SONY: wide angle 35mm f/1.8 VS 50mm f/1.8

[The Whole Whirled]

I am not sure which lens to purchase. I want to get into more landscape-ish photography and I know neither will be great for that, I just was wondering if anyone had any experience with either model.

Will be used with a Sony a390 body.

[TPF Sponsor]

[dxqcanada]

The 35mm will be better for landscape, though not the best angle of view ... on the Sony A390 it would be equivalent to a 50mm lens (full frame).

I have the Minolta AF 50mm f1.7 ... great for portraits.

[The Whole Whirled]

The 35mm will be better for landscape, though not the best angle of view ... on the Sony A390 it would be equivalent to a 50mm lens (full frame).

I have the Minolta AF 50mm f1.7 ... great for portraits.

So do you think the 35mm would be more versatile?

[dxqcanada]

I would take the 35mm over the 50mm ... if I could afford it, I would have both.

I currently use a 16mm and a 50mm.

[The Whole Whirled]

Okay, I think I'll probably go with the 35mm. Do you think it will be able to shoot sports fine?

[dxqcanada]

Sure, but you should be close to the action.

First you ask for a lens for landscape ... and now you ask if the same lens is good for sports ... make up your mind, fixed focal length lenses only have one focal length. Sounds like you want a zoom lens.

[The Whole Whirled]

Sure, but you should be close to the action.

First you ask for a lens for landscape ... and now you ask if the same lens is good for sports ... make up your mind, fixed focal length lenses only have one focal length. Sounds like you want a zoom lens.

No, I know what I want. A 35mm lens will not be great for landscape (and a 50mm would be worse), I just wanted to know how versatile it will be and if it COULD shoot landscape or if that'd be completely off the table. and I know I want a prime, not a zoom. with my budget any zoom I get wouldn't even be worth it.

[dmi_x33]

Hi guys, I'm new to this forum and this is my very first post. I signed up because I felt compelled to assist. (OK, this is an old post but I wanted to put my 2 cents worth).

About 6 months ago I was hell bent on buying the 50/1.8 because I wanted a bright/fast lens, but then I saw Sony come out with the 35/1.8 and I was rejoicing because this lens was PERFECT for me. I did like the idea of the 50mm but felt I would not use it as much due to the focal length.

Fast forward to today, and I own the 35/1.8 and I LOVE IT. It's the lens I use in most situations now. I am just a casual photographer and the 35mm is perfect for that.

The main advice I have for this particular comparison is that the 35mm is a more usable focal length if you want a walk around lens. 50mm would be better for portrait and sports in my opinion, however landscapes and indoor photography is better suited to the wider 35mm.

You can't have a fixed lens that does it all, but I say it's the more usable of the 2 lenses in question. F1.8 is perfect for indoors, yo uare better of with the 35mm indoors, especially if you are in a smaller house. You can't just stand back with the 50mm if there is furniture, etc in the way.

So I say go for the 35mm because you sound like you want a general purpose fixed lens, and this lens is now my walkaround lens, so it's definitely gen purpose.

I only have one problem with this lens... I find it difficult to come up with a lens kit that will compliment it well. With the 50mm, it's very easy to compliment with the usual 18-55 and 55-200. With the 35mm, I find that any wide zoom lens (anywhere between 16 to 50mm) seems like a waste of money because I would never use it with my 35mm as the first choice. At least with a 50mm prime, I could still get good use out of an 18-55 for example.

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, yes ... old post.

You probably found this because it is referring to Sony DSLR lenses ... and there are not many Sony users in this forum.

I would not suggest a "kit" lens with the primes ... it will just be a disappointment.
I would rather pair a prime with a high quality lens like the some of the older Minolta AF, or Sony G series or a Sony Carl Zeiss (and there are some good third party lenses also).

I use the highly rated Minolta AF 28-135mm paired with my primes.

[DiskoJoe]

get a tokina 11-16 f2.8. great lens. very nice for landscapes. would be the equivalent of about 16-24. Not cheap though. They still go on ebay for about $600 - 700.

IMO a 35mm would be more of a do it all type lens and not the best choice for landscape.

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, another old post pulled up ... is this a Sony thing ?

The Tamron 10-24mm is also a nice lens and cheaper to get.

[Kolia]

Sony thing or not, searching an digging up old relavent thread is proper forum etiquette.

I have the DT50 lense and I love it. I use it mostly indoors and usually for portraits. With a new baby, that's the majority of my subjects...

It's fast enough that most of the time I don't need to use a flash indoor. I also appreciate the fact that the lense is well recessed in the body so it basically has its own hood for sunny outside shooting.

I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 lense. I don't feel I need the wider angle as much.