Reading mode: Light Dark

50 1.8/1.4 or 35 2.0?

Go to last post
K

kalicki

Member
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hey all,

Trying to decide which of these lens to get. The 50s get great reviews and whatnot, but I don't see nearly as much on the 35, despite that it crops to 50ish, which is what is supposedly closest to the naked eye FOV and a good just normal walking around lens. Is the small difference in fstop going to make much of a difference? How good are they all wide open? I'll be spending a few months in Paris this spring, so which one should I be spending most of my time with walking around and going in dark places?

Any thoughts? I also have the normal cheap 18-55/3.5-5.6 and 55-200/4-5.6.

Thanks,
Bryan
 
Hi,

I've had the 50mm af-d 1.8 for a while, and I love it. The only problem is that on digital it's somewhat too narrow for me. Today I bought a 35mm f2, a great lens, and the focal lenght suits me better. I have a feeling the 50mm will get very little use now.

Still, the 50mm 1.8 is extremely sharp! At approx f4 it's as sharp as it gets. Cheap build, but then again VERY cheap (about 100$?).

Tough decision, but the 35mm is more versatile, and I am sure it will be a steady performer in your bag. I took a street photo today, just after buying it, previously posted in Nikon Lens forum. Sorry it's too small to judge, but I can tell you it's sharp, taken at f2.8, missed focus on the eyes, but IMO it doesn't matter:


kalicki said:
Any other thoughts?
Click to expand...
--
Kind regards,
Rich.
 
In general, the 35mm 2.0 is more useful than the 50mm but the 50mm is a super cheap lense. The 50mm is not useful is small house but it is very good when shooting in big house, restaurant or outdoor. The 50mm is also perfect for shooting small kids. Since the 50mm is a bit tele, you have to shoot from a 2m distance or more and this is a perfect spot for boucing flash. The 50mm is also a good lense for portrait photography because you can't stand too close to the object.
 
50mm is too long for small spaces. I rarely use my 50 1.4, unless I am going to a low light situation.

The 35mm or smaller mm lens will do better for a 'normal perspective shot'.
--
D 8 0, D 7 0, 1 8 - 2 0 0 v r, 5 0 f 1 . 4, 1 8 - 7 0 (sold)
1 0 5 v r, T o k i n a 2 8 - 7 0 f 2 . 8 p r o - s v, S B 6 0 0
N X, N V, N C, P P, P S E 4
 
The 35mm f/2 is better unless you want tighter shots or more distance with the 50mm lenses. I own both 35/2 and 50/1.8 and I like the 35/2 more for travel. The sigma 30/1.4 would be even better, but it costs more. I'm using the 50/1.8 mostly when I shoot flowers and such, as it focuses close. If you want a 50mm lens and shoot a lot in dim light, then at least get the faster one.
 
"f/1.8 vs. f/1.4" equals "1/20s vs. 1/30s"

If you think that your photos have considerably less blur at 1/30s than at 1/20s and if you frequently shoot at those speeds, then you need f/1.4.
 
One more thing: You would probably love a 50mm f/1.4 lens + circular polarizer, when you need to shoot small items behind glass at museums. Larger objects and room views do require at least 30-35mm and faster is better... Anyway, 35/2 or 30/1.4 is the walk-around-evening-lens.
 
I have both the 50 and the 35. I even bought another 50 for my brother's christmas present to replace the one he dropped...
 
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