!!

Hello Guest! Kumusta!

Thank you for visiting PiPho Forum!
It would be best if you will register so you can use the additional benefits of the community such as joining events, interacting with fellow members and view the hidden boards of the forum.

 
 
Mabuhay, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.

Recent Classifieds Posts

Invalid feed.

Recent Forum Posts

Sweat it out in style with Nike Outfits by joeyjstepp
[August 23, 2019, 01:28:35 PM]


Begin every match or workout in comfort and style by joeyjstepp
[August 23, 2019, 01:27:40 PM]


Find all our current markdown styles in one place by joeyjstepp
[August 23, 2019, 01:26:05 PM]


Ibat-ibang kababaihan... by rarevision
[August 20, 2019, 05:42:45 PM]


Landscapes & Seascapes For All by mcCoy!
[August 07, 2019, 11:15:58 AM]


Churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc - Places of Worship by rarevision
[August 07, 2019, 12:27:57 AM]


Mga Sikat... celebrity photos by rarevision
[August 07, 2019, 12:20:18 AM]


D7K+ Shoot - January 2013 by Miguelina
[August 02, 2019, 03:11:46 PM]


NEWBIE Seeking Advice: Pricing your image for a textbook? by Red_Jade
[July 23, 2019, 06:33:29 PM]


My Food Photography Shots by mcCoy!
[July 18, 2019, 10:18:02 PM]



Author Topic: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses  (Read 11329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mmanson

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 346
  • Liked: 4
  • alkoholic.
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2010, 08:54:08 PM »
i'm considering the 55-200 vr too, pero sir ok ba siya kahit low light?

afaik hindi. use 50mm 1.8 na lang or 35mm 1.8. or kung meron kang speedlight, gamitin mo yun with your zoom lens.

Pinoy Photography - Philippines Online Photography Community

Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2010, 08:54:08 PM »

Offline 3rdworldkid

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Marie Biscuits
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • RISE UP!
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2010, 10:20:58 PM »
afaik hindi. use 50mm 1.8 na lang or 35mm 1.8. or kung meron kang speedlight, gamitin mo yun with your zoom lens.

hmmm... wala pa akong speedlight sir eh. pero for studio-like portraits? yung may muslin bg, what is better? 55-200vr or 35mm?

Offline nap

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2007
  • Posts: 964
  • Liked: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Kaya pala ako laging antok, Nap kasi pangalan ko.
    • My Multiply
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2010, 04:37:43 AM »
hmmm... wala pa akong speedlight sir eh. pero for studio-like portraits? yung may muslin bg, what is better? 55-200vr or 35mm?

Ilagay mo sa 35mm yung kit lens mo at tignan mo kung komportable kang gamitin yung focal length na yun na pang portrait. Kanya kanya kasing style ng pagpo-portrait yan e.

Sharpness wise, sa experience ko, ang laking linaw ng 35mm prime kesa dun sa 55-200mm.
Sa sibuyas may lakas!



In english, in union there is strength.

Offline LittleTotoy

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Tocino + Rice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Posts: 221
  • Liked: 0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2010, 08:47:50 AM »
I would be looking at:

1. Nikon 35mm f/1.8 - small, fast, will AF, great walk-around prime, relatively cheap, probably not as useful as a portrait lens vs a 50 prime, relatively poor bokeh.

2. Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - excellent portrait lens, one of the best 50mm primes out right now, great bokeh IMO, relatively large and heavy, relatively pricey at PhP 22K+, portrait-centric IQ.
PENTAXIAN.

Interest Check:  Alessandro MS-Pro Headphones - PhP 25K.

The best camera is the one you have with you all the time, not the one that stays in your dry box at home.

Offline cianzepol

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tocino + Rice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Posts: 199
  • Liked: 0
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2010, 11:03:19 PM »
both are good.

depende na lang po yan sa budget.

