-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Anyone using both the 35 and 50 1.8g lenses?
- Thread starter mountws1
- Start date
P
Patco
Guest
You may hear from some here that the 50mm is "both too long and too short" on a DX camera, but I feel any single focal length (24, 28 35, 50, 90, etc) lens can be inappropriate for certain situations.
I have both the 35 & 50, and use them pretty much equally. The nice thing about the 50mm, is that it produces less perspective distortion in close quarters, making it more suitable for head and shoulder shots when you may not have a longer portrait lens handy.
JohnPaulKindig
Member
I have a pair of old D200's. These two lenses are permanently mounted on those cameras. Every single image (except for maybe 3 images taken with the Fuji X100) at this website was shot with those lenses www.clearwaterbeachportraits.com The D200 and these two lenses are my go to beach portrait camera and lens combos.
Last edited:
Suntan
Veteran Member
I have the 35 and the 50. The 35 gets used far more than the 50. The 50 hardly ever gets used.
-Suntan
-Suntan
JohnPaulKindig
Member
I would agree with Suntan on this too. With my Combo the 50mm gets the least use. It is more for if I need the extra reach and as a redundant backup that I could get by with should the other fail.
n057
Veteran Member
P
Patco
Guest
Not really... in primes, I have only 35, 50 and 90mm (all "screw-drive" AF type).You must be a hardware collector
I use the much-maligned 18-200 quite a lot. It's better than most non-users who criticize it would have one believe. ;-) My 70-300 VR covers the long end, and the Sigma 10-20 does wide duty.
--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
Last edited:
n057
Veteran Member
Tom Eavenson
Forum Enthusiast
I use both the 35mm and 50mm on my street camera. Mostly the 35mm, but the 50mm is very good for street protraits and a little extra reach when needed. My street camera is a D70 and have used them both on my D300 for landscape photography. Both have very good IQ, with the 50mm a little more than the 35mm, in my opinion. Both are very good lens.
Tom
Tom
DigitalPhilosopher
Leading Member
- Messages
- 999
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 487
I always considered the 50mm as a compromise (on DX) between having both the 35mm and the 85mm. In theory the similar thing could be said for FX as well, only there the 50mm is somewhat on the short side for what the 50mm can give you on DX
I don't see much sense in owning both the 35mm and the 50mm. The difference in focal length is rather insignificant. If I had to pick only one, I would pick the 50mm (but that's because I shoot plenty of portraits). For general use, 35mm is much more balanced on DX
I don't see much sense in owning both the 35mm and the 50mm. The difference in focal length is rather insignificant. If I had to pick only one, I would pick the 50mm (but that's because I shoot plenty of portraits). For general use, 35mm is much more balanced on DX
The Big One
Senior Member
I don't have the 35, but I have a sigma 30, and I am contemating getting a 50mm. I think that 50 is gone for portraits on DX... Sure a bit longer would be nicer, but 50 can definitely work.
I have both the 35mm f/1.8G and the 50mm f/1.8D. I got the 35mm first (at the same time as my D90 and 18-105 kit lens), and the 50mm a little over a year later.
I do use both, maybe the 35mm more than the 50mm, but not by much. They get used when I'm inside and not using flash. The 18-105mm gets used outside, or when I'm using flash (either an SB-700 or my Alien Bees studio lights).
It's a three-lens kit that suits me well. I might eventually pick up a 50-300 or 70-300 telephoto zoom, but I don't feel any pressing need to do so. Or a macro or prime lens in the 70-90mm range, ditto.
As for wider lenses, I figure I'll get an ultrawide zoom or prime when hell freezes over and I come down with an urge to shoot landscapes of it.
I do use both, maybe the 35mm more than the 50mm, but not by much. They get used when I'm inside and not using flash. The 18-105mm gets used outside, or when I'm using flash (either an SB-700 or my Alien Bees studio lights).
It's a three-lens kit that suits me well. I might eventually pick up a 50-300 or 70-300 telephoto zoom, but I don't feel any pressing need to do so. Or a macro or prime lens in the 70-90mm range, ditto.
As for wider lenses, I figure I'll get an ultrawide zoom or prime when hell freezes over and I come down with an urge to shoot landscapes of it.
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Perspective distortion is the same if you are shooting from the same distance (implied when you say "close quarters").
Yes, the 35mm lens will give more distortion when used for a head and shoulder shot, although it is a "normal" lens which I think suggests that the real distortion comes when using a longer focal length and getting further back to get your head and shoulder shot -- my reasoning being that our eyes do not only see someone's head and shoulders when we are standing more than four feet away from them. That said, getting some narrow AOV distortion perspective is generally more flattering and thus more desirable.
My beef with the 50/1.8 for portraiture is its bokeh, which I find rather unpleasant.
P
Patco
Guest
Valid point. What I meant to imply is that with the same framing of a head with both the 35mm and the 50mm, the 50mm will produce less perspective distortion, due to the greater distance from said head.
The bokeh is not great, but it is my (quite possibly wrong) perception from a quick check years ago, that my AF (no D) 50mm f/1.4 produces bokeh not quite as shabby as the f/1.8.
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
I can only comment firsthand on the 50/1.8D, but I haven't seen anyone raving about bokeh from any of the 50mm lenses. I have a Voigtlander 58/1.4 which only focuses manually and its bokeh is marginally better than my 50/1.8D but not as nice as 85mm lenses. I have an A850 with a Sony 85/2.8 and 50/1.4 that I use for these situations, but if I had to get the most out my (soon to arrive) D300 for head and shoulder shots I would make the stretch and get the Nikkor 85/1.4D (I think the G costs too much money, and if you can afford that then you might as well go all-in and get an FX camera to go with it).
I would also mention the 80-200/2.8 as a nice head and shoulders option for DX -- the old one ring version can be had for a modest price. However, my issue with focal length zooms in that range for portraiture is they are stand-offish, you are at 135mm doing a head shot at its MFD (minimum focus distance), and for FX it's even more limited because you end up at or near its longest focal length in that scenario. There's a couple of reasons 85mm on FX is a favorite portrait length lens (bokeh and a manageable MFD), it's just too bad we can't have that replicated in DX because optics seem not to deliver great bokeh at shorter focal lengths.
Suntan
Veteran Member
It isn't just boke, but also the transition from in to out of focus that is less than pleasant with the 50 1.8. Overall rendering of in focus objects is also weak for portraiture. Call it micro contrast call it sharpness call it whatever you want, the 50 1.8 is less than stellar for people shots. Compare it to something like the 35-70 2.8D for portraits in that range and the differences are more than subtle.
Personally, I only use the 50 1.8 on the rare occasion that I want to take a purposeful picture of an inanimate object.
-Suntan
Personally, I only use the 50 1.8 on the rare occasion that I want to take a purposeful picture of an inanimate object.
-Suntan
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Yeah, like I said, primarily bokeh (which is downright ugly on the 50/1.8D), but I can see where there may be other things going on as well.
It's kinda funny that when I put the 35-70/2.8D head-to-head against the 50/1.8D the prime has better resolution at every aperture, but I'm only just now getting into portraiture more, so when my D300 arrives I am definitely going to take a close look at these lenses based on what you are saying. As for the 35/1.8 DX, I actually like it although it has a bit of barrel distortion that the 35-70/2.8 does not have, and again the prime beats the zoom at every aperture (by f/11 they're about the same).
Last edited:
Suntan
Veteran Member
The 35-70 is a great lens for portraiture. Very few people have the skin to withstand the sharpest of lenses.
-Suntan
-Suntan
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum