50mm or 35mm (f1.8) FOR D3400?

[nickgillespie]

With the 50 your background will be blurred out more, if that is what you're asking. But that is just how it works... the more 'zoomed in' you are, the easier it is to get a blurry background. If you're only going to have one lens, though, I'd recommend against a telephoto. If I only had one lens it would be a 'normal' lens (something around a 50 in fx terms).

So, like most everyone else, I'd say get the 35mm.

After a 35, I'd get something wider... 35 or 28 in fx terms, then as a third lens I'd get a portrait lens (85 - 135 in fx terms)

 

[Derrel]

35mm or 50mm prime. In Nikon, the low-cost DX-Nikkor lens, the 35mm f/1.8 DX is an "okay" lens, but it does have some color fringing on some types of subjects. It will be close to the normal lens length, the regular, not-tele,not-wide-angle length. The 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor is a pretty good lens for its price, and will be a nice, short telephoto. Not a medium telephoto, but a short telephoto lens, and is semi-selective in its angle of view.

With the same-sized person in a portrait, and shown from the belt buckle to the top of a cowboy hat, the 50mm will give more background blurring, and the angle of view behind a portrait subject will be more-narrow than with the 35mm lens used from closer distance, and with the belt-to-hat height of the picture being identical.

My recommendation? Go for the 50mm lens, for the more selective, narrower angle of view. Unless of course, you want a wider angle of view!

 

[Designer]

So, like most everyone else, I'd say get the 35mm.

The OP said he is going for the "Bokeh". In case you missed that part.