If I have 50mm lens.. is it worthy to get a 35mm?

Originally Posted by AhmedGhanam

Hello
I have a 50mm lens.. I mainly use it for portraits and I likes it
I'm looking for a wide open lens to capture landscapes and architecture. Is a 35mm lens is my best choice.. looking to the price other variable?

A 50mm lens is considered a “normal lens” on a standard 35mm film camera or a ”full-frame” or “FX” digital camera, though it's actually a bit long, about 43 mm would be more correct.* A normal lens is one which gives a field of view comparable to that of the human eye.

Your D5200 has a sensor that is smaller than that of a full 35mm frame, and so, to get the same field of view, you need, proportionally, a shorter lens. This is the “crop factor” of which you've surely heard, often given as about 1.5, though 1.55 is more accurate. Your 50mm lens, on your D5200, gives about the same field of view than a {50 1.55 ×} 77.5mm lens would give on a 35mm film camera. To get the equivalent on your D5200 of a 50mm lens mounted on a 35mm film camera, what you really wants is a {50 155 ÷} 32mm lens. 35 is close enough.

---

› See More: If I have 50mm lens.. is it worthy to get a 35mm?

Originally Posted by Woodyg3

I have a Tamron 17-50mm that works perfectly for almost all of my landscape shots. I don't think I've used my 50mm prime lens in a couple of years, I like the 17-50 better.

I don't really do architectural shots, so I can't comment there.

I'll second that.
Now if @AhmedGhanam only has a 50, then the 17-50 would be my choice as well. But I thought that he probably would have the "kit" 18-55...