Which prime? (Nikon DX format)

G

ghoti

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,355
Edit My Images
Yes
Going to treat myself to a new lens this week, for a Nikon DX format camera. I fancy a fast prime, and, being nothing more than an enthusiastic dabbler, I'm limiting myself to two hundred of your English moon-monies.

Clearly, my two main options are the 50mm 1.8 G and the 35mm 1.8 G.
The latter is appealing for its versatility. I would probably like something that I will use for both scenery and people shots (farting about, in other words) and while I would like to have a go with portraiture, it's not my sole concern. 50mm on APSC is a touch long for general purpose use.

However, I've heard the 35mm gives very harsh, unpleasant, bokeh. This is a major turn-off for me, as a major motivation for wanting to buy a fast prime (other than the nominal fastness) is, obviously, the opportunities for creative depth of field. I've also read that the 50mm is just generally a sharper, better, lens. And I'm prepared to lose a little field of view for pleasing bokeh and better quality.

Then there's the wild card: what about the 40mm 2.8 G Micro?

It's a compromise on focal length. Loses a bit of speed, but still scope for creative dof and low-light photography. But has the bonus of being macro capable. Despite the "micro" designation, it's hawked as a general purpose lens; suitable for both macro and portraiture and (I assume) anything else you'd want to shoot at 40mm.

Where would you put your money?
 
Last edited:
I currently have the 50mm 1.8 which I use on my D60 which I just love. I tend to use it for dance photography and detail shots though I do find it useful for travelling light for a day's shooting. Therefore I'm biased towards the 50mm ;)

At the mo I'm debating between the 35mm 1.8 and the 40mm 2.8 as I'm wondering which would be more useful for trying out Makro.
 
There both good lenses but the 50mm is the better choice if you want to experiment with shallow depth of field and blurry backgrounds, purely because of the longer focal length. At 35mm you need to put some distance between your subject and your background to get a similar effect.

I've owned both of these plus the 50mm f/1.4G and the 85mm f/1.8G. The 50mm f/1.8 is the best value for money, especially if you're buying second hand. It's only fractionally more expensive than the 35mm f/1.8 as a second hand buy. If you have a body with a built-in focusing motor the older AF 50mm f/1.8 D is an even better bargain. Optically it's pretty much as good as the AF-S G lens but it's about half the price.

Sharpness isn't really a big issue with any of these lenses, except maybe the 50mm f/1.4 which is really rather soft wide open. All of them are very sharp when stopped down a bit.
 
Use a cheap kit zoom first to decide what focal length suits your intentions. Just getting your credit card out doesn't provide a focussed result.
 
droj said:
Use a cheap kit zoom first to decide what focal length suits your intentions. Just getting your credit card out doesn't provide a focussed result.
Click to expand...
35-50 would all suit my intentions to varying degrees. Like I said, 35mm would be best, but I'm prepared to lose a bit of FoV for extra quality and more creative control of DoF. I'm already fully aware of what I can expect from each focal length.
 
munkee said:
There both good lenses but the 50mm is the better choice if you want to experiment with shallow depth of field and blurry backgrounds, purely because of the longer focal length. At 35mm you need to put some distance between your subject and your background to get a similar effect.

I've owned both of these plus the 50mm f/1.4G and the 85mm f/1.8G. The 50mm f/1.8 is the best value for money, especially if you're buying second hand. It's only fractionally more expensive than the 35mm f/1.8 as a second hand buy. If you have a body with a built-in focusing motor the older AF 50mm f/1.8 D is an even better bargain. Optically it's pretty much as good as the AF-S G lens but it's about half the price.

Sharpness isn't really a big issue with any of these lenses, except maybe the 50mm f/1.4 which is really rather soft wide open. All of them are very sharp when stopped down a bit.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'm leaning towards the 50mm too, for the reasons you point out. I'm telling myself that the more limited FoV will force me to be more creative!
 
Buy either of one them second hand and you'll be able to sell it on again without losing much if any money if you change your mind later. Try before you buy if you can though to make sure it's a good copy. The same goes for buying brand new too.
 
I've just spent a couple of days in Bradford and York. My 35mm was extremely underused beforehand (<20 shots!!!) so I set myself the task of strictly using the 35mm prime the whole time (which I succeeded!)

