50mm 1.8 vs 35mm 1.8

[Whiskeyman]

Doing much photography indoors? If not, shoot where you can take a few steps back. Or, sake quickly successive shots and stitch them together on the computer.

I'd say if you have to ask, keep the 50 and save until you can afford to buy another lens with a big enough focal length difference so that it makes a larger difference than going from 50mm to 35mm.

WM

 

[Felisek]

If you took the 35mm image from the same place you'd take the 50mm image, the perspective would be identical.

Err... I think you are right!

Somehow it escaped me that it is the distance that dictates the perspective. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[rece2000]

With the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, the Nikon 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 in your bag I'd say you're pretty well covered; I could let go of the 50mm f/1.8 without a care under those circumstances. Like you, I didn't care for the 55-200mm either when I was shooting DX and got rid of it quickly in trade. The 17-50mm is worth holding on to, though, I'd say; that's a handy lens. The only other thing you might (might!) want to consider would a big zoom, like a 70-200/300mm or a macro lens (if you're into that sort of thing). At that point... I'd be set.
....

Yes, thanks! I go back and forth on a big zoom like the 70-200. I did actually purchase the Tamron lens but ended up returning it and getting the 85mm instead. It's always in the back of my mind though, and maybe someday...

I am considering a macro lens as well. In fact, I was kind of teetering between getting the 35mm or waiting and saving money for a good macro. I still go back and forth.

Thanks for your advice! Good considerations.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Yes, thanks! I go back and forth on a big zoom like the 70-200. I did actually purchase the Tamron lens but ended up returning it and getting the 85mm instead. It's always in the back of my mind though, and maybe someday...

I am considering a macro lens as well. In fact, I was kind of teetering between getting the 35mm or waiting and saving money for a good macro. I still go back and forth.

Thanks for your advice! Good considerations.

My only other thought on the matter is... If you don't KNOW what lens you need, you don't need a new lens. Wait until you're sure. Winding up with a lens you're not happy with or just don't use is kind of a drag in my opinion. Sure you can (try and) sell it but that's a hassle and if you get 40% out of what you paid for it, you're doing well. It's amazing what you can do with nothing more than a single 35mm or 50mm prime if that's all you have.
.....

 

[fotojack]

rece2000...are you male or female? Hard to tell from your lack of avatar.

You seem to be flipping back and forth on your decisions on what lenses to get. Like Fish said...if you don't really know....then you don't need it!

On the 35 and 50 question.....I have both, use both when the situation calls for it, and would never get rid of either one!

Seems to me you're covered pretty well with the lenses you have in your bag. 17-50 is a nice lens...wish I had one! 85mm....wish I had one.....but can't afford it. Count yourself lucky to have the lenses you have. Others are not so fortunate.

 

[Kei_Loper]

I own both of these lenses after renting the Holy Trinity of primes (35, 50, and 85mm f/1.8G) last year before I decided to buy them. Still haven't picked up the 85mm yet as I stopped shooting for a bit, but I'm back now.

I keep the 35 attached to the camera in my bag at all times since it's a 'normal 50mm' range lens on DX bodies. It was on my D200 at all times and it's on my new D7100 at all times. It's able to be used for many things, and could really be an only lens if needed/wanted.

The 50mm I use mainly for portrait work (people/cars), and they're both great lenses so no need to sell them unless replacing with something in the same range.

I actually don't even own any zoom lenses anymore, but I may pick up one soon like the 50-150mm 50-150mm Sigma (non OS). Not before I get a new 85mm or so prime though lol.

Don't sell that lens unless you really don't like using it. (honestly)

Kei

 

[Kei_Loper]

Read more, I wouldn't buy another lens right now since you're already covered with the 17-50 right now. That's a good lens, I used to own the VC version, and it was good to me. The only reason I could see changing is if you were getting rid of the 17-50 or were looking for something to use indoors in a smaller space without going wide angle. OR(!) just going to all primes lol.

Kei

 

[ScottinPollock]

Another 35mm vs 50mm f/1.8 G Thread

After coming to the conclusion that the monstrous Sigma 18-35 would be left at home most of the time, I am once again considering one of these.

Again I find myself having trouble reconciling DXO Mark's scores, where the overall score of the 35 is 4 points higher than the 50 (which is significant). But when I look at the individual assessments, they are all better on the 50 (sharpness, distortion, CA).

