35mm or 50mm prime???

jammy_c

jammy_c

Messages
991
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
simply put, which is better Value For Money?, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S or the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S?

what are the things to consider? there is a fair difference in price :thinking: the 35mm seems better VFM, but everyone raves about the Nifty!
 
Last edited:
biggest thing is the 50 1.8 won't autofocus on a D40. The 35 is more useful on a crop sensor IMO
 
Last edited:
On a crop, I'd say the 35mm without doubt. The 50mm 1.4 never got a look in on my D90 compared to the 30mm 1.4. I just find 50mm has too much reach on a crop.
 
The question of 'value' is irrelevant here - either the 50mm or the 35mm offers you the angle of view you need or not...

If you buy 35mm, the better lens is the f/2 variant, not the f/1.8 which defies normal photographic practice which takes for granted that 'faster' lenses tend to be of better quality.

The 50mm f/1.8 is pretty good, but not as good as the two AF f/1.4 lenses offered by Nikon, which are both very good.
 
boyfalldown said:
there isn't a 50mm 1.8 AFS in a NIkon fit. Your choice at 50mm is narrowed to the very good, but 3 times as much 50 1.4
Click to expand...

Good point. I Hadn't realised that there was no 50mm AF-S. seems like the only option is a 35mm then if I want the Autofocus. or the 50mm AF which is actually a little cheaper, but will be purely manual focus until I can upgrade the body.
However, if i'm going to do that then I may as well get an old second hand 50mm f1.8 for £50-£70.
 
Last edited:
Arkady said:
If you buy 35mm, the better lens is the f/2 variant, not the f/1.8 which defies normal photographic practice which takes for granted that 'faster' lenses tend to be of better quality.
Click to expand...
Resolution-wise the f/1.8 and the f/2 seem to be pretty equal:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=1
http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a...kkor-af-35mm-f2-d-review--test-report?start=1

I haven't tried the f/2, but I'm pretty happy with the f/1.8. It has a decent haptic quality and even sports a rubber-lip sealing the mount. Besides, on a D40, there is no other choice with functional autofocus.
 
Cistron said:
Resolution-wise the f/1.8 and the f/2 seem to be pretty equal:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=1
http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a...kkor-af-35mm-f2-d-review--test-report?start=1

I haven't tried the f/2, but I'm pretty happy with the f/1.8. It has a decent haptic quality and even sports a rubber-lip sealing the mount. Besides, on a D40, there is no other choice with functional autofocus.
Click to expand...

Reviews are great, but I've owned both and the f/2 is better...(y)
 
Cistron said:
Resolution-wise the f/1.8 and the f/2 seem to be pretty equal:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=1
http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a...kkor-af-35mm-f2-d-review--test-report?start=1

I haven't tried the f/2, but I'm pretty happy with the f/1.8. It has a decent haptic quality and even sports a rubber-lip sealing the mount. Besides, on a D40, there is no other choice with functional autofocus.
Click to expand...

How usable would a prime be with no AF? :thinking: nowhere near as quick to grab the shot, but probably more rewarding when you get a decent one. it'll be more hard work and take some practice. I just worry that they'll all look fine through the viewfinder then be OOF when they're downloaded to the PC.
 
Jessops: 35mm f1.8 AF-S = £169
Jessops: 50mm f1.4 AF-S = £299

almost double the price, but twice as good?
 
Last edited:
for me yes- but I'm not you - you need to consider how you'll use the lens if nothing else
 
boyfalldown said:
for me yes- but I'm not you - you need to consider how you'll use the lens if nothing else
Click to expand...

Mainly low-light, portraiture and general walkabout use I guess.

what characteristics do you think make the 50mm better?
 
if you want more DOF, get the 50, if u want wider angle, get the 35 (y)
 
jammy_c said:
Mainly low-light, portraiture and general walkabout use I guess.

what characteristics do you think make the 50mm better?
Click to expand...

the biggest for me is it works of full frame. I like having the 1.4 as well, it means I can get creative with DoF and I shoot in low light situations alot. The 35 is really intended to replace the 50 mm for dx cameras, so it may be a better choice
 
The usual suggestion here. Get you kit lens on and try the kind of shots you want to take at 50mm then take a load at 35mm and see which is going to be best for you.

I wanted a wider angle due to indoor shots that means ill have less space so went with the 35mm.
 
boyfalldown said:
...The 35 is really intended to replace the 50 mm for dx cameras, so it may be a better choice
Click to expand...


What? No it isn't...

