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

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.

Please re-read what you quoted. Thank you: "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."

It's absolutely ignorant to say "they're the same distance away from each other on any format", and simply leave it at that. Especially when we're talking about usability, which includes FoV difference: in which case (which is the only practical case), no, they're not the same distance away from each other.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick. I just hate the whole "focal lengths are the same on any format" argument, which is not a factual statement without qualification.
 
Last edited:
I used my 35mm 1.8G for these pictures during Police Week this year. I was about 3 to 5 feet from them when I took them. I like them...

$untitled-3932.jpg$untitled-3941.jpg
 
Please re-read what you quoted. Thank you: "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." It's absolutely ignorant to say "they're the same distance away from each other on any format", and simply leave it at that. Especially when we're talking about usability, which includes FoV difference: in which case (which is the only practical case), no, they're not the same distance away from each other. Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick. I just hate the whole "focal lengths are the same on any format" argument, which is not a factual statement without qualification.

What I've said is completely correct. The focal length difference is 15mm. The field of view is a completely different story. To what solarflare said. The focal lengths are the same on any format. They're only as redundant on a small format as they are on a full frame sensor.

Btw I only read up to the word ignorant. I don't need to read your whole post to know what I said was correct and to further establish that you misinterpreted it only to feed your ego. I appreciate the effort you put in. Looks like you wrote more than a paragraph.
 
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

View attachment 62084

View attachment 62085

A couple of screen captures I made.

With respect to field of view (measured in degrees, diagonally across frame, remains constant with respect to distance to subject), there is a larger difference in FoV for Fx over Dx with these two focal lengths. Everyone should read/study/experiment with the link Derrel posted and stop f-ing around. Focal lengths behave differently on different sensor formats, and the FoV differential between two focal lengths varies with sensor size. Don't believe me? Do the math yourself and stop guessing. The notion of "equivalent" focal length was useful when the first dSLR came out and 35mm shooters who were switching to digital needed a reference point.

If anyone wants, I made an excel file where you can plug in any focal length and any sensor dimension you want, and it will plot a graph showing the relationship between diagonal FoV and focal length. PM me and I can email the file.
 
I have the 50mm, but i wish i had the 35mm instead.......
Why instead? I used to own a 35mm 1.8g and sold it..I have the 28mm 1.8g replacing it.. The 50mm 1.8g is a sharper lens and better for head shots on DX...Of course the 85mm 1.8g is the best portrait lens on dx.
 
I have the 50mm, but i wish i had the 35mm instead.......
Why instead? I used to own a 35mm 1.8g and sold it..I have the 28mm 1.8g replacing it.. The 50mm 1.8g is a sharper lens and better for head shots on DX...Of course the 85mm 1.8g is the best portrait lens on dx.

How do you like the 28mm 1.8G as a replacement to the 35mm 1.8G?

I've considered the 28mm 1.8G. If it weren't $700 I'd really consider it. At the $400 price-point it would be very tempting.
 
I have the 50mm, but i wish i had the 35mm instead.......
Why instead? I used to own a 35mm 1.8g and sold it..I have the 28mm 1.8g replacing it.. The 50mm 1.8g is a sharper lens and better for head shots on DX...Of course the 85mm 1.8g is the best portrait lens on dx.

How do you like the 28mm 1.8G as a replacement to the 35mm 1.8G?

I've considered the 28mm 1.8G. If it weren't $700 I'd really consider it. At the $400 price-point it would be very tempting.
Its great..A tad sharper then the 35mm 1.8dx lens...If you look hard enough you can find used ones for the $550 range...
 

This is a great example of what I was reffering to earlier about the ugly out-of-focus backgrounds you get with the 35 1.8. It's a nice photo but the harsh background (the leaves in particular) is pretty distracting.

Of course you can't have it all with a $200 lens I suppose...
 
You are right...the 35/1.8 G has kind of ugly background rendering--as do many wide-angle lenses. The new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM also has very ugly, harsh background bokeh. I think the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AF-S G has pretty good background bokeh rendering, but it's over $1500!!! Ouch!
 
You are right...the 35/1.8 G has kind of ugly background rendering--as do many wide-angle lenses. The new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM also has very ugly, harsh background bokeh. I think the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AF-S G has pretty good background bokeh rendering, but it's over $1500!!! Ouch!

So are there any reasonably priced lenses in the 28-35/f/1.4-1.8 range that does not have harsh bokeh? Or do we all have to save our pennies and lie to our spouses and buy the 35mm f/1.4 AF-S G?
 
I'd look at the DX-only options while a Sigma 35 f/1.4 A1 lens is great and it will work on full frame it costs $850. You could instead get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM lens for under $300 or you could get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX lens for $200.
 
In January there is a new Nikon 35mm 1.8g coming out for Fx...But of course it should work on dx as well..I would hold off to see what the pricing will be..
 

Most reactions

Back
Top