Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Head north 'til you smack a polar bear, then crank it back 50 miles.
    Posts
    440

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

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    391
    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.
    my flickr
    shutterdoggy.com
    nikon D700 | D200 | D50 - nikkor 17-35 f2.8 | 35-70 f2.8 | 70-200 f2.8 | 50 f1.8 | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 | 2@SB600 | SB-800

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,887
    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!!
    Nikon D700
    Sigma 70-200 F2.8
    Sigma 85mm F1.4
    Sigma 15-30 F3.5 - 4.5



    http://www.philipduartephotography.com

    "It's better to be hurt by the truth than comforted by a lie"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,923
    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.
    Nikon D40 + kit lens

    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D AF(...or not)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie_dane View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Head north 'til you smack a polar bear, then crank it back 50 miles.
    Posts
    440
    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
    Last edited by DiamondSCattleCo; 07-09-2009 at 05:46 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondSCattleCo View Post
    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.
    Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
    Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers

    R3G Media | Flickr

    "You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    456
    What r3g said! I have the 50/1.4G and absolutely love it! But I am definitely adding the 35 in the future.
    D700(gone), D90(gone), D40x
    80-200 f/2.8D(gone), 50 f/1.4G, 100 f/2.8 Series E, 18-55 kitty
    SB900(gone), SB24, Sunpak 383(dead), fired with Paul C Buff triggers

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    793
    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.
    Nikon D700 | SB600 | SB-80DX | 2xSB-26 | 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 | 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G | 50 f/1.4 G | 105 f/2.8 VR | 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR

    flickr

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    oslo, norway
    Posts
    1,019
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •