Is the 50mm really better than the 35mm?

i guess this question gets posted a lot but am not looking for anything specific in terms of what i shoot.
just comparing the nikon 35mm 1.8g & the 50mm 1.8g for IQ..

have read in a lot of articles online that the 50mm gets you better shots than the 35mm?
that there is a quite a bit aberration with the 35 and even bokeh is better with the 50 than the 35?

i had almost ordered for the 35mm as i need it only for day to day photography at the moment & just general photography, but now am wondering if a 50 mm would be better.

understand that it really depends on what i need, i did try with the 18-55 at 35mm & 50mm and definitely prefer the area covered by the 35 against the 50.
however these comments concerning the quality of the photo is bothering me as the price difference is almost negligible..

I love my 50mm f/1.8G, it has wonderful bokeh and is sharp as a tact. Unfortunately, the 50mm on a DX is a 75mm equivalent, so in a way it's not fair to compare the 35mm with the 50mm since it's approx 2x the focal length.

ummm,, maybe a bit too worried about lens quality, really comes to your budget, and the tuning of the lens for your type of photos, wide or semi tele. I assume you have a DX camera, so the 50mm is almost a short tele, and the 35 is a bit more flexible. Personally, I would vote for the 18-55, and the 50 mm prime.

I have both of these lens on DX bodies and I can tell you that it will all depend on what you are shooting. When looking at shooting people & sports at night I prefer the 50mm. When I am shooting landscape I almost always use the 35mm. You can't go wrong with either though. They both have their needed place in your bag. If you really need some more information let me know and I will be more than happy to take two photos side by side with the exact same settings on my D300 and will do nothing but convert to Jpeg and post.

I believe you can correct the barrel distortion of the 35 in PS. I recently was able to use one with my DX camera and I was quite impressed with the pictures it made. One thing that is cool about the 35 is it's small size and light weight of course the 50 is not going to be much different in those areas. 50mm and DX just don't get along with me I like the wider angles but maybe if I used a 50 more I could come to appreciate it.

Have you looked at the new 28 G? It is a bit more expensive but it may be worth trying out.

Eye-level said:

Have you looked at the new 28 G? It is a bit more expensive but it may be worth trying out.

Click to expand...

The 28 f/1.8G is an awesome lens. I would take the 28 over the 24 all day long.

Stangman98 said:

I have both of these lens on DX bodies and I can tell you that it will all depend on what you are shooting. When looking at shooting people & sports at night I prefer the 50mm. When I am shooting landscape I almost always use the 35mm. You can't go wrong with either though. They both have their needed place in your bag. If you really need some more information let me know and I will be more than happy to take two photos side by side with the exact same settings on my D300 and will do nothing but convert to Jpeg and post.

Click to expand...

That would be really awesome, if you could!
Do you notice any difference in the quality of pictures?
i ask cos people say that the 35mm has a lot of chromatic aberration which could reduce the IQ of pics?http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...hromatic+aberration+35mm+1.8+50mm+1.8&spell=1

Again, all depends on what I am shooting. I don't do any portrait stuff with the 35 for the most part. Yes I think the 50 is a touch sharper, but it is negligible when shooting anything but people in my mind.

I always personally felt the 55mm f/1.2 nikkor that Nikon used to produce was about the perfect normal lens that there ever was and I used one for ever on my F2 back when I had it. I think it was a shame that focal length was dropped later on and wish they would make an AF version of it. It makes a wonderful portrait lens. These days I actually prefer a 28mm over a 35mm but I would take a 35mm over a 50mm for general use just my opinion.

yes, have tried both the 50mm & the 35mm and i am tending towards the 35 mm mainly cos of the wider angle it covers.
There isn't too much difference in price between the two, but i have read that the quality of images in the 50mm is better than the 35, which is my only bother.
But i think i am going to settle for the 35mm.. the 28mm looks really awesome with some great reviews, but it is more than 3 times the cost

Really one of the only wide angle Nikkors that doesn't exhibit barrel distortion at all and other ill effects is the 28/2.8 Ais but that is MF and matrix or no metering on modern DSLR's. This is true for most brands and most lenses when it comes to wide angles. Some of the Leicas and maybe Zeiss Ikon stuff are similar to the 28/2.8 Ais but for the most part if you do wide angle you are going to have to deal with the tradeoffs.

