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

[PaulWog]

Originally the 50mm focal length (FX) was my favorite. I still enjoy it lots.

35mm (FX) is a nice focal length. I like it when there's shallow depth of field introduced into the shot. But cell phones have a similar equivalent focal length... there's something about the focal length that gets boring quick, when depth of field is not shallow. I see the 35mm focal length as being a journalism / city story-telling / people kind of focal length.

I think I would lean to 35mm right now as my favorite of the two, but I think I find myself shooting at 24-28mm, and 50+mm a little bit more. At the moment I can't go below 50mm

 

[unpopular]

Yep. I'm the same way but in reverse. I always shot 50mm with film, and I still do on APSC.

 

[Derrel]

Seems like I recall that a few (a couple?) Nikkor 50mm lenses were actually 48.5mm, and that there are a few 50's (Nikon? Canon? Pentax?) that are 52.5mm in actual length. Seems like I've seen both those lengths in an online DOF calculator. Anybody feel like digging into that?

 

[ak_]

Topcon made a 52mm.

 

[dcbear78]

Seems like I recall that a few (a couple?) Nikkor 50mm lenses were actually 48.5mm, and that there are a few 50's (Nikon? Canon? Pentax?) that are 52.5mm in actual length. Seems like I've seen both those lengths in an online DOF calculator. Anybody feel like digging into that?

Pentax do make a FA43mm Ltd. The reason being this focal length is perfect "normal" fov for FF & 35mm cameras. Can't remember the specifics but it is based on the maths of the sensor/film size. I guess this makes sense with whats been previously said in this thread about what is actually normal.

 

[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

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.

Wow fantastic write up Derrel. Great information. Have you considered writing a book? haha. You'd be great at it.

Someday I'll probably grab the 85, but I honestly don't need it right now. More important lens to me right now is an ultra wide. I might just go manual lens route.

 

[unpopular]

Derrels book would go like this:

"Canon makes great cameras. But Nikon is still best. RGB Metering blahblahblahblah." followed by some old man hostility.

 

[Peeb]

I had not actually considered the minimum distance in focusing in evaluating these 2- valid point!

 

[Derrel]

Last night on-line all I found were Popular Photography's bench test measurements of the new G-series 50's.
Lens Test Nikon 50mm F 1.8 ED Nikkor Popular Photography

"50mm (51.47mm tested), f/1.8 (f/1.86 tested), 7 elements in 6 groups. Focusing turns 120 degrees.Diagonal View Angle: 47 degrees.Weight: 0.48 lb. Filter size: 58mm."

and for the f/1.4 model:
Lens Test Nikon 50mm f 1.4G Nikkor AF-S Popular Photography

• 50mm (51.68mm tested), f/1.4 (f/1.47 tested), 8 elements in 7 groups. Focusing turns 180 degrees clockwise.
• Diagonal view angle: 46 degrees.
• Weight: 0.64 lb.
• Filter size: 58mm.

 

[psreilly]

50mm for me personally. It's a little more versatile in my opinion and just fits my style of photography better