35mm vs 50mm on FX: What's your favorite?

[nerwin]

When I was shooting with the D7000, I just LOVED the 35 1.8G, it was practically glued on my camera so naturally when I picked up the D610, I picked up the 50 1.8G and thought I'd have the same experience, but it just wasn't there. The field of view was fine but I constantly ran into the minimal focus distance whereas before on the 35 1.8G, you could get pretty close to your subject, like food, for an example. It just didn't feel as versatile as the 35 on DX.

So I ended up buying the 35 f/2D and finally I was able to get what I had before, that versatility and because I'm on full frame now..I really enjoy the full 35mm field of view over the 50mm. Its just perfect for what I do.

I still have the 50 1.8G, but I don't use it that much. Its a fantastic "normal" lens, but just wish it could focus a tad closer. The bokeh on the 50 is way better than the older 35 f/2D and I'm sure it's because the 50 has rounded aperture blades. The other downside of the 35 f/2D is that it has no CRC (close range correction) so when you do focus at its minimal focus distance, it gets a bit fuzzy in the corners. But the 50 comes in handy sometimes for certain shots.

Which do you prefer 35mm or 50mm? and why?

 

[Solarflare]

I'm on 28mm f1.8 ... Ming Thein has finally hooked my up to that focal length.

Thom Hogan says about the 50mm:

36mp Worthy Lenses
The list is longer than you think. We’ll go from the easiest calls to the toughest calls, in order: [...]

• Most of the primes. No, not all of them. The f/1.4 ones that shine are the 24mm, 35mm, 58mm, and 85mm. The f/1.8 ones that really stand out on the D8xx bodies are the 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 85mm. The rest of the AF-S f/1.4 and f/1.8 primes I find just not fully up to what the D8xx can achieve. In particular, I don’t like any of the 50mm primes on my current D810, to the point where I’m considering selling them. That’s not to say they’re bad lenses (and note I do recommend them for the lower resolution bodies), but you buy a high resolution body to get exceptional pixel level performance. The 50’s don’t achieve that in my opinion.

[...]
If you have a D4, D4s, or Df, we can add some more:
The 50’s are probably fine. You can add in the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 to the list of primes that you should consider, though I’d still opt for the 45mm PC-E or the 58mm f/1.4 for true acuity and higher contrast.

Guess the low price for the 50mm isnt without its cost, after all.

 

[acparsons]

I prefer the 35 f/2, I think the quality is a bit better.

 

[dcbear78]

I love my Sigma Art 50mm on my D810. It's by far my most used lens. I will soon be picking up its little brother the 35mm. Maybe I will like it more? Will soon find out.

 

[D-B-J]

I rented Sigma's 35 art for a weekend, and shot Nantucket's daffodil festival with it. I shot all day with it, and couldn't have loved it more. On FX it's an incredible lens, and I really enjoyed the FOV. Wide, but not ultra wide. In my eyes, it's a wonderful "walk-around" lens.

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rafa_meira]

35mm is the best focal length for general shots in FF, IMO. My Sigma 35mm f/1.4 art is basically my official lens for my D610.

 

[Derrel]

I really like a 35mm for a lot of stuff on FX. I like it a LOT. I also like 45mm as well, the 45-P. 50mm is fine, but I like that little bit of foreground emphasizing/background de-emphasizing that the 35mm lens has, and which the 50mm lacks.

 

[nerwin]

Yeah...I'm debating if I should even keep my 50 1.8G..I hardly use it.

 

[Braineack]

If you don't use it sell it. Its cheap and common enough to get a replacement.

 

[nerwin]

If you don't use it sell it. Its cheap and common enough to get a replacement.

Honestly, debating getting the 85 1.8G but have the 105 2.8G. Lol

 

[480sparky]

I don't have a 35 prime, so I can't comment.


Oh, wait. I just did.

 

[astroNikon]

I really enjoyed my 24/2.8 AF-D when I had it. My 24-85/2.8 has less issues so I sold the 24 prime . I do miss it's small compact size though and photographing with it.

I also have a 50/1.4G which I really enjoy when I use it. I have no quelms about it.

 

[Derrel]

If you don't use it sell it. Its cheap and common enough to get a replacement.

Honestly, debating getting the 85 1.8G but have the 105 2.8G. Lol

The two are really quite different focal lengths when you actually go to use them. The 105mm makes you "step back" in many situations where the 85mm allows you to shoot. In a lot of ways, the 70 or 75mm zone is even handier for social photography. It's weird, because the diffrences in millimeters do not seem all that much between some lenses, but the way they actually "work" in the real world is immediately noticeable. Like, the differene between a 50mm lens and a 58mm lens is very significant when walking around; the 58mm lens is much more selective, and magnified the background a little bit...it is, I think, actually a very short telephoto lens.

The kind of pictures one takes with a lens vary too. You can use a 50mm like a telephoto, or use it sort of like a wide-angle lens, depending on the shooting distance and the f/stop. I think that's why the 40 and 45mm lenses have been made...they exist in that wide-angle PLUS normal lens zone, where you can use the lens to show a wide-ish area of the real world, OR you can show a narrow-angle view of the real world. This is something experienced photographers have talked about off and on for years. Kirk Tuck and Ming Thein have written some articles on this. Based on shooting distance, a lens can act as if it is longer, or shorter than its focal length might indicate, at least in the 35 to 60mm range or thereabouts. With the 85mm, at longer distances, it can give an almost normal lens look; as you move into 105mm and 135mm though, the look is **always** that of a telephoto lens, with the background always looking big, and the near/far relationships showing obvious signs of visual compression of the space. I "think" that might be why the 70-200 zoom and the older Leica 75mm lens length might have developed.

An interesting little Nikon zoom lens was the Nikon Series E 36-72mm f/3.5 zoom. Same with the older 35-70 f/3.3~4.5 AF-D... those two lenses are really useful in terms of walk-around, pictorial, social lenses; you have the gentle, soft wide-angle, the semi-normal, the normal, and the very-short telephoto ranges, all in one lens, and a lens that is also very SMALL, and inconspicuous. I like the small and inconspicuous nature of traditional 35mm f/2 lenses. Once a lens grows big and heavy and into the 77 or 82mm filter size, it looks "pervy" and draws attention and makes a LOT of people feel uncomfortable. That's the only problem I see with the new uber-performance 50's...they are HUGE lenses.

 

[ak_]

I prefer a 35's FOV over a 50 in general. I like 24, 35, 80/90/100.

 

[Vtec44]

I have both 35 f1.4 and 50 f1.4, and generally use the 50 at f1.6. The reason is because my style prefers that over the 35 at the same aperture. The 35mm f1.4 can focus much closer but it also creates more distortion. The longer minimum focus distance on my 50mm prevents me from getting to close, which helps minimize apparent distortion when photographing people. For wider angle shots, the 50 f1.4 at the same aperture and distance has shallower DOF which is what I'm looking for.