50mm 1.8G vs. 35mm 1.8G?

[Mademoiselle]

I've had my starter kit (18-55mm) for 2 years now and it's time for an upgrade. I'm starting a blog and it will also cover fashion photography (outfits, mostly with blank white background, close ups etc.) so which of these would be most appropriate? I've done some research myself but the opinions vary so much, it got me completely confused I love the beautiful bokeh with 50mm, but 35mm covers more of the area if I wanted to shoot ie my dog outside. Thoughts?

P.s.: I'm not looking for anything pricey, but if you have any other suggestions, they'd be more than welcome

 

[snaphappy]

Put your kit lens at 35mm for a few days and don't move it when you shoot. Then put your kit lens on 50mm and shoot for a few days. You'll realize which one you'd use more. I have a 35mm and use it far more than my 50mm but it all depends on what you take photos of the most. I like both lenses its just for me the 35mm gets used far more. Hope that helps a bit

 

[Moab Man]

Both lenses are so close in price the cost doesn't matter - ~$200.

I have found the 50mm focus to not be as reliable or consistent on either my D5100 or my D7100. The 35mm can't seem to miss the focus. Others have had similar results and yet others find it to be just fine.

They are both very good lenses. In my opinion the real question that we can not help you with is which one will better serve you. The 50mm may have too much "zoom" when compared to the 35mm and the room your working in.

 

[Lawrence]

Put your kit lens at 35mm for a few days and don't move it when you shoot. Then put your kit lens on 50mm and shoot for a few days. You'll realize which one you'd use more. I have a 35mm and use it far more than my 50mm but it all depends on what you take photos of the most. I like both lenses its just for me the 35mm gets used far more. Hope that helps a bit

I learn something new every day - especially on this forum.

 

[crycocyon]

If you are doing fashion then definitely the 50. I use the 50 1.4 with my D7000 and it is a great portrait lens, very very sharp. The 1.8 is just as good. I don't know about relative focus issues but that is related in part to focal length, or maybe they have to stop down a bit (ie: is the less reliable focus at wide open apertures?). When I shoot an 85 on the D800 which is the same as the 50 on the D7000 I can move around a lot and get a lot of the model in the shot even with the mild telephoto. Plus that extra bokeh is really a plus when you need it on the 50.

 

[Moab Man]

(ie: is the less reliable focus at wide open apertures?).

I will have to play with that. It could very well be the issue. Generally, when I'm using the 35mm or 50mm I'm going wide open for that Bokeh and haven't been as happy on the 50mm. You might have nailed it on the head. Have to experiment.

 

[Mfrankfort]

I love my 50mm. The focusing was off a bit, so I had to change the focus front and back on it, but I love that lens for the price. As far as wide angle, the 35MM will be a bit wider on the DX, since it's cropped. Try what SnapHappy said, and see which one you use more.

 

[carguy]

For that I'd go 50mm. Might get some distortion with a 35m ?

Tapp'n on the go

 

[Horoscope Fish]

The 50mm, for me, feels awkward -- with it's teeny tiny bit of "zoom" that feels more like I'm losing my edges -- while the 35mm feels "just right".

When I want to really separate my subject from the background, or crop the shot, I jump to the 85mm f/1.8 and I'm golden. This combination is working really, really well for me and it really doesn't leave room in my bag for the 50mm.

 

[Marcel]

Get both.

 

[WhiteLight]

My votes for the 35mm

 

[Brandonberg]

I've had my starter kit (18-55mm) for 2 years now and it's time for an upgrade. I'm starting a blog and it will also cover fashion photography (outfits, mostly with blank white background, close ups etc.) so which of these would be most appropriate? I've done some research myself but the opinions vary so much, it got me completely confused I love the beautiful bokeh with 50mm, but 35mm covers more of the area if I wanted to shoot ie my dog outside. Thoughts?

P.s.: I'm not looking for anything pricey, but if you have any other suggestions, they'd be more than welcome

I bought the DX 35mm 1.8G about two weeks ago and it's great. I did the same thing and left my 18-55 on 35mm for a week to see how i liked it.

