35mm F2 vs 50mm 1.8

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by snakeman, Jul 5, 2007.

  1. snakeman

    snakeman

    Feb 26, 2006
    UK
    I have already got the 50mm but after several threads on here about the 35mm I am very tempted!..Is it optically better or on a par with the 50mm..
     
  2. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I believe they are very similar optically. It's just a matter of which FL fits you better. A lot of people prefer 35/2 because its close focus and wider view, and it is normal in DSLR. I, however, prefer 50/1.8 because it's cheaper, smaller and better FL (personal preference again).
     
  3. snakeman

    snakeman

    Feb 26, 2006
    UK
    Cheers mate tbh I like the idea of the close focusing on the 35mm..but not sure that alone is enough to sway me if its the same optically..
     
  4. I have both. I find the 35mm is a more congenial focal length on a DX sensor, but optically, they are both superb.

    If you look at my thread here, you'll see a mix of 50/1.8 and 35/2 shots. The 35/2 may have more vivid color rendition.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  5. snakeman

    snakeman

    Feb 26, 2006
    UK
    Thanks for the link Jim to some cracking shots!..That waterfall is superb...
     
  6. It's pretty close in terms of IQ. My copy of 35mm f/2D (bought from Wade here) is sharper at f/2 than my 50mm. The focal length was the biggest reason for me, 50mm was too narrow for indoor work at gatherings for my taste. The 35mm suit much better.
     
  7. snakeman

    snakeman

    Feb 26, 2006
    UK
    Thankyou Jimmy..general consensus seems to be that they are fairly similar optically from what I can find...its just that focusing distance thats eating away at me..lol
     
  8. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Not sure what you mean by 'similar optically'. The 35 is a 35mm, and has the image size and depth of field of a 35mm. Likewise, the 50 is a 50. Sure that is only 15mm apart. I suppose if any two focal length lenses were to be similar, traditionally, that would be the 35 and the 50, both of which are very popular.
     
  9. snakeman

    snakeman

    Feb 26, 2006
    UK
    sorry maybe I should have written "optical Quality"
     
  10. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    I don't have a 50mm Nikkor, so I cannot compare the two directly, but here is my pixel peeping effort on behalf of the 35. As with most fast lenses of it's focal length, you can see there is a bit of CA wide open:
    [imgn]http://homepage.mac.com/cheilman1/images/cameras/35mmlenstest/DSC_5516.jpg[/imgn]​
    That is gone by f/2.8 (actually it's mostly gone at f/2.2):
    [imgn]http://homepage.mac.com/cheilman1/images/cameras/35mmlenstest/DSC_5517.jpg[/imgn]​
    And it's nearly perfect by f/4:
    [imgn]http://homepage.mac.com/cheilman1/images/cameras/35mmlenstest/DSC_5518.jpg[/imgn]​
    As it is at f/5.6:
    [imgn]http://homepage.mac.com/cheilman1/images/cameras/35mmlenstest/DSC_5519.jpg[/imgn]​
    It stays that good through f/11 where it begins to show signs of diffraction.

    In practice, you can up the contrast on anything shot wide open and never see any problems at all. In fact, I love to shoot this lens at full aperture. Here, look:
     
  11. snakeman

    snakeman

    Feb 26, 2006
    UK
    thanks for that Chris much appreciated and some superb shots in that gallery!
     
  12. A bizarre, possibly true factoid, IIRC, when reversed both lenses produce . . .

    . . . a magnification ratio of about 1:1.4. Go figure.

    They're both very nice lenses, and as others have pointed out, the big difference is that 15mm of FL. Which focal length works better for you?

    The 35/2 AF is very sharp, even wide open. My 50/1.8 AF (non-D) is also very sharp, even wide open, FWIW.

    I dug around in my small number of random stuff shots on Zenfolio and here are a couple of recent wide open 50/1.8 shots:

    p509162898-5.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Greg
     
  13. Yes the 50 1.8

    is very sharp even @ 1.8. I think alot of people think that the lens is soft wide-open due to the shallow depth of field.
     
  14. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    i find the 50 1.4 very sharp @1.4 thus better suited for low light photog
    541753925_94c2a19386_o.
    and the 35 is dandy @f2 as well...;-)
    View attachment 104293
     
  15. Nobody's dissing the 50/1.4, but . . .

    . . . while you're at it, you forgot to mention that the 28/1.4 is almost twice as good for this purpose, since you can handhold at almost half the speed of the 50/1.4 for the same exposure. I suppose we could make an argument for some freak collector lens like the noct f/1.2 lens here as well.

    IIRC, I think the OP's question was about comparing the 35/2 to the 50/1.8 . . . :p

    Greg

    P.S. I meant to add, nice sharp looking shots you have there. =)
     
  16. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    thanks Greg ...btw, u have one of the cutest babies i've ever seen...;-))

    anyway, i thought i would throw in the 1.4 cuz it's about the same price as the f2. u know, $300 or less for either new verses 3 grand for the 28 or the noct...;-))
     
  17. Thanks--we're partial to little miss crazy hair ourselves ;)

    I take a lot of shots of her with her nose scrunched like this, because that's what she does when she's really smiling hard and she's a pretty happy baby (50/1.8 at f/1.8):

    [​IMG]

    She's a handful though--she's been walking since just before 10 months old, and she gets into everything. I think having her two year old brother running, climbing all over and often knocking her down (sometimes even unintentionally) is spurring her to catch up as fast as she can.

    lol, I know it was over the top, but given the fact that I know your undying love for the 50/1.4 (and my slightly different position regarding mine) from past conversations, I couldn't resist needling you about jumping in. =)

    Greg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 6, 2007
  18. As long as we're in off-topic territory Nute, I should add . . .

    . . . that the lens I use most in low light situations is actually my 28/2 (an inexpensive old AI-S lens). Here is Zoe again, holding her mother's finger at an hour or two old (this is the minimal PP original + bad quick B&W conversion that I threw up on the web for my family, later that day--resized and botched up a bit by flickr):

    199790525_2799f77a6c_b.

    I only took the 28/2 with me that day, and it worked out just fine.

    Then again, I have a split screen and magnifier at my disposal (though I put neither on the camera that day) and I'm a little bit crazy that way--I actually prefer shooting manual lenses completely to shooting AF lenses. Go figure . . .

    Greg
     
  19. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Greg, beautiful shots!
     
  20. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    o man ..that's the one! ,,that shot isa Million bucks worth or more!!! i think that one or any variants of it would be a HUGE hit for stock...SERIOUSLY!!!
    i just love it:biggrin:

    "I couldn't resist needling you about jumping in"
    ...i FULLY expected it (we can be so predictable at times, lol)
    :wink:
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Nikon 35mm f2 Lens Lust Jul 9, 2013
Background smoothness 35mm/f2 vs. 24-70 Lens Lust Feb 28, 2009
Nikon 35mm f2 vs 16-85mm at f5.6 Lens Lust Sep 30, 2008
35mm f2 vs. Beast or 17-35 2.8? Lens Lust Feb 20, 2007
35mm f2 vs. beast Lens Lust Mar 8, 2006