Reading mode: Light Dark

35 f 2 or 50 f 1.4 ? If you could only buy one lens now

Go to last post
B

bilosellhi

Active member
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Location
WA, US
which would you prefer and why?

While I am waiting for my 18-200VR to arrive...I am looking to get another lens so I can take digital photos. I have a camera body and no lens at the moment ...and I am itching to take some photos before the summer is over.
I enjoy taking nature, pets, portraits, vacations ...
Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts
 
bilosellhi said:
which would you prefer and why?
Click to expand...
The 35, without question. It's a personal preference and style thing but to me 50 is just an "uncomfortable" length on a 1.5X crop digital. It's too short for good head and shoulders portraits yet too long for a good general purpose lens indoors. In using my 17-55, I have FAR more shots around 35 and shorter than around 50. Most of my shots around 50 are maxed out at 55 which means I really needed something longer. I have a 50/1.8 and I never use it -- it simply doesn't feel "right" for anything I shoot. Keep in mind that is MY preference -- yours could well be different.

Phil
 
Good choices :-)

The 35/f2 is a more USEABLE length than the 50mm.
Both are superb lenses, you can't go wrong with either.

50/f1.4
portraits - landscapes - artistic shots with thin DOF - any non-flash needs
tight range for inside shots, but superb for museums and indoor situations
where flash may be verboten or unwelcome.

35/f2
social shots with friends - landscapes - stay-on-the-camera all day lens
general tourism / street shots

I have the 50/f1.8 and the 35/f2 if I had to make a one-lens choice,
it would be the 50 because I think that it is a tad sharper and I like the
mini-tele quality of 50mm, but I probably could not tell images from each
lens apart :-)

Back to the 35/f2 : the ability to take excellent non-flash shots inside
without too much blur should not be underestimated, the 35/f2 really
shines at this, so if much of your photog is for this purpose, go for it !

The 50/f1.4 is equally good but will push you against the wall to get
everyone into the shot :-)

( yes, I would love the 50/f1.4, but the f/1.8 is so close
in IQ performance that the price difference is'nt justified )

Many shooters feel that 35 and 50 are too close in range and suggest
that the 85mm and 35mm might be better as a pair of primes.

Research these lenses here in search - the 35 vs 50 challenge has come up
several times a week for the past 5 years . . .

Good luck !
Keith

--
Sunshine :
The photographer's friend . . . And nemesis.
 
The 35mm f2 gives you a much more usesful focal length on a DX body -- it's a normal lens. You could take a wideish portrait with it, you could take a full body shot, even a slight landscape.

The 50mm would get you a little too close for most shots except for portraits.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
I own both and by far the 35 is a much much more usefull focal length. the 35mm f/2 is my do it all travel lens.

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
After reading all the threads...I am going to go for the 35 f 2.

I have an opportunity to purhcase a used one...but, think for the price and the warranty...the new one would be the way to go.
 
Since you will be getting the 18-200mm go for the f1.4 aperture of the 50mm. You will not be sorry. The 35mm range is a nice focal length for general purpose but the 50mm is not that far off. I have owned both lens and can say that the difference in aperture is far more significant than the difference in focal length.
--
James H.
My Gallery: http://jhphoto.smugmug.com
 
Hi,

I have both the 35/f2 and rhe 50/f1.4 and the 35 gets more use. Both are excellent. I bought both second hand in mint condition and regret neither purchase; in fact I have enjoyed them both, but I seem to use the 35 more.
--
Jon

http://jules7.smugmug.com/
 
Depends what you are shooting. The 35 is likely to be most useful on DX, roughly equivalent to 50mm on film. However, I'd get the 50 specifically because I prefer the perspective it gives for head and shoulders portraits.
 
...having just re-read your original post I'd suggest the 50mm f1.8 because it is an absolute bargain and yet still excellent quality; you can't go wrong.
 
35 + 85 = good
35 + 50 = less good (FLs are too close)
35 + 50 + 85 = less good (50 will be least used, to me it is still not a regret)
35 + 85 + 135 and/or 180/200 = good

If you really like the 50, you may have to think of 28/24 + 50 + 90/105 (micro/macro) + 180/200

35 is a more universal FL though personally I like the IQ of the 50 more (and 85 even better). For single lense flexibility the 35 stands out quite clearly
 
I would suggest that buying previously loved makes sense on a less complicated, proven lens... if, however, one is buying a pricy lens with AF-S and VR, say, it would seem that a warranty makes more sense.

We bought our 35 2 D mint for
--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.
 
--
Sunshine :
The photographer's friend . . . And nemesis.
 
... it's 52.5mm eq. on D70. f1.4 is better than f2 for absolute low light. But at 75mm eq., 50/1.4 just doesn't cover as much situation as 35/2.0.

I have both and loved 50/1.4 dearly, esp. during film days. But 1.5x crop changes many things.

BTW I compared these two. 30/2 is not as sharp as 50/1.4 when both are at f/2. But with both at f/5.6, 30/2 is the sharper lens.
bilosellhi said:
which would you prefer and why?

While I am waiting for my 18-200VR to arrive...I am looking to get
another lens so I can take digital photos. I have a camera body and
no lens at the moment ...and I am itching to take some photos
before the summer is over.
I enjoy taking nature, pets, portraits, vacations ...
Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts
Click to expand...
 
James H. said:
Since you will be getting the 18-200mm go for the f1.4 aperture of
the 50mm. You will not be sorry. The 35mm range is a nice focal
length for general purpose but the 50mm is not that far off. I have
owned both lens and can say that the difference in aperture is far
more significant than the difference in focal length.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I agree. If you get the 18-200 grab the fastest lens.

--
Carlo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cchiopris/
 
I have both and like the 50mm 1.4 a lot better.

For some people the difference between 35 and 50 is huge. For me it's just an extra step, which you should get used to anyway because your using a prime.

The contrast, sharpness, and speed of the 50 is too important compared to the 35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top