Europe vacation walk-around night lens - 35 or 50mm?

plkananen

Member
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Cincinnati USA, OH, US
I will be in England, Italy, France for a couple of weeks and currently have the 18-70 and a telephoto lens. I'd like to add a faster lens for night photography. The 1.5 50mm is tempting because its faster and a lot cheaper, but I'm worried it will be too long for indoor shots and some landscapes. It the 35 a lot more versatile for these situations? I don't think I can handle the extra cost now, but can be convinced. Thanks.

--
Nikon D.5.0, N i k o n 4.5.0.0
 
It's a matter of preference, style, personal taste. I find 50mm more useful on the 1.5x crop, myself, for "night walking around" use, though I do normally bring the 35mm f/2 also. If I had to choose one or the other it would be the 50mm, no doubt.
 
would probably be the Nikon 28mm f/1.4, but I can not justify the cost so I use the 35mm f/2. There is a reason that for all of these years the 50mm lens has been the standard lens on 35mm cameras. On Nikon DSLR's the 35mm is that lens. You can look at my lenses in my profile and you will see that I have many choices, For the purpose that you are asking about I would take the 35 and not even think twice

JMO
--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
when it comes to speed the Nikon at 1.4 is one stop faster than the 35mm f/2, but if you want to hand hold in low light you should normally try to keep your shutter speed at 1.5 times the focal length of the lens on a Nikon DSLR. on the 50 that means a shutter speed of 1/75 or better and on the 35 a shutter speed of a tad more than 1/50th. to me this means that for practical, hand holding, purposes the 35 is effectively only about 1/2 stop slower than the 50 f/1.4

just something to consider

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
when it comes to speed the Nikon at 1.4 is one stop faster than the
35mm f/2, but if you want to hand hold in low light you should
normally try to keep your shutter speed at 1.5 times the focal
length of the lens on a Nikon DSLR. on the 50 that means a shutter
speed of 1/75 or better and on the 35 a shutter speed of a tad more
than 1/50th. to me this means that for practical, hand holding,
purposes the 35 is effectively only about 1/2 stop slower than the
50 f/1.4

just something to consider

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

That's what I thought at first when I switched over to dSLRs, that everything would be 1.5x whatever it was in the film days, focal length, the 1/focal length rule....

but after some thinking I don't think it applies to the 1/focal length rule.

Why? the lens is still at its set focal legnth from the sensor itself, that distance is the same, the only reason for the 1.5x factor is because the sensor is smaller than the 35mm films so that's why on a dSLR a 50mm would be 75mm, because the sensor "sees" it as 75, but the distance between the glass and the sensor is STILL 50mm... so the 1/focal length rule still applies and there's no need to multiply that 1.5x

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think after discussing this very topic with other photos i'd say it's probably one of the biggest misconceptions about the "rule".

:)
 
17-55 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 VR
35 f2
85 f1.4
Close-Up Filter
SB-800 Flash
Gitzo Carbon Tripod
D2X

maljo
 
I will be in England, Italy, France for a couple of weeks and
currently have the 18-70 and a telephoto lens. I'd like to add a
faster lens for night photography. The 1.5 50mm is tempting
because its faster and a lot cheaper, but I'm worried it will be
too long for indoor shots and some landscapes. It the 35 a lot
more versatile for these situations? I don't think I can handle
the extra cost now, but can be convinced. Thanks.

--
Nikon D.5.0, N i k o n 4.5.0.0
Most places of any value will not let you use flash indoors, nor tripod. So to get those amazing shots, you need a fast lens as well as a wide angle lens. In digital that is going to be hard to do, as in digital normal is 30mm compared to 50 mm in film, and wide is around 21mm in digital is comparable to 35 mm in film. Because of this, I shot in film with 35mm 1.4, because there is nothing available in digital at this time at digital wide angle 1.4 speed. The best you can do in digital is try to get as close to 2.8 around 20mm as possible and hope for the best !

For outdoors, you would have no problem, you have plenty of light, and you have a lot of choices.

Be careful with your gear particularly in Italy and France.
 