I actually enjoyed it a lot although it was a struggle at first (manually walking in and out instead of turning a ring!!!)

I did find 35mm on a crop a bit too zoomed in at times when I couldn't move back any further. I think it's a tough call between the 35 & 50 so I guess it comes down to where you're shooting and if you're on a crop or not. By the way, it didn't stop my hankering after a 50mm all weekend and I so very nearly bought a 50mm 6 or 7 times. Oh, I found a nice camera shop in York across from CEX.

***edit***
Just saw you've got DX in the title :)
 
Last edited:
How about another wild card of a tamron 17-50 f2.8 ? Might be a good alternative ?
 
damianmkv said:
How about another wild card of a tamron 17-50 f2.8 ? Might be a good alternative ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I looked at that too. Slightly outside the budget I'd set aside. Is it really worth the extra cash?
 
Gives more flexibility I guess. There's not too much difference when bought used. I use mine a lot - more than my 35mm
 
ghoti said:
Yeah, I looked at that too. Slightly outside the budget I'd set aside. Is it really worth the extra cash?
Click to expand...

It's very good. I had the Canon-fit version a while back. The two primes you're looking at are arguably better in terms of absolute image quality but not by a large margin and the zoom is obviously much more flexible.
 
I have the Tammy 17-50 f2.8 and it's fantastic!

I also own a 50mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8 and the Tammy gets by far the most use!

17mm nice for landscapes,50mm nice for portraits and you have everything in between at f2.8 if needed!
 
I've had the tamron 17-50, 35 f1.8 and 50mmf1.8d. On my d90.

Loved them all but my tammy was the most used and most versatile (see my Flickr for lots of examples)

Keep toying with the idea of selling it as I'm mainly using the d800!

Love the 50 f1.8 as I preferred its focal length to the 35. Although that 35 is a fantastic lens.

S
 
Having owned both I'd be inclined to say that the 35 1.8 is more versatile on DX crop.
 
I also have both and the 35mm gets used the most. Need to start using the 50mm and off camera flash..
 
I have all the 1.8s and I find myself reaching for the 35 most of the time, great bokeh and extremely fast focus on all of them IMO. The 50mm is used the least.
 
Tizer said:
I have all the 1.8s and I find myself reaching for the 35 most of the time, great bokeh and extremely fast focus on all of them IMO. The 50mm is used the least.
Click to expand...

It's about personal style - I'm the opposite & use my 50mm most (on APS-C). Usually I carry that & a 25mm. It IS personal!
 
Not sure which Dx body you have but if it's one with the AF motor in body, it makes the possibles list a bit longer since you won't be restricted to AF-S/HSM lenses.
Personally, I like the FoV of a 50mm on FF so that's what I bought way back when I was shooting 35mm film but I did use it less on my first couple of DSLRs which were Dx. It gets used a bit more now I'm shooting FF again but only in very low light where I need the extra couple of stops that f/1.8 gives me over the f/4 of the 24-120 zoom. Were I a fan of shallow DoF, I might use it more too. Were I a Dx user, I would probably go for a 35mm prime for a similar FoV as the 50 gives me on FF.
 
I've got the 50mm f/1.8, it's a love/hate relationship. For many things it's great, but other things (like groups of people) it's a nightmare.
At 50mm DX the camera will see exactly what you see, the perspective is the same as the eye. You could happily walk about with two 50mm's (on DSLRs) to your eye's and it'd be like wearing glasses.

On the other hand (and bizarrely), not having the ability to zoom does mean i've ended up with some great close up portraits, which if i'd had my zoom lens would have been very generic and uninteresting.

A prime makes you think a lot more about composition and that really shows in the end result.
 
I have had both and they are equally as good as each other.

The only difference being focal length.

Get whatever FL you prefer.

Alternatively... get the 35 and the 50 AFD both used.

EDIT: didn't see the tamron wildcard.

Yeah I'd go with this too.
 
Last edited:
Another one for zoom here,years ago when zooms started getting good i swapped from primes and not gone back :)
 
Thanks for all the advice. I considered it all and nearly went for the Tamron but decided I couldn't justify the extra cash and decided to go with the 50mm after having a play with a friend's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top