Xf 35mm f/2 or Xf 50mm f/2?

hey guys! so i need a prime lens for my xt10, because its hard taking photos in indoor events with low lighting such concerts. i only had 18-55 f2.8 for now and was thinking to get either 35mm f2 or the newest 50mm f2. i never realky tried both of them, so maybe can someone give me recommendations which one should i choose.

i mostly gonna use them for streetphotography 20% ,indoor events 30%, sports 10%, candid/portrait 40%.

thnaks in advance!

davidleunufna wrote:

hey guys! so i need a prime lens for my xt10, because its hard taking photos in indoor events with low lighting such concerts. i only had 18-55 f2.8 for now and was thinking to get either 35mm f2 or the newest 50mm f2. i never realky tried both of them, so maybe can someone give me recommendations which one should i choose.

i mostly gonna use them for streetphotography 20% ,indoor events 30%, sports 10%, candid/portrait 40%.

thnaks in advance!

Hi,

Of the two, I think I'd be tempted to go for the 50/2 for indoor events, sports & portraits.  Street can be shot with a wide range of FLs.  Bear in mind that f2 lenses are only one stop faster than the 18-55 at the wide end.  They're two stops faster at the long end, which is a more significant gain.  (To go to the 56/1.2 would certainly involve spending a lot more.)

If you're more inclined to try the 35mm and indoor / low light street shooting are your main interest I'd consider whether you may wish to spend a tad more to go to the 35/f1.4 lens, though at some cost to AF speed.

Regards, Rod

davidleunufna wrote:

hey guys! so i need a prime lens for my xt10, because its hard taking photos in indoor events with low lighting such concerts. i only had 18-55 f2.8 for now and was thinking to get either 35mm f2 or the newest 50mm f2. i never realky tried both of them, so maybe can someone give me recommendations which one should i choose.

i mostly gonna use them for streetphotography 20% ,indoor events 30%, sports 10%, candid/portrait 40%.

thnaks in advance!

You have both 35 and 50 as part of the 18-55 zoom - check your existing photographs and see what you tend to use the most.

40% portraits...I guess that would make the 50/2 better suited. It needs some space indoors though.

Go for the new 50mm f2 .

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

Of the two, I think I'd be tempted to go for the 50/2 for indoor events, sports & portraits. Street can be shot with a wide range of FLs. Bear in mind that f2 lenses are only one stop faster than the 18-55 at the wide end. They're two stops faster at the long end, which is a more significant gain. (To go to the 56/1.2 would certainly involve spending a lot more.)

If you're more inclined to try the 35mm and indoor / low light street shooting are your main interest I'd consider whether you may wish to spend a tad more to go to the 35/f1.4 lens, though at some cost to AF speed.

Regards, Rod

Exit10 wrote:

You have both 35 and 50 as part of the 18-55 zoom - check your existing photographs and see what you tend to use the most.

G4b0r wrote:

You can always crop a 35mm image and get a lower resolution 50mm image. But you can never un-crop the 50mm image to get the 35mm version.

Mavry wrote:

40% portraits...I guess that would make the 50/2 better suited. It needs some space indoors though.mrgooch2008 wrote:

Go for the new 50mm f2 .

thanks guys for all the insights and replies! im leaning towards the 50 now. because i feel like i never used the 35mm anyway in my kit lens. i only shoot with 18 or 55.

davidleunufna wrote:

hey guys! so i need a prime lens for my xt10, because its hard taking photos in indoor events with low lighting such concerts. i only had 18-55 f2.8 for now and was thinking to get either 35mm f2 or the newest 50mm f2. i never realky tried both of them, so maybe can someone give me recommendations which one should i choose.

i mostly gonna use them for streetphotography 20% ,indoor events 30%, sports 10%, candid/portrait 40%.

thnaks in advance!

from your usage pattern, I think the 50 may be the better fit

35 is better for street but the 50 can be used albeit at a distance

I figure for sports/indoor events you also need a longer reach so 50 is better than 35

for portraits, 50 would be more flattering

Cheers,

indeed, look at the focal length of the picture you already take with your 18-55, ...

...but, rate your pictures and see what is the focal length of your best pictures

If you like primes, you will eventually get both 35 and 50mm.

Excellent images! Were they all shot with the 35mm f2? Also, would you mind sharing EXIF info? Thanks.

35mm better adapted to ypur needs

IQ in favor of the 50mm (the 35mm suffers of strong distortion, the bokeh of 50mm better)

iRanN wrote:

They're both really good, I've had the 35mm for a year because why not, it was dirt cheap and even though it's not my favorite length i ended up using it more than i thought i would since it's the super small and it's also WR, I got away bring it to concerts since the camera/lens would fit in my coat's pocket. The 50 on the other hand, not as good wide open, color fringe that quickly goes away by f2.5 and by 2.8(2.8-4, drops after that) is one of the sharpest fuji lenses today, not sure I love mine, it's not as small but i'm still going to keep it for hiking/landscape. I would chose the 35, you can still portrait work with it and you'll find it more useful when you can only bring one lens with you.

IranN~Very very nice images.  A point I did not understand.  They are all labelled taken at 1/10000 sec.  Especially the singer~how did you do this?

street, portraits...kind of calls for 2 lenses.  A bit wider focal length is often preferable for street work while longer lenses are often preferred by portrait shooters.

The 35mm lens is closest to "normal" and is what I prefer.

I would suggest though that you consider the faster version of either lens.  They're more costly but are quite a bit better optics.  The trade off other than $$ is better low light performance vs better weather performance.  You more often shoot in low light or in rain?

laddsmith wrote:

i

IranN~Very very nice images. A point I did not understand. They are all labelled taken at 1/10000 sec. Especially the singer~how did you do this?

That's what DPR does when the image does not have EXIF date; it just labels everything as 1/10000 and that's all.