Nikon 35mm AF-S f1.8 vs Nikon 50 mm AF-S f1.4

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I'm starting my hunt in earnest for a fast prime, and have pretty much settled on one of these two lens. While I've been reading plenty on each lens, I'd like to hear from people who have used both. Is the 50mm worth the extra dollars with regards to image quality?

Are there other primes in this focal range and speed that I should be looking at? I really want an AF-S (or HSM, or whatever Tamron is calling their motor drive) for my D60, as many of my shots are of speeding children

Thanks.

Rod

[eddie_dane]

Both are great lenses. I would let my focal length needs decide between the two. I have the older 50 f1.8 and I find it a little too long on a DX camera like the D60 but your mileage may vary.

[herc182]

From what I have heard both are great lenses but the 50mm is better. Note that the 50mm is a FX lens whereas the 35mm is only DX. So if you intend on upgrading in the future it won't be as versatile. For what you want tho I would go for the 35mm as it's wider and therefore easier to shoot moving kids with!!

[fionndruinne]

There isn't a "better" when they're different lenses with different focal lengths for different purposes. There is a "better for your needs". I would start with focal length, as that's by far the biggest difference between the two.

[K1W1]

I have the older 50 f1.8 and I find it a little too long on a DX camera like the D60 but your mileage may vary.

Same here. IMO the 35mm is a better length.

Take your 18-55 (or whatever) kit lens set the focal length to 50mm and wander around taking shots or pretend shots without adjusting the focal length then repeat the exercise with the lens set at 35mm and see what you think.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Oddly enough, I did just that Kiwi, and I spent much of my time sitting around 50mm. The reason I'm looking at both is because I wanted a lower light portrait lens that could also be used at functions, and both seemed right for the job. Yes, the 35mm is going to be a little wide given my shooting circumstances, but cropping isn't a big deal, since I rarely print anything larger than 8x10. Its also half the money of the 50. So I guess I feel the focal length isn't an issue, and really all I'm concerned about is image quality.

Fion, may I ask what you meant by different purposes? From my understanding, both lenses are intended as quick low-light primes. Am I missing something?

Rod

[r3g]

Oddly enough, I did just that Kiwi, and I spent much of my time sitting around 50mm. The reason I'm looking at both is because I wanted a lower light portrait lens that could also be used at functions, and both seemed right for the job.

Pretty much. As far as portraits go I'd say the 50mm has the edge because it wont give the slight distortion youll get from the 35mm. BUT, the 35mm is wider so you wont have to be as far back to fit more in the frame as you would with the 50mm. Especially when space isnt abundant. I myself would go for the 35mm because I feel its a little more versatile because of its wider field of view.

[kjmdrumz3]

What r3g said! I have the 50/1.4G and absolutely love it! But I am definitely adding the 35 in the future.

[achuang]

They are for slightly different purposes. The 50mm on DX is pretty much a short telephoto lens for half-body portraits and maybe closer including head and shoulders. The 35mm is a fair bit wider and is probably better suited to environmental portraits showing more surrounding elements.

[photowerkz]

Don't think about the image quality. I went from the nikkor 50mm f1.4 over to the af-s 35mm and there's nothing to write about as far as "difference in image quality" goes. What you need to decide is if 35mm or 50mm focal lenght suits your needs.