35mm versus 50mm f/1.8 for D90?

[djacobox372]

I see a lot of misinformation about the 35mm f1.8 on a crop sensor body being like a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame body. A better comparison would be to a 50mm f2.8.

Indeed. This is a good thing to keep in mind, but there is still something special about having a wider angle of view with a still-shallow depth of field:

Nice shot... which illustrates another good point of comparison, if you like to take photos of "things" wider can look better, if you more often take photos of people, then a longer focal length is more flattering.

 

[Tbini87]

I see a lot of misinformation about the 35mm f1.8 on a crop sensor body being like a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame body. A better comparison would be to a 50mm f2.8.

Indeed. This is a good thing to keep in mind, but there is still something special about having a wider angle of view with a still-shallow depth of field:

Nice shot... which illustrates another good point of comparison, if you like to take photos of "things" wider can look better, if you more often take photos of people, then a longer focal length is more flattering.

would you say the 35mm lens is too short for portraits? I have the 35mm 1.8 on the way, but it seems that 35mm may be too short for portraits. i have been thinking about picking up the 50mm solely for shooting people (babies, couples, etc). however, if the 35mm lens will do then i don't want to spend the extra money (though the $125 doesn't seem too bad).

 

[djacobox372]

Indeed. This is a good thing to keep in mind, but there is still something special about having a wider angle of view with a still-shallow depth of field:

Nice shot... which illustrates another good point of comparison, if you like to take photos of "things" wider can look better, if you more often take photos of people, then a longer focal length is more flattering.

would you say the 35mm lens is too short for portraits? I have the 35mm 1.8 on the way, but it seems that 35mm may be too short for portraits. i have been thinking about picking up the 50mm solely for shooting people (babies, couples, etc). however, if the 35mm lens will do then i don't want to spend the extra money (though the $125 doesn't seem too bad).

35mm on a crop sensor is not too short, on a full frame it may be. For head shots you might want to stand back a little and crop the photo later. Unless you're printing 16x20 or larger a little loss of resolution won't hurt. You'll end up with the same look as using a longer focal length.

Distance to subject is what matters, the further away you are the more the perspective is flattened which makes for a more flattering photo. 12-15 feet is a good range.

If you already have the 35mm I wouldn't recommend picking up a 50mm for portraits, instead I'd look for an 85mm 1.8, which would compliment your 35mm better. 85mm on a crop sensor is similar to 105mm, which has long been a favorite focal length for portrait shooters. That or you could look for a 105mm macro prime, which is good for headshots and can double as a macro lens if you're into that sort of photography as well.

 

[ghache]

i had a 35mm and i sold it for the 50m.
i had my hand on a 85mm 1.4 yesterday and WOW, if it was not that expensive i would buy one hands down

 

[djacobox372]

i had a 35mm and i sold it for the 50m.
i had my hand on a 85mm 1.4 yesterday and WOW, if it was not that expensive i would buy one hands down

The 85mm 1.8 isn't nearly as expensive, and almost the same wow factor (almost).

 

[SrBiscuit]

the advice i received from a salesperson at a real camera store was to get the 50. on a crop body its a 75. equiv, and they said that 75 is about where a portrait lens should start. since i shoot mostly ports, thats the direction i went. did i receive good advice?....i dont know, but i saved $100, and i LOVE LOVE LOVE my 50.

 

[Bhirschyphoto]

i sold my 35 to buy a 50.

Interesting. Most people do the opposite based on what I have seen.

The 35mm 1.8 is sharper than the 50mm 1.8. If sharpness and DOF are your concerns, then skip both and get the 50mm 1.4.

Agreed.

The MTF chart (I know, I know... I went there) on the newish Nikkor 35mm 1.8 is one of the best I've seen in the Nikkor lineup. About 2 years ago I was going through this same discussion with myself. I did a number of controlled test shots to test the 50mm and the 35mm Nikkors and ended up walking away with the 35mm for one of my dx bodies - granted the 50mm is for an fx body, but thats what I tested it on, so I'm not talking apples to apples directly.

Nonetheless, the 35mm Nikkor AF-S 1.8G is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. I've had several discussions w/ Nikon shooters about how the strength of the 50mm Canon and it's popularity has transfered over to the 50mm Nikon with the Canon version being the much superior of the two. I just fine that I had to split hairs over short focal length primes when they are all just so damn sharp (unless Im putting significant money towards it, right?!)


All that being said, take a look at the posted MTF charts (I'm sorry, I know MTF charts don't mean everything ) and maybe that will help somehow.

With this type of conversation I've found that most people stick to their guns on the 50mm vs 35mm topic, so I just present all this as opinion.

Cheers,
Brian