35mm or 50mm?

Dogmatix

Dogmatix

Messages
268
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all.

I basically looking for a new lens, something sharper, and something for Urbex.
I've currently have a D5000, and wouldn't mind a AF lens, but i'm not toooo fussed, as with a prime lens, I won't be doing much "quick subject" toging.

I'd mainly use the lens for when I'm urbexing, saves using a flash if I'm indoors :)
and like I said I fancy something sharper than what I have.

I only have the 18-55VR kit lens, and a Tamron 70-300 lens. But I'm thinking of swapping the kit lens to a Nikon 18-105VR (D90 kit lens) so I have a bit more reach on a "walk about" lens.

So whats going to be best for me? 35mm or 50mm!?

ta all!
 
Have you tried sticking to both 35mm and 50mm on your 18-55 to see what you'd get more use from? Personally, my 50 never gets a look in these days, the 30 gives me a much better view, especially on the street. A 50 on a full frame, 30/35 on a cropped body is the best way to go in my opinion.
 
you'll be wanting 30 over 50 for what you'll be using it for ;)
in fact for interior shots you'll be wanting something wider than a 30 :thumbs:
 
Dogmatix said:
On average, I'm shooting around the 35mm mark, but I've heard a 50mm isn't so good on a D5000... hence the thread really...:|
Click to expand...

But you have the ability to check which works best for you and only you are really is really in the best position to say. From what you've said it sounds like the 35mm would be better for you.
 
There aren't really many options for a prime wider than 35mm that will autofocus on your camera.

the Sigma 30mm F1.4 is nearly £400
The Nikon 24mm AFS is nearly £2k

Whereas the 35mm F1.8 is £180ish...

As I've already said - you have the equipment to decide what your preferred focal range is, you can then post rationalise this against the available options...

edit: if I were you I'd be looking at something like a Sigma 10-20.
 
Nawty said:
There aren't really many options for a prime wider than 35mm that will autofocus on your camera.

the Sigma 30mm F1.4 is nearly £400
The Nikon 24mm AFS is nearly £2k

Whereas the 35mm F1.8 is £180ish...

As I've already said - you have the equipment to decide what your preferred focal range is, you can then post rationalise this against the available options...

edit: if I were you I'd be looking at something like a Sigma 10-20.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to AF, but it'd be nice. I'd rather get the lens with a decent focal lenth, and get a nice DOF along with a sharp image, rather than worry about AF tbh.

ooo where would one be able to browse for suitable lenses for my D5000?
 
www.google.co.uk :D

Those mentioned are pretty good options.

Just do a search for Sigma / Nikkor lenses and see what comes up within your budget :)
 
when i have done urbex, nothing but UWA for me. can hand hold it down to 1/10s @ 10mm, Gives you plenty of DOF to play with when cranking up the ISO. However, the odd bit of flash is helpful.
 
On the 1.6x crop, less than 12mm really...

The Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16 are considered great for the money.
 
Dogmatix said:
Wooo I got something right =D

What do I need to look for in a UWA? How do I know if a lens is an UWA?
Click to expand...

a lot of urbexers use them cos sometimes its quite tight in there. The numbers are real small :D

for a prime if its primarily urbex I'd go 35mm espesh if it af's

50mm is a nice portrait lens on crop but will need to be the 1.4 to af (I think, not au fait with nikon kit)
 
I was on an Urbex the other day, and I actually used my nifty fifty more than I used my Sigma 10-20, I'm sure. As you will know, light levels on urbexes are often limited, so you need a wide aperture, and the nifty has it. The perspective and depth of the image is very aesthetically pleasing from a fifty and flattering to whatever subject you point it at. I'm a firm believer that you could point a fast 50mm lens at a turd and still make it look nice. The depth of field is incredible, you can point the lens at something several metres away, focus, and still get a nice OOF background at f/1.8 or f/1.4. Furthermore, stop down to, say, 2.2 and your images are substantially sharper. honestly, you can't lose either way. The simple thing is... get one. If you're creative, it will be on your camera most of the time. Compared to a 35mm, the perception of depth is far better.
 
Maybe it'll be worth me hiring the two lenses from a hire firm, and see how I get on with both?

I've read more reveiws on the 50mm than I have the 35mm, and all reveiws seem posative, I have been offered a 50mm for a few pennies, and was told the DOF is narrow? or it only Narrow are certain stops?
 
The DOF is small the more you open the aperture. At f/1.8 on a 50mm lens, half a meter from the camera you have literally about a centimetre of 'in focus' area, give or take, and the rest just fades into a blur very rapidly, until infinity which is just a wash of colours - beautiful. Sometimes I focus and then rock on my feet a little bit and fire a few shots, and just delete the ones I don't want.

I'll post some shots taken with my nifty tonight in a place - the same place I PM'd you about - and let you see for yourself. The wide apertures make achieving out of focus backgrounds very easy and also lets lots of light in.
 
trencheel303 said:
The DOF is small the more you open the aperture. At f/1.8 on a 50mm lens, half a meter from the camera you have literally about a centimetre of 'in focus' area, give or take, and the rest just fades into a blur very rapidly, until infinity which is just a wash of colours - beautiful. Sometimes I focus and then rock on my feet a little bit and fire a few shots, and just delete the ones I don't want.

I'll post some shots taken with my nifty tonight in a place - the same place I PM'd you about - and let you see for yourself. The wide apertures make achieving out of focus backgrounds very easy and also lets lots of light in.
Click to expand...

Sounds awesome!

I do fancy some arty shots, and some proper sharp/decent shots, are they good on landscapes?
 
as has been said, for UrbEx UWA is king. a 50mm prime has its place, and makes you think more about composition, but you wouldnt want to use it on every exploration, it would become boring.

I have just got a 50mm f/1.8 but as has been said it wont AF on your body, AF is great I have been using MF on film for a while and then using old (<£10) MF lenses on my nikon for a little while having the MF is a godsend, exploring you generally have the time but I presume you take other pictures aswell, and its harder to MF on a modern Nikon than an old <£10 Zenit, where as AF is quick and accurate, handy especially with such a low DOF.

try an old M42 lens and adaptor for a MF lens.
 
Dogmatix said:
Sounds awesome!

I do fancy some arty shots, and some proper sharp/decent shots, are they good on landscapes?
Click to expand...

When you take landscapes with your current lens, do you use it at 50mm?

You don't need fast glass for landscapes as typically you'll be shooting in the F8-11 range.
 
Stop worrying about the cropped body thing - just look at the numbers and relate them to your kit lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top