Help Me Choose?

[Markw]

I didnt think I would post a thread like this, because every time I see someone else do it, they usually get about the same responses: ' do your research, then choose the right lens for your needs' basically. I did do my research, or at least most of it, but theres one thing that I cant find concrete info on. I will be getting a new lens soon. I wanted either the Nikon 50mm F/1.8D or the Nikon 35mm F/1.8G lens. For anyone who has used them, which one is sharper on most accounts? Ive read that the 50mm is sharper most times, but Im not sure. Thats not my main question, however. My main question is: will the 35mm work okay with my N65 camera? I didnt think it would as it is made for the DX crop cameras, and the N65 is a full frame 35mm camera. Also, on THIS review, it says it wont work on film cameras. That it cuts the corner of the pictures off. How prominant is this? It wouldnt hurt my feelings to go with the 50mm f/1.8 at all, but I wanted to make sure.

Thanks everyone.
Mark

 

[UUilliam]

sounds like he 35mm is a no go

 

[PhotoXopher]

Isn't there a 35mm f/2 that would work?

I've had both the 35mm f/1.8G and the 50mm f/1.8D and love them both. I traded my 35mm for a 35-70 f/2.8 however since it was just too wide for most of my shooting.

Of course my experience was on a DX.

 

[Markw]

Well, yeah. But if I wanted to shovel out the $400 for that one, I would rather just get the Sigma_28mm_F/1.8 lens. The way I figure it, the wider I can get, the better. I can always crop. The D90 shoots at quite a big print size, so I can deal with some loss in size. Looks like its the 50mm 1.8 then.

Mark

 

[Dao]

Personally, I would not compare the 2 lenses together since they have different focal length.

If I need a 35mm lens, I need a 35mm lens and it should not be replaced by a 50mm lens. At least for me.


As for the DX lens on a film camera, I do not think I will go that route. I would rather take a old manual focus 35mm lens than using a DX lens of a film camera even if it will work.

 

[Christie Photo]

Personally, I would not compare the 2 lenses together since they have different focal length.

If I need a 35mm lens, I need a 35mm lens and it should not be replaced by a 50mm lens. At least for me.


As for the DX lens on a film camera, I do not think I will go that route. I would rather take a old manual focus 35mm lens than using a DX lens of a film camera even if it will work.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This ALL makes good sense.

– Pete

 

[Markw]

Ok, so now Im not too worried about it fitting the N65, Id like to know specification-wise, which is a better quality lens? Which has a better build to make better quality photos under the same conditions? Im not good with the technical terms (I think I should be, though..). Im not sure about the '_parts in _groups' and all that, but after looking on Nikon's 35mm_F/1.8G page and their 50mm_F/1.8D page, the 35mm seems to be superior in build quality. Will they produce similar images, or is one superior in quality to the other?

Mark

 

[Markw]

Bump.

Mark

 

[Christie Photo]

Will they produce similar images,...?

No. But then again, similar is relevant. One has a focal length LONGER than the other.

Mark... you're asking about how the build and quality of image compares. I think these are the questions to ask after you settle on a focal length.

And like Dao said, don't worry about using your new lens with your film camera. It's a different format and you can buy wonderful, used lenses for your film camera very cheap.

So... once you narrow it down to a specific focal length, I'm sure you'll get TONS of opinions as to which to buy.

-Pete

 

[Markw]

I know the pictures themselves will be different in terms of what is in them, but what Im trying to ask is in terms of quality. Look at it this way, the Nikon 18-55 lens will cover both of the prime lenses I am asking about in terms of focal distance, but Im sure that both of the primes will produce better image quality in terms of sharpness than the 18-55. I know they are different focal lengths, but Im asking in terms of quality (sharpness, detail, etc), is there one lens that is superior to the other? My 28-80 nikkor lens will shoot sharper at 70mm than my Nikkor 70-300mm will shoot at any of its focal range. Even if I shoot at a different focal distance, there is still a noticeable difference in image quality no matter what lens. Is there a difference in image quality between the two? There has to be some difference in the build (quality of the glass, the body, the way the lenses are put together, etc) that will make there be a different image quality that will come out of the camera. Yes, the pictures will be closer if shot at 50mm than at 35mm, but which of the pictures will come out looking esthetically more pleasing in terms of quality? Did this clear up what Im looking for?

Mark

 

[Dao]

I think my logic on buying lenses is different from you.

I have 14mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm (macro) prime lens. I bought the lens because I need a lens that has that focal length. Not because of one is better build or better optical quality than the other.

I will compare the (macro lens) 105mm from Sigma or the 90mm from Tamron with the 100mm from Canon.

Will the 85mm lens replace the 50mm lens when the optical quality and build quality is better? For me, no. It is because I need both.


Let take an example:
If you find that the 35mm lens has a better build and is optically better, then you use it to take a portrait head shot type photo of a friend and noticed your friend's nose seems bigger... and wonder .....

or if you find that the 50mm lens is built and optically better, so you use it and take a shot of your 2 co-workers sitting on the other side of the table during lunch break but find that you can only include one person in the photo .... so you wonder ...

What I am trying to say is, it doesn't matter if one is slightly better than the other one, you just need to pick up the one that suit your need. If you need a 35mm lens, you need a 35mm lens. Cheers.

 

[Markw]

That makes perfect sense. Youre making me mad at myself because now I sound stupid. . I will end up with both lenses in the end anyway, but I am debating which one to get first. I have read other threads on the 50mm 1.8 and read all your opinions, so I know that almost everyone loves the lens. I havent heard anything about the 35mm. Anyone have opinions about that one?

Thanks again.
Mark

 

[snowdog]

on a DX body the 35mm would be my choice, considering the 1,5x crop factor. On a full frame the 50mm would be the choice. However, try to consider that in most situations you usually need wider rather than tele framing. While most times it's usually easier to get closer to you subject (using your foot-powered zoom), going farther away so you can have a wider coverage can get very tricky especially when you are indoors.

Vogue Studio - fotografie de studio, moda si evenimente

 

[Lyncca]

That makes perfect sense. Youre making me mad at myself because now I sound stupid. . I will end up with both lenses in the end anyway, but I am debating which one to get first. I have read other threads on the 50mm 1.8 and read all your opinions, so I know that almost everyone loves the lens. I havent heard anything about the 35mm. Anyone have opinions about that one?

Thanks again.
Mark

Are you going to be shooting in a tight environment? If so, get the 35mm. I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 35mm 2.0. I use both a lot (actually they are about all I use for professional shots right now).

While you say you can crop, you will lose megapixels depending on how much you crop...

If you aren't going to be in a tight location, I would start with the 50mm. It's cheap and gets you used to working with primes. I actually forget when I put on a zoom lens now that I don't have move my feet. :lmao:

 

[Dao]

Take a look at this free software. It summarize your photos statistic such as focal length.

Smart Photo Statistics - gather image statistics


If you found that most of your photos were taken with a shorter focal length, then the 35mm lens maybe a better choice lens for you.