35mmf1.8g for dx or 50mm 1.8g
- Thread starter Kevin H
- Start date
while the 35G is a DX lens, I would not worry about it,, the starting price is reasonable, and you can just sell it used if you go to a FX camera.
in FX mode, limited choices in the 35 realm, could go 35 F2.0,, which is around 349 dollars but of course,, this the ED lens, so can't autofocus on a 5100, or
wow money with the 35 G 1.4,, for like 1700 big ones. Hard for me to justify the 1700 for a 35 mm prime with really no special function. I could see dropping that
money for say the tilt and shift, or say a 14-24 zoom, but for a prime,, I know I know, 1.4,,, but I think if I was a 600 owner,,, I would just get the
35 2.0. if I wanted that range.
for 35,, I just use an old Manual AI lens, 2.0 ,, but if I wanted to go 1.4,, I would get.
a used 35 1.4 AIS
Ok,, I am more old school, and love small solid lens....
of course, almost any of these 1.4 lens have compromises, and one trades off sharpness for speed, and this lens is no exception,,
Hence why I prefer and have the 35 mm 2.8,, which is not fast, but is sharper, and well according to the review of the faster
lens,, until you get to around 2.8,, they are pretty bad,, so,,, I'll just say,, get the el cheapo 35 2.8 for like 70-80 dollars used, save the money for other more exotic lens than the 35 1.4 G or even
AI 1.4
but for a 5100 user,,, I would still get as I stated the 35 1.8 G,,,, DX,, nice,, and yes it is on my watch list ..... (waiting for a sell).
in FX mode, limited choices in the 35 realm, could go 35 F2.0,, which is around 349 dollars but of course,, this the ED lens, so can't autofocus on a 5100, or
wow money with the 35 G 1.4,, for like 1700 big ones. Hard for me to justify the 1700 for a 35 mm prime with really no special function. I could see dropping that
money for say the tilt and shift, or say a 14-24 zoom, but for a prime,, I know I know, 1.4,,, but I think if I was a 600 owner,,, I would just get the
35 2.0. if I wanted that range.
for 35,, I just use an old Manual AI lens, 2.0 ,, but if I wanted to go 1.4,, I would get.
a used 35 1.4 AIS
Ok,, I am more old school, and love small solid lens....
of course, almost any of these 1.4 lens have compromises, and one trades off sharpness for speed, and this lens is no exception,,
Hence why I prefer and have the 35 mm 2.8,, which is not fast, but is sharper, and well according to the review of the faster
lens,, until you get to around 2.8,, they are pretty bad,, so,,, I'll just say,, get the el cheapo 35 2.8 for like 70-80 dollars used, save the money for other more exotic lens than the 35 1.4 G or even
AI 1.4
but for a 5100 user,,, I would still get as I stated the 35 1.8 G,,,, DX,, nice,, and yes it is on my watch list ..... (waiting for a sell).
Last edited:
WhiteLight
Senior Member
The picture quality on both the 50mm & the 35mm are 'almost' the same.
i say almost & it is a personal opinion...
i have the 35mm & a close budd has a 50mm...
The IQ from the 50 is just a wee bit better...but better it is...
But the 35 trumps the 50 in most indoor situations cos it is quite difficult to get your subject with the 50mm
if money allows, get the 28mm.. the best amongst these 3
i say almost & it is a personal opinion...
i have the 35mm & a close budd has a 50mm...
The IQ from the 50 is just a wee bit better...but better it is...
But the 35 trumps the 50 in most indoor situations cos it is quite difficult to get your subject with the 50mm
if money allows, get the 28mm.. the best amongst these 3
28 1.8 G FX - 699 dollars
35 1.8 G DX - 196 dollars
50 1.8 G FX - 254 dollars
So,, from a bang for the buck,, I would say the 35 wins for the 5100,, if money was no object, sure the28 mm FX version,, but a 500 dollar premium
So,, will it be 500 dollars better,,, mmmm guess depends on the size of your wallet.
35 1.8 G DX - 196 dollars
50 1.8 G FX - 254 dollars
So,, from a bang for the buck,, I would say the 35 wins for the 5100,, if money was no object, sure the28 mm FX version,, but a 500 dollar premium
So,, will it be 500 dollars better,,, mmmm guess depends on the size of your wallet.
I have to say up front that I love the 50mm lens on 35mm film and its sisters 75-100 on 120 film (depend on format) So for its bargain price and its being the DX equivalent of a 50mm I would go for the 35mm its a super little lens and when I go out it is the lens that is on the camera 99% of the time. That being said I prefer a 50mm or 85mm for portraits on DX if I am in any was closer than say a 3/4 length portrait. I can though walk around with a 35mm on DX and just instinctivly know what I will get, for me that angle of view is perfect and it is more or less the classic angle of view in photography.
I have both, I rarely use the 50mm. In fact, I rarely use ANYTHING other than my 35mm 1.8g, it's SUCH a great lens, I highly recommend it. The 50mm on a DX is "zoomed in too far", as it's about 75mm with the crop factor.
Remember that a 35mm on a DX camera is roughly the same as a 50mm on an FX camera.
Also remember that DX lenses won't work on a FX camera (well, they DO work, but with the crop factor), so if you are thinking about going up to an FX camera in the near future, keep that in mind!
Remember that a 35mm on a DX camera is roughly the same as a 50mm on an FX camera.
Also remember that DX lenses won't work on a FX camera (well, they DO work, but with the crop factor), so if you are thinking about going up to an FX camera in the near future, keep that in mind!
I bought the 35mm a few weeks ago and use it 99% of the time. However, most of my photos have been indoors in poor lighting because of the freezing cold weather. It was nice a few days back and I was outside using the 35mm and 55-200mm equally. The 35mm has pretty much replaced my 18-55mm kit lens as my "general" lens. It really does capture some great shots, and I'm no pro in any way.