Offline Francisism

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Nido Kid
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 1
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2010, 11:41:06 PM »
Ano po mas ok kung group shots, kunwari sa mga bar 35mm o 50mm?

Offline patatahead

  • Trigger Happy !!!!
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Tocino + Rice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2010, 12:19:08 AM »
Ano po mas ok kung group shots, kunwari sa mga bar 35mm o 50mm?

35mm will be the ideal for me

Offline theperson

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Circulan
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 273
  • Liked: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Camera: Nikon
  • Field: Travel
  • Model: d600
  • Nickname: Makko
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2010, 08:04:59 AM »
35mm
-faster af
-better chromatic aberration control

Offline brf

  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2006
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked: 13
  • Gender: Male
    • richardbuan photography
  • Field: Travel
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2010, 08:40:32 AM »
i own/use both nikon 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8.
each has its own strengths/weaknesses.
as a dx format user only, below are some of my observations:

nikon 35mm 1.8
- really sharp wide open
- better auto focus accuracy especially for tracking
- silent/fast focus
- better focal length (close to being 50mm in a crop body) for taking small group pics.
- barrel distortion
- CA

nikon 50mm 1.8
- better focal length for taking portraits, half-body shot
- very low distortion, close to none
- wide open there's a small area of sharpness may be due to shallow dof. aperture of 4.0 if you really want max sharpness
- auto focus isn't good for tracking
- quite prone to hunting
- CA

both are good, you just need to decide which to pick for a specific use. they're both capable of producing sharp photos. sometimes, you don't want a very sharp lens especially for taking portraits. it's always better to have a 1st hand experience rather than user's feedback. go try both and see which fits your shooting style.  ;)

Offline junbo

  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Tocino + Rice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 148
  • Liked: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Camera: Nikon
  • Field: Landscape
  • Model: V1
  • Nickname: Junbo
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2010, 08:45:12 AM »
Hi Blacklite,

I note that (a) you're using a DX cam (D90), and (b) most of the responses compared the technical qualities of the 50mm 1.4/1.8 vs the 35 mm 1.8.

I've had both 50 1.8D (used on my previous D80) and a 35 1.8G (currently used on my D300). So I've used both on DX cams.

I don't recall whether one focused faster than the other, but I can say the 35 1.8G is sharper and may have had better bokeh (as KPY555 reported, although I can't recall unless I go and review my old 50 1.8 pics).

What I want to talk about, however, goes back to my 1960s and 70s experience with Nikon F film cams (had them all from the original Nikon F, F Photomic, through to the F3, and later (when I got married and had to spend money more wisely, hehe) the FE.

In those days, SLRs would come with the so-called 50mm standard lens, usually 1.4 to 1.8. And these were the cheapest lenses in every manufacturer's lineup. They were called "normal" because they apparently gave a 1:1 ratio between what you saw in the viewfinder and what the camera "saw."

As time went on, people became disenchanted with the 50mm because it wasn't wide enough for group shots, and not long enough for portraits (it tended to distort people's faces). So people out aside their normal lenses and bought 35mm WA for their "normal" and the 105 mm for their portraits. This is when manufacturers started selling "body only." Both 35 and 105 lenses of course also were very usable for landscapes. The 135 mm was the "standard" telephoto back then but people found this too "long" for portraiture. Note that the 105 gave a 2x image (relative to the "normal" 50mm). [Trivia: Dick Baldovino's partner at the old Asia Magazine in Hong Kong, Mr Henry Mok, once told me that the ideal normal lens for him was the 35. If he needed "bigger" he went closer to his subject, and if he needed wider he walked farther away. I guess he was talking about the "walking zoom lens" hehe. This was his answer to my question, "if I could only afford one lens, which would it be?"]

Back then, of course, zooms were not the fashion. I suspect that's because even if changing lenses was and always will be a bi^ch, people didn't worry as much about dust getting into their cameras then (although photogs were always OC about the cleanliness of their cameras' insides).