Why? the lens is still at its set focal legnth from the sensor
itself, that distance is the same, the only reason for the 1.5x
factor is because the sensor is smaller than the 35mm films so
that's why on a dSLR a 50mm would be 75mm, because the sensor
"sees" it as 75, but the distance between the glass and the sensor
is STILL 50mm... so the 1/focal length rule still applies and
there's no need to multiply that 1.5x
The thing is, in order to get to the same image size, you're enlarging the image more -- more enlargement is the same as more magnification for this purpose.
 
I will be going to Italy in April and am taking with me my new combo which I believe will be good for most images , according to my style of shooting ,

( 50/1.8 , 28-70/2.8 and 105/2.8 macro/medium tele) . The one range I will miss is a 180-200 range , unless I manage to lay my hands on a used 180/2.8 .

Why I have this combo ? because it answers my photographic needs/style: Streets and avenues , mainly architecturals and other street arts( statues, wall paintings , gardens etc,,etc,,)

I went over all my photographs from my last 3 visits , to the netherlands, and France , many times trying to reach to some conclusions .
The images I liked most were around the

1. 25-50mm ,2. 80-100mm , and 3. 180-250mm . 3. 50/1.8 low light museums etc..

For the first range I used sigma 18-50/2.8 , for the other range number 2. I used 80-200/2.8 ,

I took some images at 18 and 20 , but only because I had that lens, somewhow im not crazy about WA for most images , I think WA is good for large- scape landscapes , I dont like WA for buildings and such , I think the effect is more kind of gimicky than giving a strong photo - graphic impact to an image.- sorry for muddling here with "thoughts about photography" -

but I ofer you my thoughts , to help you with lens choice , before you start spending too much on leses you wont need , think very carefully of what you actually want to achieve .

I think fast glass is almost a must in Europe unless you are going in the summer and will be taking pictures at good light conditions Europe is usually darker during the rest of the months , an element that I believe, contributes to a potentially better image .

--
avis
 
Most places of any value will not let you use flash indoors, nor
tripod. So to get those amazing shots, you need a fast lens as well
as a wide angle lens. In digital that is going to be hard to do, as
in digital normal is 30mm compared to 50 mm in film, and wide is
around 21mm in digital is comparable to 35 mm in film. Because of
this, I shot in film with 35mm 1.4, because there is nothing
available in digital at this time at digital wide angle 1.4 speed.
The best you can do in digital is try to get as close to 2.8 around
20mm as possible and hope for the best !

Be careful with your gear particularly in Italy and France.
Hi,

I'd like to point out that Sigma has a 30mm f1.4 DSLR 'standard' lens (Gauss type lens formula as found in Carl Zeiss Planars & Nikon, Canon, etc. 50mm lenses) that is unique in the employ of ED & SD glass to eliminate CA.

They also have wideangle prime lenses at 20mm, 24mm, 28mm all with f1.8 maximum aperture. While not cracking performers at wide open, they do make the difference in getting the shot than not at all.

Kev
 
Why? the lens is still at its set focal legnth from the sensor
itself, that distance is the same, the only reason for the 1.5x
factor is because the sensor is smaller than the 35mm films so
that's why on a dSLR a 50mm would be 75mm, because the sensor
"sees" it as 75, but the distance between the glass and the sensor
is STILL 50mm... so the 1/focal length rule still applies and
there's no need to multiply that 1.5x
The thing is, in order to get to the same image size, you're
enlarging the image more -- more enlargement is the same as more
magnification for this purpose.
that makes sense too, but the focal lengths from the glass and the sensor is still the same though. the rule is more of a guideline but there must be some physics behind it, so eventhough the image is "enlarged" by 1.5 times, the rule shouldn't apply to it because the physical distance still hasn't changed.

is there a definitive answer somewhere? i'm really curious about it because i always shoot near the limit (i.e. 1/250~1/320 at 200mm), so it'd help a lot to know which is the one to follow
 
Most places of any value will not let you use flash indoors, nor
tripod. So to get those amazing shots, you need a fast lens as well
as a wide angle lens. In digital that is going to be hard to do, as
in digital normal is 30mm compared to 50 mm in film, and wide is
around 21mm in digital is comparable to 35 mm in film. Because of
this, I shot in film with 35mm 1.4, because there is nothing
available in digital at this time at digital wide angle 1.4 speed.
The best you can do in digital is try to get as close to 2.8 around
20mm as possible and hope for the best !

