What's new

Is having a 35mm and 50mm prime lens overkill? Your thoughts?

Stradawhovious

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,241
Reaction score
911
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Is it silly to have both a 50mm and 35 mm prime lens? It seems that they are both good for specific shots, but is the overlap between them too great to justify having both? (assuming the budget isn't limiting)

Sometimes with the 50mm I just wish it was a little wider....... and I would assume that with just a 35mm sometimes I would wish it was just a little longer. Also, it seems that the Bokeh effect might be a little more pronounced with a 50mm lens (assuming the same speed and make of the 35mm)

Thoughts?

Or am I just overanalyzing the ever loving snot out of this.......

I tend to do that......
 
I'd maybe go with a 24mm and a 50mm, rather than the 35mm & 50mm.
 
Well Dan if it is overkill what is my problem; I have 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 53, 55 & 58mm primes as well as 100, 135 & 200. Maybe a lens buying addiction? ;)
 
I'd maybe go with a 24mm and a 50mm, rather than the 35mm & 50mm.

Oh no way not 35mm and 50mm. I am thinking 35mm or 50mm now and then down the road get the 85mm and then further down get the 135mm 2L

I was thinking more in the 35mm vs the 50mm to be honest because I get the option to take group pics and I can always come closer where with 50mm if I am at a tighter spot I can't move back.
 
Yeah, I agree that the 24mm would be more advantageous, but at $2,000+ for the 1.4...... well...... The budget can't hold that.

Yet. :lol:

I ask this because I bought both. I found a great deal on the 50 1.8 a month ago, and came home with the 35 1.8 on an impulse buy. The 35 can be returned if necessary, I'm just trying to decide if I would regret returning it later.

Ron, I already have a nasty addiction to purchasing firearms....... I'm not sure my bank or relationship can withstand another seriously expensive addiction......

Oh boy. What have I gotten myself in to?!?!? :lmao:
 
Oops! ignore my comment, I thought this was my thread. Damn I asked a similar question but I asked about the 1.2 and 1.4 L versions sorry
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with having both. Since you have a D7000 the 50mm would act more like an 85mm for portraits and the 35mm would act more like a 50mm. I'm getting the 35mm next, and then the 85mm. Those are the 3 main, and pretty much only primes that I want.
 
Yeah, I agree that the 24mm would be more advantageous, but at $2,000+ for the 1.4...... well...... The budget can't hold that.

Yet. :lol:

I ask this because I bought both. I found a great deal on the 50 1.8 a month ago, and came home with the 35 1.8 on an impulse buy. The 35 can be returned if necessary, I'm just trying to decide if I would regret returning it later.

Ron, I already have a nasty addiction to purchasing firearms....... I'm not sure my bank or relationship can withstand another seriously expensive addiction......

Oh boy. What have I gotten myself in to?!?!? :lmao:


Of course it depends on what you like to shoot. Frankly, I would get a 35 before I got a 50 as it is closer to the 35mm equivalent of the 'standard lens' and a focal length that is closer to what I use more often on my 17-50. The only reason I have a 50mm prime is that it was dirt cheap when I bought it used.
 
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is an affordable fast prime.. if you can get a good copy (people say they have QC issues and some front or back focus). I've never used one, but I'd really like to have one
 
20,24,28,35,50,55,60,85,105,135,180,200,300,400...those are the primes I like.

A 35mm and a 50mm are a good pairing. They are vastly different! I consider the 35mm and the 50mm to be essential lenses on FF format.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom