35mm too wide for people?

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm finding 50mm on a crop sensor a bit too tight and having to stand quite far back if im trying to get shots of people... great for headshots etc though!

Would the nikon 35mm be an ok lens to use or would i get distortion due to it being classed as a wide angle lens?

I figured it would make quite a nice general walkabout lens as well...
 
Nikon 35mm f/2 is a great wee lens for what you want.
 
I use the 35mm f1.8 on a DX camera and for what I use for its great. I wouldn't recommend getting in to close with one, for close ups or head and shoulders your better of with the 50 or an 85 as they are more flattering in close. But for full body shots or half then the 35mm is great!:thumbs:
 
yeah thats the one ive been looking at 35mm f/2 d

out of curiousity whats the difference between all the letters?
the 35mm G is a lot cheaper... so im assuming g is lesser quality glass etc, d being the better glass..?
 
Take a look at the leading page on my Flickr, (link below).
Taken with the 35mm 1.8.
I really like this lens on my D90.
 
evilonion said:
yeah thats the one ive been looking at 35mm f/2 d

out of curiousity whats the difference between all the letters?
the 35mm G is a lot cheaper... so im assuming g is lesser quality glass etc, d being the better glass..?
Click to expand...

G has no aperture ring on the lens - set from camera. D lenses transmit distance info to the camera. this one; http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/p...cus-lenses/fx/fixed-focus/35mm-f-2d-af-nikkor

It will act like a 50mm on a crop body - so ideal for half body - and OK for head/shoulder shots - although I'd prefer longer for that. You won't get any noticeable distortion unless you stick it right in someones face - it does focus close! - but that's down to camera/subject distance and not the lens.
 
Last edited:
Great thanks for the information.
i have a 17-50 2.8 but its far too soft below f4 so i figure this would be the better route to go.
When i had the 50mm 1.8 the images were pin sharp.
 
is a 35mm Ok for close/almost macro shots or should I be looking to use something else. want a lens for landscapes and macro?
 
evilonion said:
i have a 17-50 2.8 but its far too soft below f4
Click to expand...

You don't mean the nikon 17-55 f/2.8 - it's a super sharp lens - even at 2.8

Mick58 said:
is a 35mm Ok for close/almost macro shots or should I be looking to use something else. want a lens for landscapes and macro?
Click to expand...

It won't do macro - macro is 1:1 - it will focus to 10"
 
For macro you want more along the lines of the 60mm, or 180mm etc.
As well as extension tubes etc if you need them.

With 35mm you would need to get so close that you will either block the light onto the subject, or you will frighten away any insects etc that your trying to shoot...
 
awp sadly not, my budget only allowed me to go as far as the sigma 17-50 2.8 for the time being.
As this is mainly a hobby i just buy new equipment when i make money from prints etc.


edit, sorry 18-50 2.8
 
evilonion said:
I'm finding 50mm on a crop sensor a bit too tight and having to stand quite far back if im trying to get shots of people... great for headshots etc though!

Would the nikon 35mm be an ok lens to use or would i get distortion due to it being classed as a wide angle lens?

I figured it would make quite a nice general walkabout lens as well...
Click to expand...

35mm isn't a wide lens on a crop sensor, it's 52.5mm equivalent, so a slightly long normal.

I've never used the 35mm f/2, but the f/1.8G is never off my D40 (the D90 never loses its 85mm f/1.8, but that's another story).

So to answer your question - I think you were (quite reasonably) worried about using a wide-angle lens for people pics. Fret not, 35mm on a crop is ideal if you want more than just a head shot. As awp says, just don't get too close to the face - a 50mm or 85mm would be better for that.

IMHO, a fast 35mm is really an essential piece of kit for a crop sensor. In the olden days when every camera came with a fast 50mm as standard, no-one needed to worry about buying one, but now with slow kit zooms adorning most new low- to mid-price DSLRs, the purchase of a fast 35mm is essential.


Mick58 said:
is a 35mm Ok for close/almost macro shots or should I be looking to use something else. want a lens for landscapes and macro?
Click to expand...

Again, awp beat me to it - but it does focus close, you could call it "almost macro", but the relative shortness of the lens doesn't give you a classic macro look, but an interesting look nonetheless:

3634693039_742150d242.jpg
 
My next lens is either gonig to be a 35mm f/1.4 or a 28mm f/1.8. Havent quite decided but i know they are some lovely examples of portraits if you look on flickr.

it might be worth having a gander on the flickr group for your lens to see how others are using it.
 
I've found that the lenses that give the most distortion are 17-xx zooms and that wide primes or wide zooms in the 10-20mm type range distort much less. You have to be careful here though because what some people think of as wide angle distortion is actually perspective and that's something that affects all lenses and is just more visible in some situations when using wide angle lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top