35 or 50?

[Pedro_lopez]

Skip the wide-angle for landscape convention, and move right into using a telephoto for landscapes, and selecting interesting things you can see by using a narrow-ish angle of view. For the beginning shooter, wide-angle landscapes often end up being dull, or listless, because "wide-angle" also means "tiny recordings of faraway stuff". I am being serious....if you're new to landscape photography, you will very likely make more-interesting and better photos by using a normal to telephoto lens length.

MANY landscape shooters find that a 70-200mm zoom is one of their most-used lenses.

Funny cause I went this morning to try some seascape photos and I found myself either moving closer or using the 55mm Focal length. I could maybe just try getting the other kit lens 55-200mm nikkor or maybe the 70-200 like you said. That would definitely run in my price range for a while too. I also figured out the need for a gradient ND filter as today I clearly could not get the ocean and sunrise just right.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Solarflare]

AFAIK Rowen Galen (famous landscape photographer) hat a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 75-150mm f3.5 zoom with him (he strongly believed in traveling light).

 

[Frank F.]

Derrel is right. Wide Angle shooting is much more difficult because you have so many elements in your composition. If decent teles were not soooo expensive I would recommend a 200mm or 300mm even.

But. A medium tele lens is more versatile.

As a beginner I shot a lot 50mm and 135mm on Film or as you say today FX. 50mm for general photography. 135mm for outdoor portaits and detail capture.

Think about a used 105 or 135 manual lens. Try one from a friend.

 

[Bubba Jones]

I've been looking for my first "prime" lens to compliment the 18-55 kit lens I have. My main aim is to do seascape and landscape but I've also read they have great Bokeh effect I want to practice as well. These are the only lens at the moment that are in my price range unless anyone can possibly mention something better.
So which ones a better all around better choice?


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

"...to compliment...", should be, complement. Two different words, two different meanings, and two usages.

 

[Andyj]

I have both 35 & 50mm lenses. Both are good but 35mm definitely wins on sharpness and I think is more usable in general.

 

[greybeard]

Back in the 70's when I got my 1st SLR (Minolta SRT 201 35mm) it came with a 50mm normal lens. That is what I learned with and that is the perspective I am most comfortable with. So, with a crop frame camera like your D3300 and my D7000 I use a 35mm 1.8. I have a 16-85 3.5-5.6 vr which is a really great normal zoom but, I usually just use the 35mm and let my feet do the zooming.

 

[Solarflare]

If decent teles were not soooo expensive I would recommend a 200mm or 300mm even.

Um ... really ? My AI 300mm f4.5 cost a friggin 180€ and it was actually expensive at this price (It was a poor student I bought it from, so thats why I was OK with the price). Optically ? Possibly my best lens. Either way its just pure bliss.

 

[snowbear]

Late to the party. Have you considered making panorama landscapes? I've made a few using the 50mm, both with and without a tripod.