35mm and 50mm Nikon lenses on crop.advice please

SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Messages
9,886
Edit My Images
Yes
Just bought a Nikon D3300 with 18-55mmVii and have in mind one or possibly both these lenses.In your experience
are they of similar IQ and what would you use each for?

Also would a 70-200mm be good as a portrait lens and also for longer shots of other stuff or would an 85mm be a better option?

Im just trying to get some advice for a purchase in a week or two and it would be of help if others experience of any of these

gave me some pointers.

thank you very much for any advice.
 
They are both great lenses! The 70-200 is too long for portraits
 
My. Portraiture is with a 50mm 1.8 in studio or my siggy 18-35mm 1.8 for group or families
 
Hi

Use your 18-55 and see which focal length you prefer.

If you shooting space is small the 35mm may work better than 50mm.

For the zoom do you mean 70-300 or was it actually the 70-200 which is over £1000 new.
 
The 24-120 f4 would be a great lens for it
 
Seeing as the D3300 is a very small body, go with the 35 and the 85 primes. Great iq, weigh hardly anything and will give you enough scope for some creativity in your shots.

Big zooms and small bodies don't balance well. You can keep your kit lens to cover a walk about lens but tbh the 35mm will offer a very versatile lens for alot of stuff. The 85 is simply stunning.
 
On a crop body? It's a studio not a sports hall!
 
Last edited:
Well ok! But someone else said it would be unbalanced as the d3300 is a small body!!! He might have a battery grip and a monopod!....... But we don't know do we?????
 
70 x 1.5 = 105mm which is perfectly adequate for a portrait lens. The OP doesn't say whether it is studio portraits or outside, but at an equivalent of 300mm at its tele end, that is probably too much for portrait. (200mm on a FF is fine however). I would agree with the other poster that it is a big heavy lens and probably is better balanced and suited to the larger cameras as far as weight goes.

You will not have any IQ complaints with those two primes you mention in the title.
 
Last edited:
E
Mark twiglet said:
Well ok! But someone else said it would be unbalanced as the d3300 is a small body!!! He might have a battery grip and a monopod!....... But we don't know do we?????
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why we don't make sweeping statements like a 70-200 is too long for portraits.

You've pretty much just written off one of the most popular lens used by professional portrait photographers:D
 
UaeExile said:
E

Exactly. Which is why we don't make sweeping statements like a 70-200 is too long for portraits.

You've pretty much just written off one of the most popular lens used by professional portrait photographers:D
Click to expand...


On a full frame body......
 
thank you everybody so far,this is exactly what i was hoping for,very helpful and interesting discussion and views.

to be clearer i don't intend to do studio portraits,was thinking more casual portraits,some outside in the garden some in the house.

Im also very interested in Street phography particularly why I asked re the 2 primes

.I like the idea of the 35mm and the 85mm so far in the discussion but also the 24-120 sounds interesting.

the 70-200 is quite a lot of money for me although I assumed it wouldn't be cheap. I'm getting what you say re the big lens and small body,so does that cancel out any sort of zoom say for shots of wildlife etc,

would using a tripod balance that out better?

thank you all
 
Last edited:
At an equivalent of 300mm you are definitely getting towards the wildlife category although even more length (and expense) would get better which could be achieved by putting a teleconverter in to the set up.

(Did anyone look at the big Pro Nikons and the monsterous green Sigma f2.8 200-500mm £16000 lens at The Photo Show this weekend?)
 
Big lenses will have a tripod mount on the lens which will balance perfectly on a tripod... Hand holding a D3300 and a 70-200 won't be a particularly pleasant experience imo. Nothing to say you won't be fine with it though and i bet it would be a nice combo for IQ... but for me it's about the user experience aswell. I soon got p***ed off with a heavy lens no matter how good i thought i looked with it. For out and out user experience and IQ i would definitely go with the 35/85. The 85 has such a nice bokeh to it and it will allow you to shoot street at distance and still get a pleasant background due to the compression of the longer focal length and wide aperture. The 35 will enable a wider shot or will make you get in closer depending on your style of shooting. Both are quick to focus and both are very affordable. And you don't need a massive bag to put em in.

