50mm 1.8 vs 35mm 1.8

R

rece2000

Senior Member
I currently have the 50mm 1.8 lens, but am thinking about possibly selling and buying the 35mm 1.8 instead. I have the d5300. DXOmark lists the 35mm as a better lens for the 5300. Wondering what the general consensus is out there. I have heard a lot of people buying the 35mm and really liking it. Since it's "cheap" enough, would it also be worth it to buy it but still keep my 50mm? I don't want to buy a lens just to buy and want to make sure I like it and will use it. For those who have both, do you find yourself using one more than the other? or do you find enough situations to use both? I do want to have the best lens I can (of these 2...). What are opinions on these 2?

Thanks!
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
Have you found yourself in many situations using the 50 where you though, "Gee, a wider lens would be nice!" If so, how often? If a lot, then by all means get the 35, or maybe even a 28. If some, then get something wider than the 50, but keep the 50. If rarely, maybe you should wait until you need it more or have saved up enough to justify the expense of a lens you won't use much.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I have both the 35mm and the 50mm and I like them both.

Bear in mind with the 35mm you can zoom and crop to match the 50mm FOV but you can't widen a 50mm FOV to match the 35mm.

....
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Oh man, you're in for a rough ride if you're going to read all reviews about all lenses and think you'll have better pictures only when you get the best lenses. The 50 and the 35 DX are two of the least expensive lenses that Nikon makes. If you need both, then by all means get both, but if you're going to sell your 50 in order to get the 35... then maybe photography is a hobby you can't afford.

Lenses are only tools to produce images and you could probably take amazing images with the cheapest zoom lens Nikon has ever made. I know I took amazing pictures with the 28-80 $50 zoom.

If you want to have the best lenses, get your wallet ready because the holy trinity will set you back about $ 6,000.00. That's how much the very best lenses will cost you. So in the meantime, use what you have or start saving.
 
F

Felisek

Senior Member
Yes, you can crop a 35-mm picture to match the 50-mm FOV, but the perspective will be different. In particular, a portrait will look noticeable different.

You can consider an alternative - a good zoom lens. Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is excellent, almost on par with primes and doesn't cost a fortune. It will give you not only both 35 and 50 mm, but also much wider angles for landscapes and architecture.
 
P

Pretzel

Senior Member
rece2000 said:
I currently have the 50mm 1.8 lens, but am thinking about possibly selling and buying the 35mm 1.8 instead. I have the d5300. DXOmark lists the 35mm as a better lens for the 5300. Wondering what the general consensus is out there. I have heard a lot of people buying the 35mm and really liking it. Since it's "cheap" enough, would it also be worth it to buy it but still keep my 50mm? I don't want to buy a lens just to buy and want to make sure I like it and will use it. For those who have both, do you find yourself using one more than the other? or do you find enough situations to use both? I do want to have the best lens I can (of these 2...). What are opinions on these 2?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

To the average eye, the quality will seem the same. The only difference is going to be your field of view, as the 35mm provides a wider angle than the 50mm. (like with the 18-55mm zoom. More zoom equals less FOV)

Primes are always a good investment, and both of these lenses are not only good, but fairly inexpensive as lenses go. I VOTE BOTH!
 
B

Bill16

Senior Member
I also vote getting both! Though I'm using the af-d versions, I'm loving them, and the DX 35mm is suppose to be even better than my af-d 35mm! So I can't see how you could go wrong on two great primes! I think I saw the price drop on the 35mm new on eBay for about $170.00 I think, which is a bit better than the already low price of about $200.00!

Of course I have to admit I'm a big fan of Nikkor prime lenses! Lol :D
 
Michael J.

Michael J.

Senior Member
I've got both and let me tell you something. For narrow places the 35mm does for me a great job. The 50 mm is now my portrait lens and I use it for street as well.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
If you base your decision of better on the overall DxO score of 27 vs 23, keep in mind that doesn't say everything about the technical quality of the lenses.

I personally completely disregard the DxO overall score and only check the measurements of those factors/settings that are important to me.
 
Fred Kingston

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
rece2000 said:
I currently have the 50mm 1.8 lens, but am thinking about possibly selling and buying the 35mm 1.8 instead. I have the d5300. DXOmark lists the 35mm as a better lens for the 5300. Wondering what the general consensus is out there. I have heard a lot of people buying the 35mm and really liking it. Since it's "cheap" enough, would it also be worth it to buy it but still keep my 50mm? I don't want to buy a lens just to buy and want to make sure I like it and will use it. For those who have both, do you find yourself using one more than the other? or do you find enough situations to use both? I do want to have the best lens I can (of these 2...). What are opinions on these 2?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I think you should dump'em both and get the 85mm.... and then the 105mm... and once you get the 105, dump the 85mm and get the 24-70 2.8... and then, and then, and then...
 
