 52mm, which is good for street, landscape and general photography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onemufc
Onemufc

Onemufc

Skilled
Apr 16, 2011
1,976
339
177
Yes I got the 35mm 1.8g and a friend got 50mm 1.8g.

Both are amazing primes. I recently went on a trip with it and it has amazing sharpness. Bokeh is quite good also but 50mm is better at that.

Also, the 35mm is compatible with DX only and 50mm with FX.

Anything particular you are looking for?
 
onlyravi

onlyravi

Godly Modly...
Skilled
Mar 13, 2009
1,450
622
202
Pune
Mainly it was the "Bokeh" effect that I was looking for :) The sharpness would be equally good on both the lens. Also did you both try to shoot some similar photos with the two lens to see how much the background is compressed or what effect both the lens make in comparison? Mainly for me it looks like going with the 50mm would be better for the bokeh...
This is for a friends D90. I recently got a 700D from the rival camp... show off thread coming soon.
Thanks for the info.... happy shooting....
 
Onemufc

Onemufc

Skilled
Apr 16, 2011
1,976
339
177
Bokeh on the 50mm is better. We did not compare the same set of results as we both have been travelling to different parts.

I dont plan to upgrade to FX hence I got the 35mm and my friend wants to go FX hence he went for the 50mm.

If your friend is planning to go to FX later. 50mm is the way to go.
 
Onemufc

Onemufc

Skilled
Apr 16, 2011
1,976
339
177
50mm in dx becomes 75 which is too zoomed in for me.

Both are amazing primes in this price range and for 8.5K they are great VFM . Makes 1.8D look like crap.
 
Top Bottom