Help the Man Select a Prime lens of these 3

binary_eye said:

Antony John said:

A reference from DPReview:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=picture+angle

Click to expand...

Yes, it's mentioned all over the place. And, thanks to the "ubiquity equals truth" aspect of the internet, it gets propagated even more.

Click to expand...

And almost always ignored from those propagations (including the one above) is the concept of print viewing angle . If you plant yourself at a "traditional" distance from a print (1.5 x diagonal, so say 19 inches from an 8x10), and hold up your camera with a "normal" lens (35mm on DX, 50mm on FX), the print will pretty much fill the frame. THAT's the connection between a "normal" lens and the human eyeball.

Of course, this concept doesn't apply if you like to press your nose against big prints so they fill your entire field of view, or if you tend to stand in the center of the gallery & take in a whole series of prints at one time. But if you view a "normal lens" image from a "normal" distance, then the print will seem like a window, because the perspective in the image matches that of the world around you.

Edit: Might seem obvious, but still worth noting -- All of the above only affects images that include depth (recognizable stuff in both the foreground & background). If everything in the frame is about the same distance from the camera, then perspective is absolutely irrelevant.

--
http://www.benseese.com

David Lal said:

But vision is a complicated thing - we give far more attention generally to what's straight ahead of us.

Click to expand...

That's because what's IN FOCUS is only about 3% of our "normal" field of vision.

Binary -- I agree. There is something like a 6 degree angle of central sharpness or acuity, surrounded by nearly 180 degrees of peripheral vision.

What people mistake for "angle of view" is actually closer to scale or magnification, how big things look next to one another. Even this concept is a mash-up with perspective influences!

Better? Better for what? Is there never a time you want a little tele? Do you think the 35 is better than the 50 for a head shot? Wouldn't the 35mm cause you to get pretty close to your subject for a head shot? Doesn't the 35 sometimes distort the nose if you get in too close? You seem so sure of your answer about the 35 vs the 50, just wondering if you considered these things...

Swedish Hambern said:

Tried 50mm 1.8D and 35mm 1.8G and the 35mm is MUCH MUCH better. Also a much better range for DX cameras cause the 50mm always feels a bit too much tele.

Hazemhaddad said:

Hi Guys

with a D7000, i just came across these three prime lenses, i want to get one of these Prime lenses, but confused which would be the best choice,

i need one for taking photos inhouse for Family gatherings and great looking portraits of my family, lenses are:

50mm 1.4 D , looked amazing at the store. priced at $353

50mm 1.8 D, surprisingly low cost at $170 but is there really this difference in picture quality from the above.

35mm f/ 2D, priced at $381

there is also 35mm 1.8G not much less than the above but it seems the one aboe is better in quality, isnt it?

Please advise... Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

Hazemhaddad said:

this is a nice ligtening discussion,

David,

is it possible to point out some of these comparision? especially the 35 1.8 and 2D and why the 2 is more expansive than the 1.8?

Click to expand...

The 35 mm is designed to form an image on the smaller APS-C sensor. The 35mm F2 for the larger FX sensor. Thus the 2D has to be bigger to house the bigger lens elements required.

The 2D is also 'a higher quality lens' in respect of materials used in its' construction..
On all counts its' more expensive to produce, hence higher price.

Therefore the 2D can be used on both DX and FX Nikon bodies. The 35 mm f1.8 only DX bodies (otherwise the image will be truncated on an FX body).

For the later reason, if you intend at some point to move up to an FX body then purchasing FX 'glass' from the outset will probably save you some money in the long run.

Gunzorro said:

Binary -- I agree. There is something like a 6 degree angle of central sharpness or acuity, surrounded by nearly 180 degrees of peripheral vision.

What people mistake for "angle of view" is actually closer to scale or magnification, how big things look next to one another. Even this concept is a mash-up with perspective influences!

Click to expand...

Human vision has approximately a 180° horizontal field of view (I suppose it depends on the size of one's nose or ears ). Binocular vision covers a ± 120° field of view.

Thus, unless one has a single eye, 120° would seem the 'normal' field of view. However, as you say, this neglects the eye's acuity.

But, one way or another, for those with two eyes, 120° is the normal horizontal field of view (at least from a binocular view point).

To cover this angle we would need a fisheye lens and print poster size with the relevant curvature.

Of course the side issue of needing to use a fisheye lens proves that human vision is 'fish-like' and proof of evolution