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

[hamlet]

Opening a new lens box is like its Christmas morning. You get the new car smell and a lens untouched by dust dirt or human hands.

 

[18.percent.gary]

Opening a new lens box is like its Christmas morning. You get the new car smell and a lens untouched by dust dirt or human hands.

...and just like a new car it loses 25% of it's cash value the second that you take ownership of it. I understand if you have OCD issues though then the premium may well be worth buying new, un-molested goods.

Back on-topic, I've had the 35 1.8 for a few years and have never used it. I actually took a week and forced myself to leave it on my camera. Meh, boring... it doesn't do anything spectacular unless you don't have a speedlight.

 

[hamlet]

I only buy my things on big sales if i don't need it that day. Sales that undercut the used market. I could go ahead and sell my lenses at a profit, but i don't like the used market. The lenses i buy are for keeps, it will be buried with me in my pyramid when i die.

 

[ratssass]

hammy's bubble.........

 

[hamlet]

I've said it before, if you like used then that's great for you. I'm not trying to push my agenda on anyone else. I just don't see why saving a couple of dollars is worth getting a rejected product. The risk is not worth it for me.

 

[ratssass]

I've said it before, if you like used then that's great for you. I'm not trying to push my agenda on anyone else. I just don't see why saving a couple of dollars is worth getting a rejected product. The risk is not worth it for me.

naw,man.....I meant the mausoleum.

 

[PaulWog]

Opening a new lens box is like its Christmas morning. You get the new car smell and a lens untouched by dust dirt or human hands.

...and just like a new car it loses 25% of it's cash value the second that you take ownership of it. I understand if you have OCD issues though then the premium may well be worth buying new, un-molested goods.

Back on-topic, I've had the 35 1.8 for a few years and have never used it. I actually took a week and forced myself to leave it on my camera. Meh, boring... it doesn't do anything spectacular unless you don't have a speedlight.

Which lenses do you prefer?

 

[jacksage]

I have the 50mm, but i wish i had the 35mm instead.......

 

[18.percent.gary]

Opening a new lens box is like its Christmas morning. You get the new car smell and a lens untouched by dust dirt or human hands.

...and just like a new car it loses 25% of it's cash value the second that you take ownership of it. I understand if you have OCD issues though then the premium may well be worth buying new, un-molested goods.

Back on-topic, I've had the 35 1.8 for a few years and have never used it. I actually took a week and forced myself to leave it on my camera. Meh, boring... it doesn't do anything spectacular unless you don't have a speedlight.

Which lenses do you prefer?

I use a Tamron 17-50 VC f2.8 that covers the 35mm length. It's just an OK lens but as sharp as the 35 1.8, plus it can zoom.

I like my 50 1.8D though, you can put shallow dof to greater use with it. The 35 1.8 just makes ugly harsh out-of-focus backgrounds (IMO). Stopped down for more dof it's a good lens, but then what's the point of a fast prime if you only use it stopped down?

 

[bc_steve]

My used lenses are for keeps too. They work flawlessly so why not?

Anyways, I found Derrel's post interesting because my point of view is about the opposite. Of course, I do almost all my shooting outdoors where there's a lot more room to move around. I have both a 35 and a 50. I use the 35mm more, mainly for landscapes but there are times when a 50mm is more appropriate. I find this focal length more useful for a person or an object of some kind. I also like how small the 50 is. I have the 50 1.8d, which barely cost me $100, so why not have both? I bought new and later saw it used for $60....

I haven't tried but the 85 but I think I would really like it. I do like using my 100mm macro for stuff besides macro, but there have been several times when my subject moved and that focal length became hopelessly tight.

 

[Solarflare]

I've heard a lot of people (even myself) argue that the 35mm and 50mm on an APS-C are redundant.

Um, no ? I would say on small format, they are too close together. Rather combine a 50mm with a 28mm or 24mm, if you want prime lenses.

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).

Well ... you can make up all kinds of "prime trinities".

Classic Leica Trinity: 28mm, 50mm, 90mm
Nikon f1.8 Trinity: 28mm, 50mm, 85mm
Nikon f1.4 Trinity: 24mm, 35mm, 85mm
Mamiya Trinity: 21mm, 42mm, 70mm
etc

 

[o hey tyler]

Um, no ? I would say on small format, they are too close together. Rather combine a 50mm with a 28mm or 24mm, if you want prime lenses. Well ... you can make up all kinds of "prime trinities". Classic Leica Trinity: 28mm, 50mm, 90mm Nikon f1.8 Trinity: 28mm, 50mm, 85mm Nikon f1.4 Trinity: 24mm, 35mm, 85mm Mamiya Trinity: 21mm, 42mm, 70mm etc

They're the same distance away from each other on any format.

15mm to be exact.

 

[PaulWog]

Um, no ? I would say on small format, they are too close together. Rather combine a 50mm with a 28mm or 24mm, if you want prime lenses.

In what way do you mean they're too close together? The field of view difference is a ff-equivalent of 22.5mm, whereas on full-frame the FoV difference is 15mm. We're looking at a 52.5mm & 75mm equivalent.

I have gotten some great information through this thread, hearing about each opinion. I respect yours, it makes sense; I'm just clarifying what you mean by the closeness (I'm guessing what you mean is the difference is more significant at a wider field of view?).

I think if I got a 24mm, it would have to be a 24-70mm f2.8 (any version which isn't as big as the current Nikkor). I thought everything through, and for me, I'm going with this prime setup for some time to come: 35mm, 50mm, 85mm (everything I already have in the signature plus the 50mm). I think a 24-70mm will transition me nicely to full-frame at some point, if it ends up making sense for me (either full frame first, or 24-70 first); waiting on new technology, pretty satisfied with what I've got for now, and also waiting based on the fact that I unfortunately discovered I'm not made of money

They're the same distance away from each other on any format.

15mm to be exact.

You do understand what the crop factor is right? A 35mm is a 35mm, and a 50mm is a 50mm, but the crop factor changes the difference between the two. The FoV difference between the two is increased significantly.

 

[Derrel]

GO here, and plug in some numbers. You can see that a 35mm and a 50mm are widely different lenses.

Field of View Calculator - Rectilinear and Fisheye lenses - Bob Atkins Photography





A couple of screen captures I made.

 

[o hey tyler]

In what way do you mean they're too close together? The field of view difference is a ff-equivalent of 22.5mm, whereas on full-frame the FoV difference is 15mm. We're looking at a 52.5mm & 75mm equivalent. I have gotten some great information through this thread, hearing about each opinion. I respect yours, it makes sense; I'm just clarifying what you mean by the closeness (I'm guessing what you mean is the difference is more significant at a wider field of view?). I think if I got a 24mm, it would have to be a 24-70mm f2.8 (any version which isn't as big as the current Nikkor). I thought everything through, and for me, I'm going with this prime setup for some time to come: 35mm, 50mm, 85mm (everything I already have in the signature plus the 50mm). I think a 24-70mm will transition me nicely to full-frame at some point, if it ends up making sense for me (either full frame first, or 24-70 first); waiting on new technology, pretty satisfied with what I've got for now, and also waiting based on the fact that I unfortunately discovered I'm not made of money You do understand what the crop factor is right? A 35mm is a 35mm, and a 50mm is a 50mm, but the crop factor changes the difference between the two. The FoV difference between the two is increased significantly.

Do I understand what a crop factor is? Clearly.

Do you understand that focal length is the same regardless of format? Because that's what I was referencing.