R

rece2000

Senior Member
J-see said:
If you base your decision of better on the overall DxO score of 27 vs 23, keep in mind that doesn't say everything about the technical quality of the lenses.

I personally completely disregard the DxO overall score and only check the measurements of those factors/settings that are important to me.
Click to expand...


Yes, I like that the sharpness is slightly better with the 50, so that is the main reason i am trying to find out what others have liked. i know they say 50mm is closest to what the eye naturally sees, and with a crop sensor camera, a 35mm would get me closer to that 50mm then a 50mm would. i'm not in love with my 50mm, actually, and if the 35mm might be just slightly better, i wonder if i'll be happier with that. i have the price covered, just wondering if i want to go this route or save for a macro since i have 35mm covered with my tamron 17-50 lens. decisions, decisions... :)
 
R

rece2000

Senior Member
Marcel said:
Oh man, you're in for a rough ride if you're going to read all reviews about all lenses and think you'll have better pictures only when you get the best lenses. The 50 and the 35 DX are two of the least expensive lenses that Nikon makes. If you need both, then by all means get both, but if you're going to sell your 50 in order to get the 35... then maybe photography is a hobby you can't afford.

Lenses are only tools to produce images and you could probably take amazing images with the cheapest zoom lens Nikon has ever made. I know I took amazing pictures with the 28-80 $50 zoom.

If you want to have the best lenses, get your wallet ready because the holy trinity will set you back about $ 6,000.00. That's how much the very best lenses will cost you. So in the meantime, use what you have or start saving.
Click to expand...

right, i'm not looking to get better pictures. i'm actually quite happy with the pictures i get. just asking for those who have both, if they find they use both. i don't want to buy a lens just to buy and end up not using it, because it's a great price. or, if people find they gravitate towards the 35 more than the 50, i don't see the problem of getting rid of the 50 if i'm not going to use it?? at least i can get some money for it. it would be used primarily for portrait/every day photography. it's not the only lens i have, and though, no, i do not want to spend 6000 on the "holy trinity", i'm so far very happy with the lens collection i do have, which includes an 85 1.8, 17-50 2.8, and 11-16 2.8, as well as a 55-200 kit lens that i actually find i don't use very often, but keep cause i know i won't get anything for it. i want only the best lenses i can afford.
 
R

rece2000

Senior Member
FredKingston said:
I think you should dump'em both and get the 85mm.... and then the 105mm... and once you get the 105, dump the 85mm and get the 24-70 2.8... and then, and then, and then...
Click to expand...

that's funny! i actually have the 85mm and was contemplating getting the 105mm for macro photography...24-70 is something i would definitely want if i ever went full frame. have a 17-50 that gets me close to that on a crop sensor, and was actually recommended to me by another photographer.
 
R

rece2000

Senior Member
480sparky said:
Have you found yourself in many situations using the 50 where you though, "Gee, a wider lens would be nice!" If so, how often? If a lot, then by all means get the 35, or maybe even a 28. If some, then get something wider than the 50, but keep the 50. If rarely, maybe you should wait until you need it more or have saved up enough to justify the expense of a lens you won't use much.
Click to expand...

yes, i'd say "some"... for indoors... although, in all honesty, i do have a 17-50 that can cover that for me.
 
R

rece2000

Senior Member
Felisek said:
Yes, you can crop a 35-mm picture to match the 50-mm FOV, but the perspective will be different. In particular, a portrait will look noticeable different.

You can consider an alternative - a good zoom lens. Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is excellent, almost on par with primes and doesn't cost a fortune. It will give you not only both 35 and 50 mm, but also much wider angles for landscapes and architecture.
Click to expand...

yes, i actually have the tamron 17-50mm. not my favorite lens, but, yes, it does give me the focal length i need in certain situations. i think i'm talking myself into leaving it at what i have and saving for the macro i want. i should then be complete. but, a good lens for around $200 is hard to pass up! but, again, i don't want to buy just to buy! :)
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
rece2000 said:
right, i'm not looking to get better pictures. i'm actually quite happy with the pictures i get. just asking for those who have both, if they find they use both. i don't want to buy a lens just to buy and end up not using it, because it's a great price. or, if people find they gravitate towards the 35 more than the 50, i don't see the problem of getting rid of the 50 if i'm not going to use it?? at least i can get some money for it. it would be used primarily for portrait/every day photography. it's not the only lens i have, and though, no, i do not want to spend 6000 on the "holy trinity", i'm so far very happy with the lens collection i do have, which includes an 85 1.8, 17-50 2.8, and 11-16 2.8, as well as a 55-200 kit lens that i actually find i don't use very often, but keep cause i know i won't get anything for it. i want only the best lenses i can afford.
Click to expand...
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.
....
 
Top