Not sure if I should change my Nikon 50mm prime f1.8d to a 35mm

p1tse

p1tse

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
perfect little lens, build, quality, etc.

but as i'm shooting mainly of family/ baby and indoors i'm restricted to how far i can get back in a room

so first thought is sell/trade for a 35mm prime

or forget the prime and getting something with a bit more flexibility i.e zoom

i had a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 previously on sony and was happy with it.
although the advantages of zoom, i do have a 18-200vr already and is on 98% of the time. so if i got the tamron, i can see either will be made redundant.

however obviously the tamron won't be as light or fast.

just need convincing LOL (and funds)
 
p1tse said:
perfect little lens, build, quality, etc.

but as i'm shooting mainly of family/ baby and indoors i'm restricted to how far i can get back in a room

so first thought is sell/trade for a 35mm prime

or forget the prime and getting something with a bit more flexibility i.e zoom

i had a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 previously on sony and was happy with it.
although the advantages of zoom, i do have a 18-200vr already and is on 98% of the time. so if i got the tamron, i can see either will be made redundant.

however obviously the tamron won't be as light or fast.

just need convincing LOL (and funds)
Click to expand...

The AF 50f1.8D lenses tend to change hands for £80 approx and I have seen the AFS 35mm change hands for maybe £140 so its going to cost you maybe £60+some postage approx. A 24/28-70 would be more flexible but it is not going to be as fast . The 50 just has a certain quality about it but if the 35 is going to suit your needs better then go for it.
 
How about the tamron 17-50, the non vc version.

Just got one on this forum for £200 for my D90, can't recommend it enough.

Would obviously cover you for even wider than 35mm and would be a good walkabout lens when you didn't need the bulk of the 18-200.
 
thanks

not loads to change (but still something enough to consider)

other choice is a tamron 17-50mm f2.8, but again won't be as fast.

main subjects are of my little one and family

i tend not to use my 50mm as much due to limited space indoors, for baby and group family.

although with the nice weather being outside the 50mm would be perfect. don't really need anything wider then.

as the 35mm is motor driven, is it just as fast as the 50mm?

the 50mm build i can't fault, but the 35mm is more expensive so i assume maybe even better i.e. less plastic (not that i care it's plastic)
 
i personally doubt i'll see any difference in picture quality, so yeah down to personal choices on range. hmm, scratching my head.
 
If you check the exif on your indoor shots you'll be able to work whether the 2.8 is fast enough. I'd keep the fifty and save to get the 35mm
 
trevorbray said:
If you check the exif on your indoor shots you'll be able to work whether the 2.8 is fast enough. I'd keep the fifty and save to get the 35mm
Click to expand...

:plusone:

You may kick yourself later if you get rid of the 50mm.
 
On my D90, the 50 1.4 rarely gets a look in compared to the Sigma 30 1.4, it's just too long. I'm holding onto it for when I go full frame, but I reckon you'll be better off with the 35.
 
i can't afford to have both, so it's either sell the 50mm and buy 35mm, as suggested by cowaski

i just find i dont use it much due to indoors limitations on the D90, which is a bit waisted.

it's no doubt a great lens on price.

mines as new, boxed etc. will have a consider.

the other part of me is that the 35mm might be too wide, but then i can get all the object in and crop after.
 
just been doing some googling ;-)

"The Nikon Cheap DX Prime Showdown

35mm 1.8G > 50mm 1.8D
- 35mm is closer to the normal field of view on DX sensors (equivalent to 50mm on FX sensors)
- 35mm is better able to shoot in closed spaces / anywhere where you just don't have 5 feet to back up
- 35mm is a Modern AF-S lens - fast accurate focus; sharp
- 50mm 1.8D is equivalent a 75mm lens on FX sensors. This is an awkward focal length, just shy of what is traditionally accepted as "portrait" length (85-135mm). Note that 75mm primes were never built, probably with good reason.
- 50mm has moving parts on the outside - possible to damage
- 35mm works on all nikon bodies, including the D40, D60, etc.
- 35mm can be handheld at slightly slower shutter speeds than the 50mm and still be sharp.