Be careful with your gear particularly in Italy and France.
Hi,

I'd like to point out that Sigma has a 30mm f1.4 DSLR 'standard'
lens (Gauss type lens formula as found in Carl Zeiss Planars &
Nikon, Canon, etc. 50mm lenses) that is unique in the employ of ED
& SD glass to eliminate CA.

They also have wideangle prime lenses at 20mm, 24mm, 28mm all with
f1.8 maximum aperture. While not cracking performers at wide open,
they do make the difference in getting the shot than not at all.

Kev
Thanks for that info, I am on the lookout for wa between 14 to 21 mm high speed sharp lens that is also sharp for digital ! I will check them out !
 
Particularly useful for a large number of tiny streets in Europe.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
 
that makes sense too, but the focal lengths from the glass and the
sensor is still the same though. the rule is more of a guideline
but there must be some physics behind it, so eventhough the image
is "enlarged" by 1.5 times, the rule shouldn't apply to it because
the physical distance still hasn't changed.
Distance isn't significant; magnification is. 1.5x more enlargement is basically the same as 1.5x more magnification for this purpose.
is there a definitive answer somewhere?
Since it's a guideline, not a law of physics, there can't be a definitive answer. But the physics behind the thing make the 1.5x multiplier applicable since it serves as additional magnification to get to the same image size.
 
Or the 20mm f/2.8 if you want to go wider...but the 35mm f/2 is a great all around lens. It's light and sharp and fast and contrasty and works great with the onboard flash, too.
 
I am just finishing 6 months in Europe doing some photo stuff among other things. Let me say first off that the first and most important consideration is your personal shooting style and aesthetic. Your lens choices will be dictated by that fact, so YMMV.

That being said, I faced the same question you do before I left the US and chose the 50 1.4. I thought I might need the extra range for some work I thought I might be doing. Long story short, that specific application never materialized (though the lense has been a wonderful portrait machine), and I really wished for a wider lense! This is mainly because some of the shooting situations call for extreme handholding in available light, so as short a focal length as possible is great. Also, shooting space is often very restricted, stuff here is much closer together and your back is to a wall pretty quickly, so wide is helpful to getting the shots you want.

Ideal (for me), in the digital crop world, would be a prime somewhere between 20-25mm, designed to be sharp wide open at 1.4. That would give a useful field of view (stuff is really tight over here compared to the US, wide is good), and could be hand held in available light at significantly lower shutter speeds than my 50 can be. I would like to get the Nikon 28 1.4 that apparently has just been discontinued, but I am now hopelessly poor :( The 35 f2 would be next choice for me.

Lots of places (usually the best ones) here allow, no flash, no tripod and even sometimes no monopod (which is my next recommendation for you, GET ONE!). So you are reduced to shooting the interior of the most beautiful cathedral you have ever seen, or exhibits in a museum, at very slow shutter speeds.

When you can use it, a monopod rocks, especially if you get one with the feet that can be deployed. Folks don't notice the feet and if you are subtle and don't make a nuisance of yourself, you can deploy them and get some long exposures. This works best inside, as it is not steady at all in any wind, but it's a great thing inside or when it is still.

In one case, I was in a castle and they would not let me use the monopod on the ground...no problem...I shortened it and stuck the bottom in my jacket pocket. Because I had the ballhead on it, I could adjust the camera just how I wanted it. This made me extremely steady, perhaps even more steady than just putting the pod on the ground without the feet, especially when I would kneel and press the foot into my leg. So I highly recommend one...I bought mine here after finding my 50 1.4 not getting the pix I wanted and needing some way to get more steady.

So the short is, in my opinion, go fast and wide, and get a good monopod. Good luck!
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top