Anyone care to explain this?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Re: Another 35mm vs 50mm f/1.8 G Thread

After coming to the conclusion that the monstrous Sigma 18-35 would be left at home most of the time, I am once again considering one of these.

Again I find myself having trouble reconciling DXO Mark's scores, where the overall score of the 35 is 4 points higher than the 50 (which is significant). But when I look at the individual assessments, they are all better on the 50 (sharpness, distortion, CA).

Anyone care to explain this?

I'm looking at the DxOMark website as I type this and am comparing the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G, both mounted on a D7100.

The 50mm shows better scores across the board compared to the 35mm: Overall it rates 4 points higher (26 vs 22), it's two points sharper (14 vs 12 mpix) and has the better scores on vignetting and chromatic aberration. When it comes to the last three points of comparison LOWER scores are better and the 50mm shows less distortion, less vignetting, and less chromatic aberration than the 35mm.
....

 

[PapaST]

Re: 50mm f1.8D or 50mm AF-S f1.8G

AF is slower on the G. D makes a little noise. D is very fast to focus. 1.4G is extremely slow to focus. 1.8G is an improvement. and sharper than the 1.4G. when both shot at 1.8.

if you shoot from 2.8 onwards, same same for your situation. D7100 can use both. wider than 2.8 and youll benefit from the G. its not a bit more like you mentioned, its 80% of the price more than the D.

I'm glad you said something. I have the 1.4G and D. I noticed the G seemed so laggy AF-wise compared to the D. I figured I was just imagining things. I'm glad it's not just me.

 

[ScottinPollock]

Re: Another 35mm vs 50mm f/1.8 G Thread

I'm looking at the DxOMark website as I type this and am comparing the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G, both mounted on a D7100.

The 50mm shows better scores across the board compared to the 35mm: Overall it rates 4 points higher (26 vs 22), it's two points sharper (14 vs 12 mpix) and has the better scores on vignetting and chromatic aberration. When it comes to the last three points of comparison LOWER scores are better and the 50mm shows less distortion, less vignetting, and less chromatic aberration than the 35mm.
....

It seems some jackass merged this topic, which makes things more confusing, but here is what I saw...

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Re: 50mm f1.8D or 50mm AF-S f1.8G

I can't really tell much from your screenshot, like if both lenses were tested on the same body...

The Lens Compare tool is what I was looking at: 35mm f/1.8G vs 50mm f/1.8G

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

Re: Another 35mm vs 50mm f/1.8 G Thread

It seems some jackass merged this topic, which makes things more confusing,

That Jackass would be me. And you need to not be calling anyone on this forum names. The reason for the merge was there was already a thread concerning the differences in these two lenses and if you had searched you would have seen it and you should be using already started threads instead of starting new ones.

 

[ScottinPollock]

Re: Another 35mm vs 50mm f/1.8 G Thread

That Jackass would be me. And you need to not be calling anyone on this forum names. The reason for the merge was there was already a thread concerning the differences in these two lenses and if you had searched you would have seen it and you should be using already started threads instead of starting new ones.

I didn't call "you" a name... but it seems you have moved a thread regarding a 50 vs 35 into a thread discussing two 50's, so my original assessment still stands.

And why can't you extend to me the courtesy of responding to my last PM to you, rather than simply ignoring it. I have done nothing wrong here, and have tried to contribute to these forums to the best of my ability, but your closing of my stabilizer thread was clearly unjustified, and you prefer to ignore the issue rather than discuss it as civilized individuals.

I have no problem admitting that I have little respect for you based on what has transgressed so far, but frankly had no idea it was you that merged these threads.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

Re: Another 35mm vs 50mm f/1.8 G Thread

With your attitude you are not going to make it very long here. If does not matter who merged the thread you should never call anyone names. This is your last warning.

I didn't call "you" a name... but it seems you have moved a thread regarding a 50 vs 35 into a thread discussing two 50's, so my original assessment still stands.

And why can't you extend to me the courtesy of responding to my last PM to you, rather than simply ignoring it. I have done nothing wrong here, and have tried to contribute to these forums to the best of my ability, but your closing of my stabilizer thread was clearly unjustified, and you prefer to ignore the issue rather than discuss it as civilized individuals.

I have no problem admitting that I have little respect for you based on what has transgressed so far, but frankly had no idea it was you that merged these threads.