- Messages
- 60
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- No
For street photography on a Nikon would you go for the 35mm or 50 mm 1.8.My leaning is towards the 50mm but I would like members opinion. Thank you
Lens help
- Thread starter silver tortoise
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends which size of sensor your Nikon has.
OP
- Messages
- 60
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- No
My camera is a d5500 which I believe is a dx I haven't shot with either only the 18/55 kit lens .
- Messages
- 23,618
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
50mm will be too long on dx for street IMO as it's 75mm fov. 24mm or 35mm would be my choice on dx.
- Messages
- 6,428
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Agree with this/ Both those lenses are excellent and about the same price. The focal length that you prefer is about the only thing to differentiate them so worth just forcing yourself to use those lengths for a day or two and see what works for you. Alternatively, if you have lightroom, see what your most commonly used focal lengths are on previous shots.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,677
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends on the kinds of shots you envision getting. To me "street photography" means wide angle...up close or environmental type shots. On DX I would be looking for something around 18mm if stuck with a prime... maybe the Nikon 20/1.8. But instead I would take/use a WA zoom like 16-35, 11-24, etc... I'm not too concerned about a bit of ISO noise in street photography, and I'm not that big on super thin DOF. I don't actually think there's much wrong w/ the 18-55 for this.
The idea that you can compose/"zoom with your feet" is crap... subject distance/perspective is a huge factor as to what an image is/conveys. I want some options there... but if the lens is wide enough, you can always choose your perspective and crop for composition in post (I generally suggest you leave a little room for cropping/fine tuning anyway).
The idea that you can compose/"zoom with your feet" is crap... subject distance/perspective is a huge factor as to what an image is/conveys. I want some options there... but if the lens is wide enough, you can always choose your perspective and crop for composition in post (I generally suggest you leave a little room for cropping/fine tuning anyway).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Neither, really. But then I wouldn't be using a 'cumbersome' DSLR either, for candid/street work...
I'd probably pick my trusty old super-compact Olympus XA2 35/35 film camera or slightly less compact Konica C35 35/35 film camera, with its rather lovely true focal length 35mm lens for selective focus effects, but that's just me.
First principles: you cant take away what you didn't catch. Shoot wide, you can always re-frame tighter by cropping after capture; rather harder to try add stuff to the edge of a picture in post. And difference n FoV between 35 & 50, means you wouldn't be cropping enormously to replicate the 50's FoV from a 35 & crop.
As to the aperture.. fast apertures offer two advantages, extra exposure in low light, and shallow DoF effects. Advantage of a couple of extra stops f aperture isn't enormous, and you would have to be hard up on the buffers at incredibly high ISO's, in a situation you would practically be having to shoot blind in near total darkness, before that advantage really becomes useful, ad when in near total dark, shallow DoF you get would probably mean you were pretty hit and miss on focus anyway. In good light, for shallow focus; NOT necessarily a priority for candid or street, where I would more often be 'shooting from the hip' either grabbing the moment or literally, holding the camera at waist height an shooting without viewfinder composition, to keep it 'discrete' and not draw attention to the camera (Another reason to shoot wide and crop), so tighter apertures to give greater Depth of Focus, would probably be more useful. Meanwhile, for 'selective focus, shallow DoF from a longer lens & tighter aperture is only a fraction of the story; DoF is a factor of subject to camera distance, whilst you get 1/3 of it in front of the subject 2/3 behind. If you go manual focus, you dont have to focus bang on your subject, you can focus infront of your subject, which reduces the focus distance & hence DoF, and pulls the DoF from behind the subject closer to the camera to drop the back-ground oof earlier, which is the difference between 'Shallow Focus' and 'Selective Focus' not smply making the fozus zoe as small as you can, bt placing it strategically where you want it, so you do get a dssociated back-ground, and you get sharp eyes and dont have fuzzy noses or ears. WHICH can all be done to great effect within the parameters of a 'Kit' 18-55 if you turn the AF 'off' and make the camera work for you, rather than have the camera spending your money for you tryig to fnd more gear to do the jobs you cant.
To wit:- would suggest you start by reading up on 'Selective Focus' and trying to make the technique work for you, rather than chasing shallow focus and wondering why it makes life hard; ad go with what you got for now. Nikon AF-S35 & AF-S50 ae both cracking little lenses, BUT if you cant get the best out of the kit 18-55, then you wont get much more out of ether; as said I wouldn't buy either for candid/street, where I would more likely want a wide angle aroud 20 rather than a standard or tele; hence I would be looking at 35 or 50's for 'other reasons', but as intro to pries, I bought the AF-S35 for my daughter as her 'only' lens when she was getting started, as it has the 'standard' FoV neither wide nor tele, and the slightly more 'useful', and first principles you can crop a wide tight, you cant crop a tight wide!
HTH.
I'd probably pick my trusty old super-compact Olympus XA2 35/35 film camera or slightly less compact Konica C35 35/35 film camera, with its rather lovely true focal length 35mm lens for selective focus effects, but that's just me.
First principles: you cant take away what you didn't catch. Shoot wide, you can always re-frame tighter by cropping after capture; rather harder to try add stuff to the edge of a picture in post. And difference n FoV between 35 & 50, means you wouldn't be cropping enormously to replicate the 50's FoV from a 35 & crop.
