Any point in keeping a 50 when I use the 35 more?

nerwin · Nov 19, 2015

When I bought my D610, I instantly bought the 50 1.8G along with it..because I thought..if you have a full frame camera..you gotta have a 50 to go along with it.

For my style of shooting...I found the 50mm focal length not my favorite, so I ended up buying the 35 f/2D and absolutely fell in love with that lens. It hardly comes off my body. I find the 35 f/2D far more versatile for my style of shooting.

Since buying the 35 f/2D, I maybe used the 50 1.8G maybe twice. Not that its a bad lens or anything..its sharp..awesome bokeh..but I just didn't "feel" it you know?

So what I am thinking of doing is selling the 50 1.8G and my vintage Sigma 28 f/2.8 MF lens (it doesn't handle the 24mp sensor very well) and putting it toward a ultra wide angle lens. I'm a budget right now so I'm looking at the 20 2.8D and the 18-35D. I know a lot of people like the 20 2.8D, it is a pretty decent lens and not terribly expensive. But I'm really unsure about the 18-35D...I heard a lot of bad things about it but I know a few people here have got that lens on the cheap and said its actually pretty good.

But I just want to hear your opinions. Is there any really reason to keep the 50? The only thing it might be useful is portraits in a tight location when I can't use my 105 2.8G..but then again..I rarely do portraits anyways!

I think having a ultra wide angle would be far more beneficial to me. It would be a goal to get a higher end ultra wide like the 16-35 f/4 or maybe even the 14-24..but I just can't afford that right now and I just want something to get me by for now.

Dillard · Nov 19, 2015

Sell it! Worst case scenario you decide you want a 50 again in the future, and pick up a cheap used copy. I think you answered your own question though, as you stated the ultra wide would be more beneficial. Go for it!

astroNikon · Nov 19, 2015

If you don't use the 50, then sell it.
If you need one in the future they're out there and readily available.
I've found 24mm so enjoyable and used to have a 24/2.8D. I sold that because my 24-85/2.8-4 was sharper and less distortion at @24/2.8 than the prime 24/2.8.

18-35D ?
If you lived closer I'd let you borrow mine. I love it. But i'm also not pixel peeping it comparatively to a 16-35/4. It certainly is a lot smaller and lighter too. It seems in the evolution of perfecting the image a lot of lenses are gigantic and heavy. @18 is where you get image distortion, at 35 it seems pretty good. Though I'm rarely at 35 with that lens.

You may also want to look at the Sigma 12-24. Superwide on a FF but you do get a lot of issues too with that lens.

Dave442 · Nov 19, 2015

If you need to sell it to pick up a 20 or 24mm then do it. But then you may not use the 35mm anymore.

jcdeboever · Nov 19, 2015

I found out the exact same thing. I had a Nikon AF 50 1.8 and sold it once I started using the 35mm 1.8g. Have not missed it.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

runnah · Nov 19, 2015

50mm is the vanilla ice cream of lenses.

nerwin · Nov 19, 2015

I've been thinking about this tonight and what I'm thinking of doing perhaps is selling the 35, 28 and the 24-85 VR and replacing them with the 24-120 f/4 VR and keeping the 50 1.8G.

I think the 24-85 VR is a decent all around lens, but its build quality is not that good..just feels cheaply made. I know the 24-120 f/4 VR is a much better lens in terms of build quality..I mean come on! It has a GOLD RING..how could it be worse? Haha. Seriously though..I think it would the better general purpose walk around lens. I could also get another 35 f/2D later if needed. I still want a ultra wide though..ugh..so many decisions. I'm glad I'm thinking about this now because its winter and I don't do a TON of shooting so I have time to decide what I want to do.

nerwin · Nov 19, 2015

runnah said:
50mm is the vanilla ice cream of lenses.

Is that suppose to mean good? Because I'm a fan of chocolate ice cream..not so much vanilla haha. I live in Vermont, so actually...maple ice cream all the way. :1219:

astroNikon · Nov 20, 2015

I've thought about the 24-120/4 lens also as it's a great walk around lens but haven't gotten it.

But I still use f/1.4 apertures for various artistic stuff so my 50 & 85s still hang around, though I have the f/1.8 versions too for no reason.

