35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8

G

gladjo

Guest
Both good low light lenses. I shoot in clubs alot and can't always use flash. Before my gear got stolen I had a 50 1.8 and it served me well. I really liked it's use as a portrait lense also. I found that tight spaces were a negative for this lense since I always wanted to "back up" but would usually back into a wall.

Now the 35mm 1.8. This lense will do better in tight spaces and the pics seem as sharp as the 50mm. Can this lense also serve as a portrait lense?

Should I get both? :biggrin:
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
263
Location
CA
if u can, get both... i feel the same disadvantage on the 50... cant really use them on any tight spaces... i got a 24 2.8 to resolve this for me... i havent tried 35 yet.
 
W

Wileec

Guest
35mm is a DX lens, so if FX is in your future, that will be an issue. Most lean toward longer lenses for portrait work. It really depends on if you're shooting individuals or groups. If most of your shooting needs the shorter lens, as a function of working distance, then that's the option to go with. If not, then the 50mm f/1.8 may be the better option, or better yet, especially for portraits, the 50mm AF-S f/1.4G and that AF-S will probably help with your club shots, too. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and after shooting a lot with a 105mm AF-S f/2.8, I notice the slower focus time of the 50mm f/1.8. Things to consider.

Cheers!
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
15
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
I have both the 35 f1.8 DX and the 50 f1.4 D. I had the 50 first and was forever finding it too long, except for portraits.
I couldn't wait for the 35 to come out and bought one of the first available in my city.
It stays on my camera nearly all the time at home (I use zooms for travel). It is a great walk-around lens and I seldom feel too close.
It's fast, sharp and I like the colours and contrast. Wide open CA is an issue though. I don't see that you have a Nikon body, but if you have a D300 it will correct the CA in jpeg so that may not be an issue for you.
I highly recommend both lenses but it sounds like for clubs the 35 may be your best bet.
Go to a store, try them both and see for yourself which you prefer in confined spaces.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3
Location
Marietta, GA
Anybody tried the 35mm 1.8 dx with a set of Kenko extension tubes? I have the 50mm 1.8 and that works great. I figure the 35mm would give me a little more magnification.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Europe
for d200 and I think its better to buy 35 as a first lens which will give you FOV close to the standard full frame lens, which is 50mm

start from there and see you would rather have something wider as your next lens (20/2.8 perhaps) or a bit more reach (50/85 would be the obvious candidates)

hope this helps
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
3,951
Location
Chicago
35 1.8 have escalated from 199 to 300, & I saw an online price today of 339. Nikon must believe they underpriced it when it sold so well two months ago.

I would get an FX 35 2.0 before I would pay 300 for a DX.

Then I would get a 50 1.8
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
918
Location
nj/nyc
35 1.8 have escalated from 199 to 300, & I saw an online price today of 339. Nikon must believe they underpriced it when it sold so well two months ago.

I would get an FX 35 2.0 before I would pay 300 for a DX.

Then I would get a 50 1.8
I got a 35 1.8 for $199 at B&H just this week.....:smile:
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
330
Location
Livermore, CA
I have the 50 1.4 and had the 35 1.8 for a week. Reason I got the 35mm is just as you stated, back to the wall when using the 50mm. If you are going to shot clubs, go with the 35mm. Both are wonderful lenses.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Redmond, WA
35 1.8 have escalated from 199 to 300, & I saw an online price today of 339. Nikon must believe they underpriced it when it sold so well two months ago.

I would get an FX 35 2.0 before I would pay 300 for a DX.

Then I would get a 50 1.8
The price is $199.95. Some people are charging mark-ups because it is popular.

Earlier this week, both B&H Photo and Walmart.com had it in stock for $199.95. Bing Cashback users could apply 4% off at B&H.

I bought mine at B&H last month when they had it in stock. Adorama also takes back orders for the lens and it supposedly takes a few to several weeks.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
224
Location
Fairfax, VA
35 1.8 have escalated from 199 to 300, & I saw an online price today of 339. Nikon must believe they underpriced it when it sold so well two months ago.

I would get an FX 35 2.0 before I would pay 300 for a DX.

Then I would get a 50 1.8
BH and Adorama still have them priced at $199 (but currently out of stock).

I have the 50/1.8. Excellent lens but I find it too tight for indoor (e.g. house party) use...i.e., I find myself running out of room to back up.
 
G

gladjo

Guest
Thanks for your replies kids. I will get both. Probably get the 50mm first as they are cheaper and easier to come by. O.K. Whose got one for sale? :biggrin:
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Redmond, WA
FYI, brand-new one can be had at Beach Camera's store on eBay. $139.99 with free shipping. If you use the Bing Cashback on eBay that is currently 10%, it's $123.19. Brand-new lens, authorized USA dealer, 5-year warranty.

(Though very little goes wrong with the 50/1.8 once it's a good sample!.)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom