35mm or 50mm Nikon

S

samems

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Edit My Images
No
35mm or 50mm Nikon prime, 1.8

Been looking at both as i would love to get one for a D90.

Which would you say is the better and why? I have used the 50mm Canon 1.8 and loved the way it would take shots in lower light and the bokeh. It was retrictive though so would a 35mm give me more scope?

My other option is a Tamron 17-50 but have heard people say one is lucky to get a 'good' one. Also, is non VR still the order of the day?
 
the 50mm isn't really 50mm because the body is dx and the lens is fx
the 35mm DX on a DX body is roughly 52mm, the 50mm is like 70 something mm on a dx body
personally i have the 35mm and it is a great lens :D never used a 50mm
 
Depending on your budget, I wouldn`t rule out the 30mm Sigma either.

Personally I prefer the 35 f2, to the newer f1.8 as it has less barrel distortion (IMO).
 
callumduff said:
the 50mm isn't really 50mm because the body is dx and the lens is fx
the 35mm DX on a DX body is roughly 52mm, the 50mm is like 70 something mm on a dx body
Click to expand...

I just tried my 50mm 1.8 on my DX body then on my old film camera that is full frame. The focal length looks the same on both, just a cropped version on my DX body. I may be wrong, but to me the focal length looks the same.
 
samems said:
What about the question of the Tamron 17-50. VC or not?
Click to expand...

Can`t help on this front, but from what i`ve read, the non VC is better.
 
callumduff said:
the 50mm isn't really 50mm because the body is dx and the lens is fx
the 35mm DX on a DX body is roughly 52mm, the 50mm is like 70 something mm on a dx body
personally i have the 35mm and it is a great lens :D never used a 50mm
Click to expand...

Cobblers again. I really wish people would stop talking about this subject when they clearly don't understand it.
A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter what body you put it on. That will never change.
The field of view is different between a DX body and a FX body, but the lens is still the same focal length regardless.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Cobblers again. I really wish people would stop talking about this subject when they clearly don't understand it.
A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter what body you put it on. That will never change.
The field of view is different between a DX body and a FX body, but the lens is still the same focal length regardless.
Click to expand...

Well said :clap: I was being polite in my post, I also felt like elaborating more ..
 
Last edited:
Jo Plumridge who says she has graduated from university with an honours degree in Photography. She has written an article about cropped bodies and even she it seems does not understand it. She has written an article for about.com the link is here http://cameras.about.com/od/advanceddigitalcameras/a/Full-Frame-Vs-Cropped-Frame.htm

She says a 50mm standard lens will become an 80mm on a cropped body, does nobody check these articles? How can somebody go to uni to study photography not understand this simple topic :thinking:
 
I had the old 50 1.8 but just didn't get on with the focal length on a cropped sensor. I sold it and bought the new 35mm f/1.8 and its my favorite walkabout lens.
 
davep90 said:
I had the old 50 1.8 but just didn't get on with the focal length on a cropped sensor. I sold it and bought the new 35mm f/1.8 and its my favorite walkabout lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think i might try the 35mm 1.8. Be nice for bokeh!! And low light shots i guess. Also for taking shots of my daughter.

What about a nice zoom? Would a Tamron 17-50 be a good bet for a D90?

That and the 18- 105 has caught my eye. Help would be great again. Thanks
 
jonbeeza said:
Jo Plumridge who says she has graduated from university with an honours degree in Photography. She has written an article about cropped bodies and even she it seems does not understand it. She has written an article for about.com the link is here http://cameras.about.com/od/advanceddigitalcameras/a/Full-Frame-Vs-Cropped-Frame.htm

She says a 50mm standard lens will become an 80mm on a cropped body, does nobody check these articles? How can somebody go to uni to study photography not understand this simple topic :thinking:
Click to expand...

It doesn't become 80mm. Do you think it magically grows an extra 30mm?

It gives the same FIELD OF VIEW as an 80mm lens on a FX body. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. It's simple physics.
 