As to the aperture.. fast apertures offer two advantages, extra exposure in low light, and shallow DoF effects. Advantage of a couple of extra stops f aperture isn't enormous, and you would have to be hard up on the buffers at incredibly high ISO's, in a situation you would practically be having to shoot blind in near total darkness, before that advantage really becomes useful, ad when in near total dark, shallow DoF you get would probably mean you were pretty hit and miss on focus anyway. In good light, for shallow focus; NOT necessarily a priority for candid or street, where I would more often be 'shooting from the hip' either grabbing the moment or literally, holding the camera at waist height an shooting without viewfinder composition, to keep it 'discrete' and not draw attention to the camera (Another reason to shoot wide and crop), so tighter apertures to give greater Depth of Focus, would probably be more useful. Meanwhile, for 'selective focus, shallow DoF from a longer lens & tighter aperture is only a fraction of the story; DoF is a factor of subject to camera distance, whilst you get 1/3 of it in front of the subject 2/3 behind. If you go manual focus, you dont have to focus bang on your subject, you can focus infront of your subject, which reduces the focus distance & hence DoF, and pulls the DoF from behind the subject closer to the camera to drop the back-ground oof earlier, which is the difference between 'Shallow Focus' and 'Selective Focus' not smply making the fozus zoe as small as you can, bt placing it strategically where you want it, so you do get a dssociated back-ground, and you get sharp eyes and dont have fuzzy noses or ears. WHICH can all be done to great effect within the parameters of a 'Kit' 18-55 if you turn the AF 'off' and make the camera work for you, rather than have the camera spending your money for you tryig to fnd more gear to do the jobs you cant.
To wit:- would suggest you start by reading up on 'Selective Focus' and trying to make the technique work for you, rather than chasing shallow focus and wondering why it makes life hard; ad go with what you got for now. Nikon AF-S35 & AF-S50 ae both cracking little lenses, BUT if you cant get the best out of the kit 18-55, then you wont get much more out of ether; as said I wouldn't buy either for candid/street, where I would more likely want a wide angle aroud 20 rather than a standard or tele; hence I would be looking at 35 or 50's for 'other reasons', but as intro to pries, I bought the AF-S35 for my daughter as her 'only' lens when she was getting started, as it has the 'standard' FoV neither wide nor tele, and the slightly more 'useful', and first principles you can crop a wide tight, you cant crop a tight wide!
HTH.
- Messages
- 29
- Edit My Images
- No
It's good advice - but maybe he only has the Nikon DSLR?
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Which is sort of why advice offered was to read up on selective focus & use what he's got..
Though, if he's inspired by the notion, an old Oly XA2, or a Konica c35, and a roll of film might b picked up for under a tenner; in fact the renowned 'discrete' for street/candid, Minox 35 can be procured for under £50.. that would leave a lot of change for film from even the 'modest' price of an AF-S 35 or 50! ;-)
Main point of advice, though is that a 35 or 50, probably isn't the 'best' choice for street/candid photography, and something wider, around 20mm is likely to be more appropriate.
As addendum on the suggestion of turning off Auto-Focus, to exploit selective focus techniques, and manually focusing ahead of subject; begs the suggestion that manual focus 'legacy' lenses from Nikon F-Mount film cameras, may be a little more helpful than more modern AF-ones with AF disabled; they are often cheaper to buy 2nd hand, and usually have both a calibrated focus scale, cheaper AF lenses lack, as well as Depth of Focus markings, most AF lenses lack, that are useful when using selective focus to work out and position the focus zone around the subject; likely also get the faster apertures the AF primes offer into the bargain; but question of more or less appropriate focal length for street/candid still remains.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,671
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, one problem would be getting a bargain legacy 20mm manual focus lens. 24mm lenses are easy enough to find but not usually at exactly at bargain prices, 28mm lenses are much more of a bargain.
I think that either 35 or 50mm might be a bit tight on APS-C but it (quite obviously) depends upon the style of shooting, the distance to the subject and all that.
Street shooting isn't my thing but if it was I think I'd be looking at 28mm equivalent as a starting point.
I think that either 35 or 50mm might be a bit tight on APS-C but it (quite obviously) depends upon the style of shooting, the distance to the subject and all that.
Street shooting isn't my thing but if it was I think I'd be looking at 28mm equivalent as a starting point.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 60
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- No
Thank you for all of your interesting points,which I have taken on board.Unfortunately I have only one camera the DSLR so it will have to do.I have the opportunity to luckily try out the lenses from a photographic friend so we shall see.
OP
- Messages
- 60
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- No
Well I've experienced both lenses I like the 50mm particularly because of shots in low light levels.Would readers buy a uv filter or polarise lens to go with it,I know during winter it might be stupid but thinking ahead.
- Messages
- 23,618
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Both lenses you mentioned are f1.8 so will be equally good in low light (unless you're referring to AF performance as I don't know if they differ)
What are you hoping to achieve with the filters?
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,677
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For street photography a polarizer is potentially very useful. I have no use for UV filters.
- Messages
- 23,618
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
II guess it depends on what type of street photography you're doing. If you're doing it on the fly so to speak as you walk around you don't have time to set the polariser up before taking the shot and therefore can give you some weird results. Also, it reduces light which is not want you want for this kind of street photography as your shutter speed is often high. The only time I can see a polariser being useful is if you're standing in one spot taking passers by (and therefore already set the polariser) or you're taking the 'scenery' (including removing reflections) and taking your time.