50mm 1.8D > 35mm 1.8G
- 50mm has a shallower depth of field than the 35mm at F1.8
- 35mm has distortion issues that have to be corrected via post processing
- 50mm will be functional if you upgrade to FX
- 50mm is cheaper
- The 50mm allows you to stand at a distance, creating more pleasing portraits (compression)
- 50mm has an aperture ring (useful if you shoot video)

Where they both fail
- Bokeh. Both have notoriously "choppy" bokeh. Neither has smooth bokeh like the 85mm 1.4, 105mm DC, or the 135mm DC.

Where they both succeed
- sharp images
- subject isolation using shallow depth of field
- Shooting in low light
- light weight / non-intimidating to subjects

So who wins?
Neither. They serve different purposes.
"

as one post i found
 
i'm not convinced now. many posts say the 50mm gives sharper pics than the 35mm for portraits, which is main use
 
Go for the 35mm f/2 - sharp as lemon-flavoured razor blades... the loss of the extra stop will go unnoticed as camera shake is less of an issue, the wider you go...
 
p1tse said:
i'm not convinced now. many posts say the 50mm gives sharper pics than the 35mm for portraits, which is main use
Click to expand...

I had a crop sensor camera as my main camera till last July and at that time checked in Lightroom. Of the 3 lenses I had the AF 50mm f1.8D was the most used lens over the 18-200 and 105f2.8 vr. The 50 gives 75mm eqiv on crop and this is good for portraits, it is tack sharp and gives IQ equivalent and MUCH more expensive lenses. You have a zoom, set it to the eqiv of each lens and dont move it. Have a play and see what you think. Yes getting both is handy but more expensive. The AFS 50mm f1.4G is perfect but much more expensive. I still have a 50mm f1.8D here and they are really rather good although I cannot say if they are better than the 35mm because when they released the 35mm I already had my mind set on a D700 so wouldn't buy it due to it's DXedness.
 
"50mm has a shallower depth of field than the 35mm at F1.8"

I think I'm right in saying that it doesn't. I think I'm right when I say that all lenses actually have the same dof and that any appearance otherwise is an optical illusion.
 
my main limitation of the 50mm is space, lack of in a room.

but does that justify me swapping it to the 35mm, guess i can only answer that.

just feel my prime just doesn't get used enough due to that limiation.

also when i want to use it indoors great for low lighting too.

i'm in two minds. will have a long think and google
 
Just some observations, but you do almost seem to have convinced yourself the 35mm is better for you. You aren't happy with the distance between you and subject with the 50mm. You can't afford both lens' in your kit bag.

Therefore before jumoping to possibly find that the grass is (or isn't) greener on the other side, why not look into hiriung a 35 for the weekend or borrowing one (if you can find someone with one to borrow from) and give it a try for a couple of days. this way you get some real examples and you'll know for yourself which is right for you.
 
hiring, would mean more expense

borrowing one would be great, but i have no mates with the 35mm

thanks though.
 
Not sure you're going to notice a huge difference from your 50mm actually and, if you're after portrait shots, you may be better off sticking to the 50mm.

If've got a 35mm f1.8 and a 85mm f1.8. I ordered a 50mm 1.4 and tried it out. For my purposes I was happier keeping the 35mm and returned the 50mm - it's only a couple of foot steps difference.

Of note, although more expensive, the 35mm is an expanse of plastic.
 
the more i think about it, for indoor general shots/parties/functions the 35mm would be better due to space.

the 50mm would be better outside as don't have the issue of limitation of indoor space and walls.


but the more i read the 50mm is more suited to portraits.

i do love the prime, wish i could use it more hence the thought of changing to the 35mm.

what are the drawbacks to the 35mm for indoor and outdoor portraits?
 
p1tse said:
the more i think about it, for indoor general shots/parties/functions the 35mm would be better due to space.

the 50mm would be better outside as don't have the issue of limitation of indoor space and walls.


but the more i read the 50mm is more suited to portraits.

i do love the prime, wish i could use it more hence the thought of changing to the 35mm.

what are the drawbacks to the 35mm for indoor and outdoor portraits?
Click to expand...

You keep saying "the more I read..."
Stop reading other people's opinions on which is 'the best lens for this or that...' and work out what you need according to the photos you take.

Wide-angle lenses are generally considered unsuitable for single-person portraits as they can give an unflattering aspect to facial features when you go in close to fill the frame with the subject - doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use them, just be aware of the effect the lens has.

Accepted wisdom has it that for single-person head-and-shoulder portraits a lens of 85mm - 135mm is best as it gives a pleasing aspect to facial features.