TC,thanks for explaining that .now I understand its the Field of view that differs not the length of view.So when people talk about a lens on a crop body I've seen them put it gives greater reach but thats wrong surely its greater space around the view isn't it?should have put less space i believe.
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
It doesn't become 80mm. Do you think it magically grows an extra 30mm?

It gives the same FIELD OF VIEW as an 80mm lens on a FX body. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. It's simple physics.
Click to expand...

I think you may have misread Jon's post....
 
gad-westy said:
I think you may have misread Jon's post....
Click to expand...

Can be read 2 ways I reckon. That's the trouble with the net, you can't tell.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
TC,thanks for explaining that .now I understand its the Field of view that differs not the length of view.So when people talk about a lens on a crop body I've seen them put it gives greater reach but thats wrong surely its greater space around the view isn't it?
Click to expand...

It gives the effect of greater reach. All it's actually doing is covering up part of a Full frame.
Imagine a window with a nice view outside, that's a full frame. Now draw the curtains half closed and pull the blind down half way. The view looks different because you have masked part of it. It's still the same view.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Can be read 2 ways I reckon. That's the trouble with the net, you can't tell.
Click to expand...

I just read it as Jon being a bit gobsmacked that somebody who has studied photography spouts garbage about cameras magically altering focal lengths. :)
 
gad-westy said:
I just read it as Jon being a bit gobsmacked that somebody who has studied photography spouts garbage about cameras magically altering focal lengths. :)
Click to expand...

Once you said it, I read it that way too, the first time I read it as a sarcastic comment about a so called expert contradicting what I said. . I believe your version is the correct one though!
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
TC,thanks for explaining that .now I understand its the Field of view that differs not the length of view.So when people talk about a lens on a crop body I've seen them put it gives greater reach but thats wrong surely its greater space around the view isn't it?should have put less space i believe.
Click to expand...

A lens casts an image onto an area. A larger sensor see a larger rectangle of that image. A smaller sensor sees a smaller rectangle. Present both of those images at the same size, say A4, and the crop sensor will give the illusion of having more reach as whatever the subject was will be presented larger.

So in theory there is no advantage in using a crop camera for extra reach vs. simply cropping a full frame image... however in reality, the crop camera will likely pack more mega pixels into that small area and so can potentially out resolve the full frame camera over that cropped area. Example, a D300 and D700 both have a 12 mp sensors but if you were to cut a D300 sensor sized rectangle out of the D700 sensor, it would only have approx 5mp. Confused yet? :)
 
TCR4x4 said:
Once you said it, I read it that way too, the first time I read it as a sarcastic comment about a so called expert contradicting what I said. . I believe your version is the correct one though!
Click to expand...

Well, either way it's a bit depressing reading this stuff about 'changing focal lengths' over and over again. I read it a lot when I was starting out and it really is confusing.
 
gad-westy said:
Well, either way it's a bit depressing reading this stuff about 'changing focal lengths' over and over again. I read it a lot when I was starting out and it really is confusing.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I get annoyed when people who obviously don't really get it start talking about it confusing people new the game even more. Especially when it's not even relevant to the conversation.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Agreed, which is why I get annoyed when people who obviously don't really get it start talking about it confusing people new the game even more. Especially when it's not even relevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Aye, very little more annoying on TP than when some wants a 50mm lens and is asking for advice, and someone pipes up that it's not really 50mm. Really does my head in.
 
i just picked up the 35mm f1.8 on saturday and so far is great. It's well different from the 18-105 kit lens and i definitely can't be lazy with it where before I might have just zoomed in.
 
gad-westy said:
A lens casts an image onto an area. A larger sensor see a larger rectangle of that image. A smaller sensor sees a smaller rectangle. Present both of those images at the same size, say A4, and the crop sensor will give the illusion of having more reach as whatever the subject was will be presented larger.