So back to your post. Nap responded by saying that the 50 (for a DX) is neither wide nor narrow. I think he is talking about the same issue of the "normal" lens of my 1960s and 70s generation. Nap recommends an 85. I might agree but I would prefer something that gives an equivalent 105mm or 2x magnification. The 85 on a D90 will give a 124mm FX equivalent. Might (and this could be a matter of personal taste) be a tad too long for some folks. That said, I have an 85 1.8 that gives me excellent results on my D300 (am still saving for a D700, hehe).

Final note. I also have a 35 2.0D (like the 85 1.8 awaiting a D700 body) which does not give me as sharp as what I get from my 38 1.8G, although I suspect (hope?) it will work better on an FX body.

And absolutely final note, if you're planning to stay with DX, may I humbly recommend the 16-85 VR Nikkor? It's a great walkaround lens, so good I bring it on my travels and leave the rest behind (I also have a 70-300 VR Nikkor that's probably best value in its class, short of the 70-200 2.8 VRII, which I've only read about). On the 16-85 VR, I have everything covered, from 24mm WA to 127 mm medium tele, which means I can take pretty much everything that I like to shoot. This is also in response to Francicism who asks which lens is better for group shots.

Cheers,
Junbo

Hi guys,

I noticed that a lot of guys are selling their 50mm prime lenses lately. Is it because of the 35mm?

a large group are also using D80 and D90.

So is 35mm better than 50mm (setting aside the AF body reason)???

thanks! :D

Offline memphis

  • fanatic psychographer
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Robot
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 1017
  • Liked: 17
  • Gender: Male
  • "i am who am.."
    • TipidSale - DavaoSale!
  • Camera: Panasonic, Nikon
  • Field: Portraiture
  • Model: GF1, D90
  • Nickname: Jaypee
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2010, 09:54:25 AM »
i'd go for the 35 1.8, since i find the focal length wide enough for all around purposes. for portrait shots, i just have to be wary not to go too close on the subject to avoid distortion. but overall, still on 35.
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person."
Free Mac Support

Offline yourdone

  • Sofa King Amazing
  • Trade Count: (20)
  • Robot
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 967
  • Liked: 71
  • Gender: Male
  • Do Better. Get Better. Be Better.
  • Camera: Canon & Fuji
  • Field: Landscape
  • Model: 11D MkIII, UVIR X-A1
  • Nickname: Dan
Re: Nikon 50mm vs 35mm prime lenses
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2010, 02:10:54 PM »
I had the 50 1.8 before and I have the 35 1.8 now.

The 50 1.8 is good especially at its price, I found the sweet spot to be around  F2.5 to 5.6.
The focal length was prohibitive for my use on DX. I usually used this for family events and it wasn't long enough for head & shoulder portraits so I had to move in close which often made subjects uneasy which made for some awkward photos.
It was also a bit long for group shots.

My default go to lens is the 35 1.8. For family events it's better for group shots and videos.
I also like the colors,the contrast, and the out-of-focus rendition of 35 1.8 over the 50 1.8.
As for the distortion issue, the auto-distortion control for Nikkor lenses of Capture NX2.2 is really helpful in this regard.
As for solo shots or candid portraits, I suggest getting an 85 1.8 or the 70-200.

The one thing I miss about the 50 1.8 is its' ability to be a better modified macro with some extension tubes and a dual element close-up filter.

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2120 Replies
457755 Views
Last post November 24, 2017, 04:38:05 PM
by wewoy_romero
8 Replies
2944 Views
Last post November 25, 2009, 11:35:52 PM
by paopilar
10 Replies
2380 Views
Last post August 09, 2010, 07:41:36 AM
by junbo
20 Replies
4550 Views
Last post March 09, 2011, 10:46:13 AM
by teabag
9 Replies
1503 Views
Last post December 16, 2011, 11:30:25 PM
by MLG123


Get this spot now imagesmith photography Two Stops Over