Bear in mind that if you are using the D5100 that your profile suggests that you consider DX and non-DX lenses. From what I'm led to believe if you put a standard 50mm 1.8G on a DX body your field of view would be similar to that which is 75mm on a DX lens/body. If you are wanting AF-S i believe these are the lenses that Nikon offer;

AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G (~35mm equiv FOV)

AF-S 35mm f/1.4G (~50mm equiv FOV)
AF-S 50mm f/1.8G (~75mm equiv FOV)
AF-S 50mm F/1.4G (~75mm equiv FOV)

I went with the DX 35mm 1.8G primarily because i have a DX body, which is approx 50mm on a full frame. I'm sorry if I'm talking about something that you already know. I nearly bought the wrong lens due to not understanding nomenclature and don't want anybody else to do the same.

I'm no expert on the subject so perhaps somebody with with more lens expertise weigh in on this for me and correct me if needed?

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I think snaphappy hit the nail on the head. Set your 18-55 on 35 and shoot all day with it. Then set to 50 and shoot all day and then make your decision on which "feels" better.

 

[Eduard]

I'm surprised that nothing has been said about a flash. . . it will be as important as your lens choice for product photography. I'm not an expert on flash so will defer to others here.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Put your kit lens at 35mm for a few days and don't move it when you shoot. Then put your kit lens on 50mm and shoot for a few days. You'll realize which one you'd use more. I have a 35mm and use it far more than my 50mm but it all depends on what you take photos of the most. I like both lenses its just for me the 35mm gets used far more. Hope that helps a bit

A possible better way might be to analyze the EXIF data in pictures that she's already taken, to see what focal lengths she's been using. I'm assuming that the D5100, like my D3200, saves, in the EXIF data of each picture that it takes, the focal length to which the lens is set that took it.

As an experiment, on my Macintosh, I typed the following line:

exiftool ~/Pictures/-D3200/2013/* | grep Focal\ Length | grep -v equiv | grep -v In\ 35mm\ Format | grep -v Min | grep -v Max >/tmp/__untitled/Focal.txt​

Note that this depends on having exiftool installed, which may be downloaded from ExifTool by Phil Harvey, and it depends on grep, which is native on a Macintosh, as on any Unix-based system, but which you may need to find, download, and install, if you're using a Windows-based system; you're on your own as far as finding and installing a Windows-based version of grep; as well as translating the Unix syntax of the above line into a comparable Windows syntax.

Importing the resulting file /tmp/__untitled/Focal.txt into Excel, I was able to produce the attached spreadsheet, from which I was able to determine that of the 99 pictures in that directory, I uses my kit lens in the 38-55mm range more than three times as often as I use it in the 20-38mm range, and therefore, if I was contemplating the purchase of either a 35mm or a 50mm prime lens, I'd probably do better to go with the 50mm.

Interestingly, of the ranges in which I divided up this analysis, the second-largest group is “0.0 mm”, meaning that I didn't use the modern kit lens at all, but one of my stone-aged non-AI lenses for my equally-ancient F2; being as primitive as they are, they do not report their focal length, so it gets recorded as zero.


View attachment Focal.zip

 

[crycocyon]

I will have to play with that. It could very well be the issue. Generally, when I'm using the 35mm or 50mm I'm going wide open for that Bokeh and haven't been as happy on the 50mm. You might have nailed it on the head. Have to experiment.

Yes, I find I have to shoot around 2.8 or more to get really reliable focus with the 85 1.4, for example. But 2.8 still gives great separation from background. Consider that you'll have more separation and bokeh with the 50 mm at f2.8 than with the 35 mm at f2.8. And yes, there's less distortion with the 50 shooting closer than with the 35, which is again important for portraits.

 

[SkvLTD]

So, DX lenses imitate true focal length field of view whereas FX/film ones are 1.5 crop? Good to know.

 

[fotojack]

So, DX lenses imitate true focal length field of view whereas FX/film ones are 1.5 crop? Good to know.

No, you got it backwards. It's the other way around. But it's not so much the lens, it's the camera sensor that affects the field of view. A DX camera is cropped and the FX camera (film, for example ) is full frame. Having said that, there are some lenses that are specifically made for full frame (FX) cameras, just as there are some lenses that will only work on a DX type camera.

 

[ShootRaw]

35 mm....

 

[SkvLTD]

No, you got it backwards. It's the other way around. But it's not so much the lens, it's the camera sensor that affects the field of view. A DX camera is cropped and the FX camera (film, for example ) is full frame. Having said that, there are some lenses that are specifically made for full frame (FX) cameras, just as there are some lenses that will only work on a DX type camera.

lol had it right, and I asked just that. Thanks man.