So in theory there is no advantage in using a crop camera for extra reach vs. simply cropping a full frame image... however in reality, the crop camera will likely pack more mega pixels into that small area and so can potentially out resolve the full frame camera over that cropped area. Example, a D300 and D700 both have a 12 mp sensors but if you were to cut a D300 sensor sized rectangle out of the D700 sensor, it would only have approx 5mp. Confused yet? :)
Click to expand...

please explain a little more ? so are u saying a f/f sensor is 2 1/4 - 2 1/2 times larger ?
 
holty said:
please explain a little more ? so are u saying a f/f sensor is 2 1/4 - 2 1/2 times larger ?
Click to expand...

A full frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm, a DX sensor is 23.6mm x 15.7mm i.e. the full frame is approx 1.5 times bigger in each direction hence the '1.5 crop factor'. Sensor area is 864mm^2 vs. 370mm^2. So about 2.3 times larger.

And just because I feel a bit guilty about how far this topic has gone adrift. I'll echo what others have said. Having used both lengths a fair bit on a crop body, I'd say 50mm if you want to shoot portraits outdoors or in a big room , 35mm for anything else. If I wanted just one, it would be the 35mm every time.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
I think you may have misread Jon's post....
Click to expand...

Well spotted :thumbs:




TCR4x4 said:
Once you said it, I read it that way too, the first time I read it as a sarcastic comment about a so called expert contradicting what I said. . I believe your version is the correct one though!
Click to expand...

Yes you are quite right, I am agreeing with you. We all know, the focal length stays the same, just the image gets cropped.

What I was saying was, it's amazing a person ( jo plumridge ) who has graduated from university with an honours degree in Photography, seems to think a crop body changes the focal length :cuckoo:

She has been to uni to learn photography, but it seems she has not learned the basic how a cropped body changes the field of view! It seems people get the field of view confused with magnification!
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
A lens casts an image onto an area. A larger sensor see a larger rectangle of that image. A smaller sensor sees a smaller rectangle. Present both of those images at the same size, say A4, and the crop sensor will give the illusion of having more reach as whatever the subject was will be presented larger.

So in theory there is no advantage in using a crop camera for extra reach vs. simply cropping a full frame image... however in reality, the crop camera will likely pack more mega pixels into that small area and so can potentially out resolve the full frame camera over that cropped area. Example, a D300 and D700 both have a 12 mp sensors but if you were to cut a D300 sensor sized rectangle out of the D700 sensor, it would only have approx 5mp. Confused yet? :)
Click to expand...

lol, not sure:lol:
 
OK back on track, I bought the 50mm 1.8 a few months back and it's a lovely little fast lens. I like it because it is small and neat and it makes the camera look unobtrusive. I use this lens when I don't want to get noticed and when the light is getting a little poor.

I think if I had the choice again I would probably get the 35mm as the 50mm on a cropped body is a little limited for indoor and in my back yard shooting. I had to back right up against the wall. But it would be okay for street stuff, although I would prefer the 35mm for out and about street shooting.
 
So, the 35mm is worth the extra cost for what you get?

I see some going back to 50mm from 35mm!
 
samems said:
So, the 35mm is worth the extra cost for what you get?

I see some going back to 50mm from 35mm!
Click to expand...

Do you have an 18-55 kit lens? If so, set it to 35 and 50 and see which you prefer.
I'd go for the 35 indoors or the 50 outdoors. Both are proven excellent performers.
 
I dont have any lens at the mo!! Trying to get one for a D90 i have bought on here. I like to have a prime but part of me is saying get a zoom instead!
 
16-85mm VR or 18-70 Nikon lenses

One is twice as much as the other, brand new. Quite like the range they have. Which one and why guys? Thanks you
 
16-85 is supposedly very good, has VR, better range, sharper, newer.
The 18-70 is quite old, and is more of a budget lens, with a budget performance. Not that its bad, just not as good.
Neithr are great for low light or for out of focus Bokeh type thing for portraits.
 
I would be getting a prime as well as a zoom. The 18-105 VR also looks like a nice walkaround lens. Or would a Tamron 17-50 be better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top