How many of you own the 35mm 1.8g & 50mm 1.8g?

[PaulWog]

I've heard a lot of people (even myself) argue that the 35mm and 50mm on an APS-C are redundant. Yet, on full-frame, people argue that 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm are all great focal lengths, and to some they constitute a version of the "holy trinity" of primes (and for others 24mm & 28mm come into play).

On APS-C, such a setup would look more like a 24mm, the 35mm, and the 50mm. Yet, these focal lengths (24-35, and 35-50) are generally considered to overlap and be "redundant" on APS-C. Is this due to budget restrictions, or possibly a difference in the DoF that one gets on APS-C, that changes peoples' opinions?

 

[runnah]

I have both for a crop sensor. Both are fantastic lenses and I can't think of anything wrong with them.

 

[MK3Brent]

Gave away my 35mm 1.8 a while ago, but I really liked it.

Gotta watch out in some high contrast areas, there's some green CA that can happen.

Other than that, I liked it.

1.8 was pushing it on the FF. I was getting some vignetting on my D3s.

 

[Overtime]

I also have both on a crop sensor. Both are great, but lately I find myself always reaching for the 50, and the 35 goes unused. To be fair, most of my shots are portraits, and shooting the 35 would be too close for comfort, not to mention unflattering to some. At f/2.8 the 50mm is pretty sharp, so I just keep it on and learn to move.

 

[nomiko]

Have the 50mm 1.8g , can't decide weather to buy a 35mm or not...... but first I have to buy a speed light

Sent from my HUAWEI MT1-U06 using Tapatalk

 

[MK3Brent]

Yeah, 35's aren't really perfect for portraits.
That's where the 50's and higher shine.

 

[Mach0]

I have both. The 35 is on my 3 year olds D40.

 

[Derrel]

No, 35 and 50 are not redundant, on either APS-C or FX. They are two entirely different tools. I consider 24/35/50 to be "the Big Three" indoor lenses on FX. And yes, budget considerations often are given a lot of weight by a good many DX shooters, many of whom do not have enough individual prime lenses to really make them work "right".

APS-C really hurts the otherwise excellent 85mm lens; aps-c crops down the 85mm's field of view so much that inside of normal homes, normal-sized rooms, that the length is just so difficult to use for anything except really tight portraits, and the "gap" from a 50 to an 85mm is a BIG gap on APS-C.

Of course, how one takes pictures, and what the subjects are, determines which lengths are found to be most useful. For example, on APS-C, a 35mm is a fast normal, so it is simply not wide enough to serve as a wide-angle, but instead it's sort of a normal lens. And since the 50mm is more like a 75mm short tele, a lot of people find that too long indoors, and so if they shoot a lot INDOORS, then they see no need for a 50mm.

 

[hamlet]

Just get both because the 50mm is too tight of a shot sometimes. All i'm waiting on is a sale to get the 35mm, i got the 50mm 1.4g for a song.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Got rid of my 35mm 1.8G because since I got my 50mm 1.4G as I never used it. Literally. Don't miss it. I am thinking about the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 because it covers all those prime ranges I would get.

 

[480sparky]

Just get both because the 50mm is too tight of a shot sometimes. All i'm waiting on is a sale to get the 35mm, i got the 50mm 1.4g for a song.

Well, here ya go!

 

[DNel928]

I have both of these lenses, and they are both great. Ever since purchasing the 50mm 1.8 the 35mm has been in the bag. A little too much CA for my liking, but it still has it's place.

 

[JTPhotography]

I think the difference in opinions come from the differences in what people shoot. I find that in landscape, on full frame at least, 35-85 have always been the focal lengths I use the least, so it makes sense that many are on the fence when it comes to the 35 and 50s, both on full frame and APSC.I have no reason to keep either lens in my bag. I had the 50 for a while and got rid of it for an 85 prime, which on full frame is very useful. For portraits and street photography, it makes sense to have them, even if they don't get used much. I have always thought of the 24-70s as wedding lenses or for street photography, not very practical for landscape. I either want to be wide or using a longer lens to isolate. One exception, lightning. I love shooting lightning in the summer and that mid range always seems to be where I need to be, and switching between a bunch of primes during a storm is annoying, but I surely don't want to keep a heavy $1500 lens in my bag just for that. My solution for that is an old 35-70 f2.8 nikon. Super sharp but clunky, it doesn't matter because I use it on a tripod in manual focus mode.

 

[ruifo]

I started with the 50mm f/1.8D for portraits, and later also went with the 35mm f/1.8G, looking for more field of view and AF-S motor for landscape shots.
Using a D5200, hence croped sensor at an 1.5 factor.

Both are great, and used for different situations.

In the future, I might go also either with the 85mm f/1.8 or a 50mm f/1.4 to replace my current f/1.8.

 

[jaomul]

Yip have both. 50 good for lots but particularly close-ish portraits on dx. 35 more general but good for full body shots and small group pertraits as well as other general use. It is in my opinion worth having both. A thread here once suggested that a 35 would cover its focal range and the 50 with a bit of legwork but you have to be careful not to go to close with the 35 for portraits as it is not very flattering at close quarters