Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:34 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 50mm prime vs 35mm prime
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 201
Location: London, UK
Another question!

I have the 50mm 1.8 prime lens that does not focus on my Nikon D40. However I really love using it, and am thinking of getting the Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G.

Question one is will it autofocus on my D40? (I believe the answer is yes but just checking)

Question two is more practical - what do people who have primes of these two focal lengths most commonly use each length for? I'm trying to weigh up when I will use each, and whether it is worth paying £200 for an extra prime.

Many thanks!

_________________
D5100 user. Twitter @stevesayskanpai
Feedback always welcome:
http://stevesayskanpai.portfoliobox.me/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:26 am 
Yes, the 35mm will autofocus on your D40. Any Nikon lens with AFS in the name has a built in focus motor so all of them will auto focus on a camera without the motor built in.
I don't have the 35mm but I do have a 28mm lens. I use the 28mm mostly for street shots as it gives me the width I want to capture buildings and general views. Your 35mm will give a similar aspect of view albeit a bit longer. I use my 50mm mostly for full length portraits. It's a bit "in your face" for close up shots and can make the subject uncomfortable and so unnatural. I use the 85mm for face and head and shoulder shots. The 85mm would necessitate being too far away from my subject to get them all in if I want a full body shot.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:32 am 
Quote:
The 35/1.8 DX is especially great for use on Nikon's lightest DSLRs because of its small size, low weight and AF-S auto focusing which works on even Nikon's cheapest D40, D40X and D60 cameras


This is from Ken Rockwell's site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm

On your second question. I have the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4. I love both.
Many times I go out just with one of these primes and really enjoy shooting.
If I have to be honest - although they all say 35mm on DX is like what the human eye actually see and it's best for a single prime - I find I enjoy more shooting with the 50mm on DX. That's my personal style of course and it doesn't mean it is true for anybody else. I just find myself pushed to think more creatively with the 50mm and get some nice and close angles of view.

But if you have the 200 bucks - you won't be sorry with the 35mm f1.8 - it's truly amazing small lens!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 201
Location: London, UK
I'm really tempted to buy it now!

The main issue (and reason for buying it) is that I'm going to New York for the first time in late December, and was tempted to get it for this.

However I've decided I will only take two lenses with me - so it would be out of the 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 zoom.

At the moment I was leaning towards the 18-55 and the 55-200, simply because the 50mm 1.8 does feel a bit too telephoto for my every situation lens. However if I got the 35mm 1.8, would it make sense to take the 35mm 1.8 and the 55-200? Do you think I'd miss the flexibility of the 18-55 kit lens?

_________________
D5100 user. Twitter @stevesayskanpai
Feedback always welcome:
http://stevesayskanpai.portfoliobox.me/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:52 pm
Posts: 2176
Location: The Netherlands
I think the 35mm alone is way too narrow for city trips. Want to catch a skyscraper? Impossible with the 35mm.

Id let your telezoom at home, Ive never really used telephoto on holidays and citytrips. The 18-55 and 35 should do the job, I guess.

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:47 am 
I agree with Ruben123. For city shooting I wouldn't leave my wide angle at home. So I also think that 18-55 & 35mm will be just fine.
I would recommend you the Tokina 11-16mm if you can afford the money, about $665.
That lens with the 50mm will be very interesting and challenging setup.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:28 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7955
Location: Germany
Hello Steve,

this is an often asked question and unfortunately there is no easy answer to it. I'm currently in a similar situation going to Venice next week and having to decide which lenses to take with me. I currently trying a new 24-70mm zoom on my D300 and am quite surprised to find out that I'm able to capture tight architecture/city shots starting with 24mm on a cropped body. But 35mm on a cropped body is definitely going to be too long for capturing the city-scape. Also remember that you don't (normally) need a large aperture lens for city-scapes.
That would lead me to conclude that with your current collection of lenses I'd go for the 18-55mm kit for the city and think about getting the new AF-S 50/1.8G for people and low-light photography. But if you're good at manually focusing, just stay with your 50/1.8D.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 201
Location: London, UK
Thanks everyone for your replies. It's definitely good to know that the 35mm is going to be too long. I will definitely take my 18-55, and will make a last minute choice between the other three (assuming I buy the 35mm 1.8)!

I quite like the 55-200 for 'sneaky' people shots, and detail on architecture. However it is also the bulkiest.

To complicate things further(!), would it be worth paying the extra and getting the 28mm f/2.8 instead of the 35mm f/1.8!?

_________________
D5100 user. Twitter @stevesayskanpai
Feedback always welcome:
http://stevesayskanpai.portfoliobox.me/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:03 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7955
Location: Germany
Nah! With the 18-55 you've covered the wide-side pretty good. Another prime with only f/2.8 is not going to do you much good. If you're looking for a(nother) large-aperture prime get a longer one!

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Last edited by Thomas on Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 201
Location: London, UK
Cheers Thomas, good to have your input!

_________________
D5100 user. Twitter @stevesayskanpai
Feedback always welcome:
http://stevesayskanpai.portfoliobox.me/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:12 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7955
Location: Germany
If you feel the itch to invest, why not think about upgrading your body?
A D90 would be a major upgrade and can AF your 50/1.8D. Perhaps you can get one of the last new copies cheap from somewhere...

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 201
Location: London, UK
A new body would be too expensive for me at the moment. Also I'd be reticent to buy an older body - I'd rather wait, and then get a newer body in a couple of years.

_________________
D5100 user. Twitter @stevesayskanpai
Feedback always welcome:
http://stevesayskanpai.portfoliobox.me/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7955
Location: Germany
That's an equally wise decision, Steve.
Have a nice trip to NY, and bring home some good photos!
---
Btw.: I'll be probably taking the 24-70/2.8 as standard plus the 18-200 VR as backup for the few situations where I need longer or shorter FL to Venice. If I add another thing it would be the 35/1.4 for low-light work.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:57 am
Posts: 1551
Location: Winterpeg, Manisnowba, Canada
I absolutely love my 35 f/1.8. It's a steal at less than $150 second hand, and the f/1.8 aperture is a huge help indoors.

While in Toronto a few months back, I took there lenses with me: a 16-85mm zoom, a 35mm f/1.8 prime and a 55mm micro, only because I had some extra room in my bag. I wanted to bring my 200mm f/4 with me, but it fell and cracked its filter, causing it to get stuck onto the lens. I considered renting a telephoto lens such as a 70-200 or a 70-300, but last minute I decided against it and brought my three lenses.

I found myself using the 35mm most of the time. While it wasn't the best for shots of buildings, it did wonders indoors and in low light. For 90% of my shots it was a good enough focal length. When it wasn't wide enough, I used my 16-85, generally anywhere from 16mm to 24mm. I only used my 55mm micro once, to take photos of fish at an aquarium. I don't regret bringing the 55mm, but it was by no means as useful as the other two. I didn't need a telephoto lens at all, the only occasion where it may have been useful was at a Jays baseball game, but I couldn't justify spending $50 to rent a lens just for that one occasion.

Anyways, in summary, if I were you I'd pick up a 35mm (try to find one second hand, the money that you save could go towards a new lens, such as the excellent Tokina 11-16 for wide angle shots) and then bring your 18-55 for wider angles when necessary.

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group