choosing between 35mm and 50mm primes for D5100

C

Crispy

Senior Member
I will say that I recently bought the 35mm based on feedback I got here and I've very pleased with it. It's done me well for a lens to have on the camera when I know I'm going to be spending lots of time indoors or in a snapshot situation. I've even found myself having to take a step back or two with it when taking snapshots or even trying to get some distance by moving around if I'm sitting on the floor with the kids. So far it's not been a "problem" or at least nothing that a quick adjustment couldn't fix or some pre-thought HOWEVER I could see certain things I've been able to do with my 35mm not being possible with the 50mm. Of course I should mention that we live in a 2/2 condo with 3 kids. :)
 
B

bgatty68

Senior Member
I have been deciding for a while about a 35mm or 50mm and decided on getting the 35mm but after CYNRAM saying about the 40mm I am back to square 1 again:confused:
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
I had the 35 and was frustrated with the minimum focus distance. I did not expect to get real close, but even normal still life of things like a vase or a bunch of flowers is challenging with the 35. I actually found the 40mm micro to be sharper.

With the exception of the 5mm loss, it is simply a more versatile lens. I'm not saying the 35 is not good, I just found it to be somewhat "boring".
 
Last edited:
D

Dave_W

The Dude
bgatty68 said:
Cnyram,
Is the 40mm good for portrait pictures as well???
P.S sorry i've just realised i wrote cynram earlier ooopppssss
Click to expand...

I would say it's a better portrait lens due to the fact it will not give the same aberrations as will a normal lens that can distort a face when you're too close to the subject. There's a name for this effect but I can't remember it. It's the effect you see when you take close up photos of a dog and it stretches the dogs nose out relative to his face. A macro lens will not do this. Does anyone know what the name if this effect is? I used to think it was called "parallax" but I don't think that's the right term.
 
§

§am

Senior Member
After much debate and hunting around and waiting for the right prices, and finally going into my local Jessops (photo shop) and having a play with both lenses, I opted for the 50mm 1.8G

The 35mm was/is a very good lens and produced some great pics, but for me what clinched it was the 50mm seemed a little sharper, and I didn't feel as if I'd be in people's faces when I needed to get up close (though 15cm min focus distance between the two is not all that much).

Additionally, the 50mm is a FX lens whereas the 35mm is a DX lens. For future proofing, I would prefer to invest in FX equipment so that when I get a little more professional and can afford a FX body, I won't be stuck with a huge amount of DX lenses.
 
Top