I also have the 24-85/2.8-4 which feels less "pro" than the VR version but it gets the job done is highly rated in the charts and is a bunch cheaper than the 24-70/2.8

I'm actually more interested in the 28-300 lens even with the problems it has as more of a "one lens" walkaround lens than the 24-120.

Braineack · Nov 20, 2015

I sell all the lenses I dont use and invest it elsewhere. the 50mm is cheap and plentiful. if you need another one you drop $100 to pick it back up.

nerwin · Nov 20, 2015

astroNikon said:
I've thought about the 24-120/4 lens also as it's a great walk around lens but haven't gotten it.

But I still use f/1.4 apertures for various artistic stuff so my 50 & 85s still hang around, though I have the f/1.8 versions too for no reason.

I also have the 24-85/2.8-4 which feels less "pro" than the VR version but it gets the job done is highly rated in the charts and is a bunch cheaper than the 24-70/2.8

I'm actually more interested in the 28-300 lens even with the problems it has as more of a "one lens" walkaround lens than the 24-120.

I was messing around with my lenses this morning and found out that there isn't a BIG difference between the 24-85 VR @ 35 f/4 and the 35 f/2D @ f/2. Not enough to difference to justify keeping it..the only benefit is that its light and compact. Keeping the 50 1.8G makes more sense to be honest, its sharper, focuses faster and produces far better bokeh than the 35 f/2D. I always liked the 35 f/2D because it focuses pretty close which is why I felt that it was a versatile prime..but then again..the 24-120 f/4 would be more versatile to me.

I think the 24-85 is a good lens...but there have been numerous times I wished I had more tele on the 24-85 haha. Having the 24-120 f/4 I would probably be more inclined to take my camera with me more often. It would totally help with events. Sure the 24-70 2.8 would be better..but that's way out of my budget and its quite big and heavy. I think the 24-120 f/4 is a good compromise and it would be good for shooting video too because of the constant f/4.

To be honest...I don't think I would purchase the 35 f/2D again as much as love it, I might just buy the 28 f/1.8G instead rather. Besides..there really isn't a HUGE difference between 35mm & 50mm. If I'm shooting the 50..I could just step a couple feet back and it would be about the same.

JohnnyWrench · Nov 20, 2015

How much do you want for that 35?

nerwin · Nov 20, 2015

JohnnyWrench said:
How much do you want for that 35?

Not sure. I bought it new from B&H for $360 about a year ago. Its still new.

Derrel · Nov 20, 2015

You are all over the map! The thing with prime lenses is they are like socket wrenches....sure, you use the 1/2 inch a LOT....but do you sell the one for the oil filler plug because you don;t use that one as often? When you need to do an oil change, then you HAVE the one for that size plug!!! That is sort of the way prime lenses generally work: each one is its own, specific tool. A 35mm lens is not a 50mm is not an 85mm lens.

RE: cheaply built lenses: welcome to the 21st century. A number of zooms feel VERY cheezy these days, yet they make good images...but if you cannot cotton to that, then by all means, get another lens. I 'get' the idea of the 24-120...that is a lot more range than 24-85mm...makes the walk-around lens just a little bit longer, in real terms.

nerwin · Nov 20, 2015

Derrel said:
You are all over the map! The thing with prime lenses is they are like socket wrenches....sure, you use the 1/2 inch a LOT....but do you sell the one for the oil filler plug because you don;t use that one as often? When you need to do an oil change, then you HAVE the one for that size plug!!! That is sort of the way prime lenses generally work: each one is its own, specific tool. A 35mm lens is not a 50mm is not an 85mm lens.

RE: cheaply built lenses: welcome to the 21st century. A number of zooms feel VERY cheezy these days, yet they make good images...but if you cannot cotton to that, then by all means, get another lens. I 'get' the idea of the 24-120...that is a lot more range than 24-85mm...makes the walk-around lens just a little bit longer, in real terms.

Unfortunately, I just don't have the funds to buy another lens and keep what I have. Its just not possible. But I feel the 24-120 would be a far more useful lens for me than to keep the 35 and 24-85 as a "just in case".