35 or 85 prime?

Dubn83

Suspended / Banned
Messages
491
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Hey guys, I was after a new walk around lens and had what I thought was the rite lens lined up-sigma 24-70 f2.8 (or nikon 17-50 f2.8 secondhand). But after asking on here was told the tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc was as good for less. Wanted more reach but I can live with it :)

I've got a d3100, kit lens, tamron 70-300, sigma 10-20 & a nikon 50 1.4.
But if I put the kit lens away & get the 17-50 ill have enough to get a second hand 35 or 85 prime. But I'm not sure witch to for? I'm leaning to the 35 as I sometimes wish my 50 was wider when snapping my boys playing (they love the camera and get closer and closer).

Advice, ideas experience welcome
 
These are two very different focal lengths . One is not really alternative of the other.

85mm is not good for "walk around". It is rather a specialised portrait lens.

I love 35mm on full-frame. On DX it will become equivalent of 50mm. Some people like that focal length (I personally don't). For capturing kids, family, etc It could be quite tight indoors, but outdoors it should be fine.

I would get the 35mm as 85 is much less useful focal length on DX, unless you want to do head portraits most of the time. Especially as you already have 50mm.
 
Not really sure, I mean I've got both focal lengths covered by my other lens (including the tamron 17-50 if I get it). And I do love the 50 1.4, it's never off my camera at the mo. and I no a few people say the 35 & the 85 make a good pare to have together? Is it pointless having either as I've got the 50?
 
I have the 35mm on crop, it works good indoors, you can get right in there face lol and kids seem to like that, but to get any kind of portrait with it be prepared to get very close, I feel it's a little too close tbh.
 
EDIT: Sorry, my reply was to another thread. I've been working all night so brain functions are very slow :)
 
Last edited:
I use the Crumpler Jackpack 4000 and that's a very decent bag as well, holds the OMD and at least 4 more lenses depending on which ones you use. I can usually pack in a few spare batteries as well. If you use primes, you might be able to take 5 lenses along too.

You have lost me?

OP I have the 35mm and find it very useful for shooting bands in pubs etc, plus it's relatively cheap to buy.
 
I have the 35mm on crop, it works good indoors, you can get right in there face lol and kids seem to like that, but to get any kind of portrait with it be prepared to get very close, I feel it's a little too close tbh.

My kids are the same, love the camera.
And as I have the 50mm I wouldn't have to use the 35mm for portraits work.
 
I'd say the 35mm and 85mm are a good combo to have, why not sell the 50mm for the 35mm and get the 85mm.
 
I know this is a stupid question.. But why do you need any of those?

The lens i use the most is the 85 1.8 from canon. I have the 24-70 and a 200 2.8. But the 85 gets 80% of the final images. I know why i need one. But do you?

You're gonna have a set of lens that will allow you to try 35mm and 85mm. See what works best for you.

Personally, for crop, i would only buy the 50 for portraits. 85 may be a little too far away if you want to do a full body and get some ambience. 35 will create distortion on the proportions of the body and face, if you get close. Specially with kids close to the lens. It will be fun for a dozen photos, but if all your photos are distorted, in 10years you'll regret it :D
The 50 is the 85mm of the DX sensor. You can get close and personal, or wide enough to get some feeling for the space. But that is only for "classic" portraits.

If you want to do more environmental portraits, maybe something even wider than a 35mm could work better.

All in all, is you that have to know what you want to do. And you have to see if a change from a 2.8 to a 1.8 will really make any difference, as you will have a 17-50 2.8 already...
 
I had thought bout choping in the 50mm 1.4 but i do love it in low light, portrait stuff & my wife brought it for me a few yrs bk after dangling on bout gettin a 50 and saving for the 1.4.

As for do I need it? If I have spent out for the the sigma 24-70 I wouldn't b asking but got told on here its not that great, so taking members advice and lookin at tamron 17-50. Meaning I will have cash spare and wanted to know people's options on the prime I haven't used?
 
My approach to buying lens is needing them, then buying them.
If I'm looking for one aesthetic that one specific lens can give me, or if i have a technical problem that a lens will solve, i'll buy the lens.

I once bought a 50mm because everybody said it was great and every photographer had to have one... Well, it is not a lens for me... I have no idea were i put the thing... I won't carry a lens if I don't like the final result when i use it.

If I were you, I would think what do i need from the lens.. What would i like to do that the setup i have doesn't allow me... Because buying new gear doesn't make your photos better.

Any one can tell you how sharp a lens is. how fast it is to focus. how heavy it is... But only you can know if the range is a fit for you.
 
Go for the 35m f2 for now as it will do what you want when shooting the kids, then add the 85mm later, alternatively forget getting the zoom and get the 35mm the 85mm and add a wider prime in (24mm or 18mm?)

I've had the 17-50mm and its a great lens but primes as you're finding are just so much better
 
When I still used a zoom, I checked my images as to what was my most used focus length. It turned out to be 35mm. I purchased a 35mm prime meanwhile, and find indeed that indeed it covers most of my photographic requirements. I have a 50mm too, and sometimes it would be a tag better for the scene I want to take a picture of, but I can still crop with the 35mm. My 85mm, although it is an excellent lens, hasn't gotten much use yet.

Unfortunately my 35mm isn't working as advertised, so I may return it (it's already my second) and just stick to the 50mm.
 
Back
Top