Nikon 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4

[llamallama]

Looking for a very low light piece of glass. Just wondering if you guys preffered one to another, or if you guys have any other suggestions. My only boundry is price, which i know limits my options by 90%. Anyways, thanks!

 

[zamanakhan]

well for shutter speed they end up being similar...

in general, this is not always the case: the 35 1.8 you can shoot at 1/50th of a sec, the 50 you would have to shoot at 1/75th of a sec i find that the wide open the extra 2/3 of a stop pretty much lets you shoot the 1.4 at 1/75th in the same light as the 35 1.8 at 1/50th. So for low light they are pretty much equal. For light gathering and portraits the 50 is obviously better, for depth of field the 50 once again is better in not only that it has a bigger aperture but also longer focal length so depth of field is decreased. For low light the 18-55 at 18 is better than either but than you get a perspective you may not want, but this is only for still subjects, for that you might as well get a tripod. Now if you want to freeze motion, you would have to shoot at about 1/250th-1/500th of a sec and the 50 1.4 would get you there 2/3 of a stop faster.

Now that we have that out of the way, here are a few things you should consider.
1. if you have a 18-55 set it at 35mm tape it and shoot it for a while, then set it at 50mm. If money was no concern what focal length do you prefer?
2. 1.4, is 2/3 of a stop, is it worth more than double the price to you? if you have your camera set to 1/3 increments in iso, thats two turns of the iso wheel and u have pretty much equivalent shutter speed, so ask yourself does your camera have good iso noise? if so is double the value worth it?
3. Most importantly what will you be using this lens as? full time on camera, mainly portraits, supplement a zoom that is slower?

Answer to one will tell you which focal length you prefer, and basically this is what you are more comfortable with so get that. 2. if that 2/3 of a stop is worth it to you than get the 50 1.4, if you like the 50mm focal length than you can always get the 50 1.8, it is slightly sharper than 1.4 and about the same cost as the 35, you are basically moving up from 1/50th to 1/75th shutter speed for still subjects however.

number 3 is what i would put the most consideration on. If you have a dx camera and you want an all rounder stay on camera lens than no question i personally would pick the 35 1.8 every-time. If i was trying to supplement a zoom lens such as the kit lens or a wide angle zoom i would consider the 50 1.4 or even the 1.8. If yo want it for portraits than go for the 50 1.4, personally i would rather go for the 85 1.8 on dx.

 

[djacobox372]

The 50mm f1.8g is superior to both.

 

[rkt]

assuming you are shooting DX ... 35mm may be more versatile, and therefore my choice between the two ...

 

[austriker]

I had the nifty fifty (what i call the 50mm f/1.8) for many years. It was some nice glass and I did enjoy it. Very cost effective too (Although the 50mm f/1.4 is definitely more $$) But I did recently sell mine because I felt for most of my photos with the 50mm I needed it to be wider. Thus I am in the process of acquiring a 35mm. Again it all really depends on what you are shooting, and what with. I use a D300, so its a DX crop which makes the 35mm more desirable/versatile I think.

 

[LungFish]

A lot of people say that 35mm is ideal for DX, but I'm still trying to figure out what my 35/1.8g is actually for. I keep putting it in the camera bag, but it never comes out because I nearly always want a longer or wider lens.