I agree with letmedanz. Although, I'm ready to sell my 35 in favor of the 40mm. Why you might ask? Well, 5mm isn't much difference. Also the semi-macro capability. Maybe a tad better build quality.. I might be "bored" of the 35? And I have a 16-85 as well so that covers that range pretty nice anyway, but has horrible bokeh..

The bokeh on the 35 isn't that great. The 50 is great. The 40 is kinda in between imho. I'm ok with the tradeoff.

on my DX body, when I am walking around with a prime, I prefer the wider, and actually like the 28 mm range as my favorite over the 35.

on my FX body, I got to say, I like the 35 mm lens if I only have one prime with me, but then primes are so small, that just throw in an extra into a cargo pocket.

at 129 dollars, adding a 50mm 1.8 really should not be as much as an issue. so why not both.

aah .. i would love that.. having both lenses
i have seen the bokeh on the 50mm, it's just awesome... some people say that the bokeh on the 35mm is not as great as the 50? is that true?

and recently, i have read a couple of negative reviews about the 28mm (though the reviewer does state that it is a possibility of receiving a bad piece, but the same on 2 28's he got)..

well,, my 28 is an D version and have not had issues. I actually use a 35 mm manual prime lens, so I was speaking of flexibility and not brokah, the 50 mm is quite fine, but not as fine as the 50 1.4, I personally prefer buying the D versions just because they are cheaper, but unfortunately, they won't function on 3100/5100 in focus mode.

Hence Nikon gets a premium on the G versions, which is a reversal of say 15 years ago, when the G versions were always cheaper the the D versions, but now they have a captive audience, so milk their profits (guess you can't blame them).

Have the 28mm 1.8G, 50mm 1.8D and used th 35mm 1.8G many times.

If you have a DX camera, I would recommend 35mm 1.8G as IMO bokeh is still acceptable. 50mm 1.8 is great, but you are mainly looking at taking half body photos indoors ad face shots in tight areas. The biggest drawback is it's a DX lens and you'll probably have to sell when/if you move full frame.

50mm 1.8D on a DX has awesome bokeh and always proved to me as one of the best portait lens. It's small, quick (enough), bokeh, sharp and contrasty images.

Now as for the 28mm, this is the lens I use for street photography. For my copy, it's the sharpest the 3 focal lengths that I've shot. Great colours and it's much more versatile than 35 and 50mm since you can go really close and bokeh will be nice or you can take one step back and you'll have a wider angle photo.

I'm not as knowledgeable as a lot of you guys and I ask myself too "which is better, 35 or 50?" and "which takes better pics?"....

Very different really aren't they? The 35 is more suited to landscape (albeit not that wide) and general use and coz the 50 is a full frame lens when on a DX camera it's a 75mm and therefore is a great portrait lens.

Makes the question "which is better?" totally irrelavent because they are different types of lenses. If you take portraits well the 50 is the one to get and if landscape and general walk about photography then the 35mm.


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Gav-

i think you misunderstood my question.
i totally get the fact that each lens is dependent on the type of photography you are looking to do.
the question here was only about the quality of the image each lens produces.
as i have read that the chromatic aberration on the 35mm is quite a bit more in comparison to the 50mm.

well after a month or more of contemplation i decided to take the plunge for the 35 mm for now..
just ordered it!!
i hope i made the right choice~

One of the great things I like about the wides is the great DOF and the ability to zone focus them from 7-10 feet on out. Makes shooting snaps much faster. You almost don't even need AF with a wide lens.

You're going to really like the 35.