50mm & 35mm - Buy both?

[sroc3]

So I'm looking all over the place and i really can't find the Nikon 50mm 1.8G at $199 to $219.00. Apparently all the other places that have this in stock are charging $270....bastards. Supply and demand right?

Anyway, I keep coming across the 35mm 1.8G and found it at $189.00. I figure I could get this lens, play around with it and experiment (as a 50mm substitute). Then when the 50mm becomes in-stock, I can get that when the price is reasonable.

THoughts? Am I making a fair amount of sense from my deduction?

 

[iolair]

Are you on a crop-frame or full-frame body? What kind of photography do you prefer?

You sound like you're making sense to me though; 35mm is a good focal length both on FF and crop ... I really don't think you'd regret the purchase.

 

[Ron Evers]

A 50 will make your pics look as you see with your eyes, a 35 will make the subjects look farther away. So, it depends on what you want a lens to do. I have a 35 & several 50s & almost never use the 35 but rather switch between a 24 & 50 depending if I want a wider shot or not.

 

[D-B-J]

A few steps forwards or back will get you either focal length with the others lens. Step back a few with the 50mm, you have 35. Step forward a few with the 35, you have 50. I really like my 50mm, i must say.

Regards,
Jake

 

[Derrel]

This step forward/step back thing is nonsense....the angle of acceptance BEHIND THE MAIN SUBJECT is vastly,vastly different with a 35mm lens than with a 50mm lens. This "foot zooming" for focal lengths between 28mm and 70mm is a load of crap. Promulgated mostly by people like Ken Rockwell, and surprisingly, some nature photographers who love the wide-angle lenses and cannot seem to grasp that a 35mm lens is a "wide-angle" lens, while a 50mm lens functions very much like a "short telephoto" (really!) on full-frame.

Canon used to list its 50mm lenses in its lens catalog among the telephotos....yes....50mm, 85mm,100mm,135mm were all grouped under the "telephoto" umbrella. Not sure if Canon is still following that grouping, since I have not leafed through a Canon printed catalog since the 20D was king of the mid-level cams.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The 35mm is 52 mm with crop factor considered. Unless you're on a full frame cam its pretty much equal to what you see. I enjoy my 35mm.

 

[Ron Evers]

Further to what Derrel said, if your back is against a wall & you cannot get the subject in frame you need a wider lens.

In choosing a lens first buy, you must consider what type of shooting you want to do.

 

[adversus]

The 35mm 1.8 is one of my favorite lenses. As was said above, on a 1.5 crop sensor like you have, it'll have the effect of roughly 52mm.

 

[Ron Evers]

The 35mm 1.8 is one of my favorite lenses. As was said above, on a 1.5 crop sensor like you have, it'll have the effect of roughly 52mm.

To clarify: only with regard to the field of view, not magnification. A 35mm lens will still make the subject appear farther away regardless of crop factor.

 

[Dao]

To me, I really do not care about crop factor since I am not using any full frame or 35mm film based camera. My first camera is a APS-C camera. So the crop factor is meaningless to me because I have nothing to compare with. All I care is how the focal length affect the view when I look at the viewfinder in my camera.

So my recommendation is if you have a zoom lens that cover both 35mm and 50mm, set it to those focal lengths, peek through the viewfinder, see it looks like and go from there.

 

[shortpants]

Well a 35mm is considered "normal" like the 50mm used to be full frame. Go for it, you won't be disappointed. It's a great everyday lens.

 

[mrpink]

Save your money. In time, the answer to your question will become painfully obvious. p!nK

 

[sroc3]

Thanks everyone! I ended up getting the 35mm......and it turns out that the 50mm is also in stock at the price I want. Darn it. I'm going back tomorrow to check on the Crop-Factor effect and see what gives. The Lady at the store also had a Nikon and she said that personally she uses the 35mm, as the sensor in the camera compensates and actually gives you more of a 52mm view. The 50mm would not be as "wide angle". I may have also forgotten to mention that my camera is a D3100, if that means anything in terms of processor, etc. Thanks for the quick responses everyone! Feel free to add more advice if need be. In addition, I also the Nikkor 55-300mm discounted to $300.....AY.....this never ends I tell you.

 

[tyler_h]

This step forward/step back thing is nonsense....the angle of acceptance BEHIND THE MAIN SUBJECT is vastly,vastly different with a 35mm lens than with a 50mm lens. This "foot zooming" for focal lengths between 28mm and 70mm is a load of crap. Promulgated mostly by people like Ken Rockwell, and surprisingly, some nature photographers who love the wide-angle lenses and cannot seem to grasp that a 35mm lens is a "wide-angle" lens, while a 50mm lens functions very much like a "short telephoto" (really!) on full-frame.

Canon used to list its 50mm lenses in its lens catalog among the telephotos....yes....50mm, 85mm,100mm,135mm were all grouped under the "telephoto" umbrella. Not sure if Canon is still following that grouping, since I have not leafed through a Canon printed catalog since the 20D was king of the mid-level cams.

This guy knows what he is saying so listen to him.

People assume 50mm as a 'normal' lens because it approximates what we see ignoring periphial vision. The true definition of a normal lens would be one with the same focal length as the flange distance of the camera (44mm for Canon).

The other one as people note is consider what you like shooting. I don't use anything in the 30-70ish equivalent range so it's very much a personal preference.