Just my two penneth regarding two lenses i have owned on a Nikon APS-C body.
 
shreds said:
At an equivalent of 300mm you are definitely getting towards the wildlife category although even more length (and expense) would get better which could be achieved by putting a teleconverter in to the set up.

(Did anyone look at the big Pro Nikons and the monsterous green Sigma f2.8 200-500mm £16000 lens at The Photo Show this weekend?)
Click to expand...

That sigma has been at that show for the last four years! Don't know how many they made but I bet it wasn't many!
 
minnnt said:
Big lenses will have a tripod mount on the lens which will balance perfectly on a tripod... Hand holding a D3300 and a 70-200 won't be a particularly pleasant experience imo. Nothing to say you won't be fine with it though and i bet it would be a nice combo for IQ... but for me it's about the user experience aswell. I soon got p***ed off with a heavy lens no matter how good i thought i looked with it. For out and out user experience and IQ i would definitely go with the 35/85. The 85 has such a nice bokeh to it and it will allow you to shoot street at distance and still get a pleasant background due to the compression of the longer focal length and wide aperture. The 35 will enable a wider shot or will make you get in closer depending on your style of shooting. Both are quick to focus and both are very affordable. And you don't need a massive bag to put em in.

Just my two penneth regarding two lenses i have owned on a Nikon APS-C body.
Click to expand...

I have had a d90 previously. I've paired it with an 85 f1.4, 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8, sigma 70-200 f2.8, nikon 70-300vr and a tamron 17-50 f2.8.

The sigma 70-200 was great but the 70-300 was better balanced (but not as good in low light)

The 50/35/85 are excellent.

See if you can try some out?
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
thank you everybody so far,this is exactly what i was hoping for,very helpful and interesting discussion and views.

to be clearer i don't intend to do studio portraits,was thinking more casual portraits,some outside in the garden some in the house.

Im also very interested in Street phography particularly why I asked re the 2 primes

.I like the idea of the 35mm and the 85mm so far in the discussion but also the 24-120 sounds interesting.

the 70-200 is quite a lot of money for me although I assumed it wouldn't be cheap. I'm getting what you say re the big lens and small body,so does that cancel out any sort of zoom say for shots of wildlife etc,

would using a tripod balance that out better?

thank you all
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't get the 24-120 for a crop body. That sort of zoom is used as a general use, walk around lens, and 24mm is IMHO too long on the wide end. You would be better off with one of the nikon / sigma / tamron 16 17 or 18mm zooms. I had the 17-50 vc which I liked a lot, nice size, good quality and very nice to have vibration reduction on a 2.8 walk-around zoom. But the 18-55 will get you some decent portraits if you know what you are doing. One other point, it is (again - IMHO), a mistake to choose between different focal length lenses based on which has the better IQ; the much more important difference to you will be their angle of view. Use that to choose which focal length, then be picky on which lenses you buy within that focal length.
 
minnnt said:
Big lenses will have a tripod mount on the lens which will balance perfectly on a tripod... Hand holding a D3300 and a 70-200 won't be a particularly pleasant experience imo. Nothing to say you won't be fine with it though and i bet it would be a nice combo for IQ... but for me it's about the user experience aswell. I soon got p***ed off with a heavy lens no matter how good i thought i looked with it. For out and out user experience and IQ i would definitely go with the 35/85. The 85 has such a nice bokeh to it and it will allow you to shoot street at distance and still get a pleasant background due to the compression of the longer focal length and wide aperture. The 35 will enable a wider shot or will make you get in closer depending on your style of shooting. Both are quick to focus and both are very affordable. And you don't need a massive bag to put em in.

Just my two penneth regarding two lenses i have owned on a Nikon APS-C body.
Click to expand...

sounds very encouraging David ,thank you and thank you also to Phil, Shaheed,Mark,Ian,Adam and Kev.will re read all your posts carefully.most helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top