35mm lenses have been around for a lot longer than crop-sensor DSLRs...

It may have the same effect as a 50mm on FX, but that's coincidental - it's not what it's for...
 
boyfalldown said:
the biggest for me is it works of full frame. I like having the 1.4 as well, it means I can get creative with DoF and I shoot in low light situations alot. The 35 is really intended to replace the 50 mm for dx cameras, so it may be a better choice
Click to expand...

As this is purely a hobby i doubt i'll ever be able to afford an FX body, so on the D40 it probably makes more sense.
 
DpM said:
The usual suggestion here. Get you kit lens on and try the kind of shots you want to take at 50mm then take a load at 35mm and see which is going to be best for you.

I wanted a wider angle due to indoor shots that means ill have less space so went with the 35mm.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't think there will be much in it. the 35mm will probably feel to far and the 50mm too close. The obvious solution is move towards/away from the subject.

however, the difference in price would be far more relevant from my personal POV, if I were professional then that would be a different story perhaps. (and have a D3s) :LOL:
 
Arkady said:
What? No it isn't...

35mm lenses have been around for a lot longer than crop-sensor DSLRs...

It may have the same effect as a 50mm on FX, but that's coincidental - it's not what it's for...
Click to expand...

sorry should of been a bit clearer or had another coffee ;)- I always understood the current 35mm 1.8 dx (only the dx) was intended to fill the same space on crop cameras as the 50 does on 35mm or full frame.
 
boyfalldown said:
sorry should of been a bit clearer or had another coffee ;)- I always understood the current 35mm 1.8 dx (only the dx) was intended to fill the same space on crop cameras as the 50 does on 35mm or full frame.
Click to expand...

Actually you're probably right in that case - TBH I wasn't even aware there was a DX-only 35mm lens in the stable...

(OK I'm bad - so shoot me: I only buy the expensive lenses...lol)
 
My take on this:

Forget the 35mm f/2 on the D40 - the viewfinder is far too small for accurate AF, especially at larger apertures. This trumps any subtle/subjective difference in ultimate lens sharpness - even a sharp lens is soft if it's out of focus.

If you want a normal focal length prime on a D40 (and other non-AF-motor bodies) then the 35mm is your only option, unless you consider third-party lenses.

It's a very good lens, nice and fast.

50mm is a portrait-type length on DX - nowhere near normal and as such far less useful IMHO, and good value. I have both 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 lenses, and only ever use the 50mm for night time when I need the infinity stop - for star fields for instance.
 
martsharm said:
My take on this:

Forget the 35mm f/2 on the D40 - the viewfinder is far too small for accurate AF, especially at larger apertures. This trumps any subtle/subjective difference in ultimate lens sharpness - even a sharp lens is soft if it's out of focus.

If you want a normal focal length prime on a D40 (and other non-AF-motor bodies) then the 35mm is your only option, unless you consider third-party lenses.

It's a very good lens, nice and fast.

50mm is a portrait-type length on DX - nowhere near normal and as such far less useful IMHO, and good value. I have both 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 lenses, and only ever use the 50mm for night time when I need the infinity stop - for star fields for instance.
Click to expand...

Very good points. I think I will regret not having the ability to AF, plus I think the 35mm f1.8 AF-S will provide infinity, so it seems like a good move.

are the low-light capabilities of a 35mm different to a 50mm for the same f/stop? (sorry if that's a stupid question)
 
no at f5.6 the same amount of light hits your sensor regardless of focal length being 14 or 140 mm
 
boyfalldown said:
no at f5.6 the same amount of light hits your sensor regardless of focal length being 14 or 140 mm
Click to expand...
of course :bonk: (it was a silly question after all).
Is the body of the 50mm f/1.4 lens larger diameter than the 35mm f/1.8 to accommodate the larger aperture? (another silly question).
 
...but you need faster shutter speeds to eliminate visible camera shake at longer focal lengths, although the difference between 35-50mm is obviously negligible.
 
jammy_c said:
of course :bonk: (it was a silly question after all).
Is the body of the 50mm f/1.4 lens larger diameter than the 35mm f/1.8 to accommodate the larger aperture? (another silly question).
Click to expand...

I think the 50 1.4 has a slightly wider front element then the 35 1.8, but I'm not sure that solely to account for the wider aperture
 
I've got the 50mm afs and use it loads on my D90, I absolutely love this lens ,

but i've never had the 35mm so cant compare
 
The 50mm f/1.4G and 35mm f/2 lenses are almost the same physical size - I think the 35mm may be slightly shorter - 5mm or so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top