If you need a 35mm lens then get one, but make sure it's because you need it, not just because you read somewhere that it's the 'best lens' according to another photographer - they aint you...
 
Why not try taking some pics with your 18-200 set at 35mm and some at 50mm to see the difference. I often find the 50mm a little short on my D300, so may look at getting the 85mm as well. I am surprised that you find 50mm a problem, although most of my shots are head/body and of small kids.
 
on the d90 and at home/parties i find i can't back myself any further

also as the little critter is learning to crawl, i need maximum room in the room (new build houses aren;t that big LOL)

tempted, but i'm worried the 35mm won't give as good bokeh or sharp pictures on face.

50mm is perfect for my needs if i wasn't finding the issue with space, hence not being used much. however, pics i take aren't just a single person, sometimes a few people i.e. family
 
woof woof said:
"50mm has a shallower depth of field than the 35mm at F1.8"

I think I'm right in saying that it doesn't. I think I'm right when I say that all lenses actually have the same dof and that any appearance otherwise is an optical illusion.
Click to expand...

uncle ken rockwell illustrates this on his 35mm review
 
I have a 50 on my Canon APS-C DSLR and I live with the fact that I need to constantly 'step back'; because the perspective is just so flattering. I suspect if I went FF I'd be using an 85 more often as well. I have a 30, tack sharp lens, but I just don't use it so much because again the perspective just isn't there that you get from a 50. Regardless of the fact that it's cropped, the focal length is very close to what the eye sees (I believe the closest match is 58mm), and that means that when you look at photos taken with a 50 they look so damn good.

Unless you really really can't compromise, go for a 35 but I would try and persevere.
 
i'm just undecided

18-200vr is great and on the camera most of the times
i.e. took it to the zoo, park etc.

50mm doesn't really get a look in as i use the 18-200 majority of the times.
really is limited for my use indoors.

35mm would be better focal range indoors, but will it give unflattering pics of adults/babies?

anything else i should consider?

loved the tamron 28-75 f2.8 on the sony a300, but not sure on the D90.

should i just preserve with my set-up, as main shots:
- indoor family (stick with the 18-200 and sb600 combo)
- indoor babies (as above or try the 50mm when i can)

but i generally just think pick up the camera and snap, rather than get things set-up.

when shooting my 8 month old indoor and out, will i reap the rewards with the 35mm... hmmm

preserve or consider something else or bite the bullet LOL
 
I found the 50mm on a DX camera isn't that great indoors, its just a bit too long.

If you want good bokeh, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is very smooth, and has an incredibly shallow DoF. Its more expensive than the Nikon 35mm but I think its worth it for portraits where bokeh is important.
 
Yeah, I'd definitely go for the Sigma, well worth the extra.
 
Arkady said:
Go for the 35mm f/2 - sharp as lemon-flavoured razor blades... the loss of the extra stop will go unnoticed as camera shake is less of an issue, the wider you go...
Click to expand...

:agree:

The 35 f2 has a close focus distance of about 200mm, which can be used to good effect, superb lens and as glass lasts forever, will work on a FX body should you ever upgrade to full frame.
 
can't see me going full frame anytime soon

35mm f2 i've heard a few times and also the sigma 30mm.

only issue is price
what's the average used price for these?
 
p1tse said:
can't see me going full frame anytime soon

35mm f2 i've heard a few times and also the sigma 30mm.

only issue is price
what's the average used price for these?
Click to expand...

35 f2 £199 mint used, 30 f1.4 £179 scruffy used LINK

My 35 f2 gets more use than my 50 f1.8, however both are superb optics, I just prefer the focal length of the 35mm.
 
As others have said you should keeep the 50 mm or you will kick yourself later, it's a lovely lens
 
PCN said:
As others have said you should keeep the 50 mm or you will kick yourself later, it's a lovely lens
Click to expand...

i will see how it goes as i hardly use it, but yes it's an awesome lens.

may need to sell to fund new lens though
 
Update. orded and arrived

literally only had 1 minute this morning to put on camera and snapped the little one once.

First thought as i pressed the shutter button, "is it on?"
How quiet is this compared to the 50mm f1.8, literally silent.

- First snap, perfect for indoors use for the little one (50mm i ran out of space)
- TICK
- Low light lounge, pic was class even in P mode (not sure what it shot at as had no time) - TICK
- Silent (maybe can take some when he's a sleep now) - TICK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top