50mm 1.8 or the 35mm 1.8

[eric-holmes]

I currently own the 50mm 1.8 and I always thought I wanted a longer focal length prime but it seems like it has became more of a hindrance lately. I have been looking into the 35mm 1.8. Does anyone have any experience going from a 50 to a 35 or vice-versa?

 

[Goontz]

In to see what some opinions are. I've also been considering getting the 35mm 1.8, or maybe ditching my 50 for it.

 

[er111a]

I never have used a 35, however i love my 50 mm -1.4- idk how the 1.8 is

 

[McMommy]

I don't have experience with the 50mm. When I went to the camera store to buy it, they were sold out and only had the 35mm. I LOVE it so far. I thought I was having problems with it, but it turns out I'm just a complete noob...lol.

I highly recommend it!

 

[Dao]

I think the major difference is just the focal length. Set your zoom lens to 35mm and see if the angle of view is something you are looking for.

 

[Josh220]

I have used both, as well as the 50mm 1.4. Between the 50mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.8, the 35mm is a sharper lens, and works much better on a DX body since it's not as tight/limiting as the 50mm. The 1.4 may be slightly crisper, but it's more than twice the price and you still have to deal with the limiting focal length.

For some the 50mm is a perfect length. If all you shoot is portraits, then the 50mm works great. As a general purpose prime, the 35mm is much easier to use on a DX body. I think you would be very happy with the 35mm.

Here's how I looked at it... If full-frame users love the 50mm 1.4, then the 35mm is perfect for DX cameras since it's effectively a 52mm. Perfect range IMO.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[eric-holmes]

I do a lot of portraits so I am wondering if I would like the 35mm or if it would be too wide.

 

[Josh220]

I do a lot of portraits so I am wondering if I would like the 35mm or if it would be too wide.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Use the 50mm when you have room (outdoors, larger rooms, etc) and use the 35mm when you don't have the luxury of walking back far enough. If you are ever taking portraits or group shots indoors space can be limited.

I got the 35mm for $200 shipped to my door. That's not much for what you get from it. Might as well have one in the collection. It's definitely one of those lenses that you are glad you have when you need it. I really only got mine for low-light/indoor situations since I am about to get the 24-70 and 70-200.

 

[TiCoyote]

On a crop filter, the 50mm can often feel tight. I find that if I'm shooting friends in a bar, I often run out of room with the 50. However, if I slap the 18-55 on there, and I shoot in the 35ish range, I often end up cropping my photos anyway.

For portraits, 50mm or closer is preferable. As lenses get wider, they become less flattering for the subject. They can make noses look big and ears look small.

 

[eric-holmes]

So a 30 on a crop filter would be ideal for portraits.

 

[Josh220]

Look what you did Coyote, you got everyone saying filter!

I think the 35mm is ideal for a crop sensor because it's about the same as 50mm on a full-frame sensor.

When compared to the 50mm 1.8 it's sharper, which is all the more reason to get it IMO.

Do you have a camera store near you? (Ritz, Samy's, etc). I always go in and try out the lenses before I buy them. Take in your 50mm and test the 35mm and see which you like better.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

For starters, both the lenses you are talking about are fairly cheap so there is no reason to get rid of the 50mm to buy the 35mm.

I have a 50mm that came with my very first camera, before I knew much about photo I didn't use it very long because, to me, it is not a very interesting lens. On the other hand, I almost always had a 35mm on one body. I kept the 50 because I wasn't going to sell it for much and if I broke my 35, I could use it...

Now, this is from the point of view of a film/full frame body user.

With a crop body, the 35mm becomes a fairly boring lens while a 50mm becomes a decent portrait lens. When shooting portraits, it is nice to have a little distance between you and your subject. It is more comfortable. These days, it seems like a lot of people want way longer lenses for portraiture but, to me, 85/100mm is great. A 50 is equivalent to 85 on a Canon crop body (somewhat different on a Nikon.)

I am not right on top of my subject when shooting but I'm not so far away that I have to raise my voice to give directions.

Hope that helps.

 

[TiCoyote]

Look what you did Coyote, you got everyone saying filter!

Damnit! Now I wish I had written something funnier. Like crop gorilla.

What I meant to write was:

On a crop gorilla, a 50mm feels a little tight, especially when shooting somewhere indoors with a lot of people like a bar. Plus, a lot of bars don't allow gorillas. They can be very territorial, and they only order banana daiquiris. :lmao:

 

[Josh220]

This is a picture I took shortly after receiving the 35mm 1.8 lens the other day. Just testing out the DOF/bokeh on it; haven't done much with it yet but it gives you an idea of it's performance/sharpness at f/1.8. It should be even crisper at 2.8 but I haven't had time to play around with it much.

 

[emh]

For portraits, 50mm or closer is preferable. As lenses get wider, they become less flattering for the subject. They can make noses look big and ears look small.

I'm also trying to decide between a 35mm and and a 50mm for a DX, and the point in bold is what's giving me pause about the 35 (I will probably end up getting both at some point, but want to get one for now).

If I stand the same distance from the subject for a portrait with a 50mm and a 35mm, does the 35mm still produce the distortion you mentioned? I realize I'll have to crop the 35mm picture, but that's okay with me (I'm also okay with the greater depth of field of the 35mm).

I currently don't have a lens that covers either of these lengths, so can't experimentally try it out