Nikon AF-S 50mm 1.8 vs. AF-S DX 35mm 1.8G Lens For Portraits - Considering My Gear

[madtonic]

First, Let me start off by introducing myself. First post ever on any photography website. I am from Ontario Canada. I got into photography this past Christmas when my wife bought me a D7000 and the 18-200 lens to go with it. I have thoroughly enjoyed taking all different types of photographs but my specific focus is narrowing lately.... My wife is pregnant and due in January and I just had a brand new niece last week. This means lots and lots of baby portraits.

I am looking for a lens the will specifically help with baby photography, both indoors and out but mainly at first when the babies are tiny I will be setting up a makeshift studio using things around the house, a few speedlights set remotely, white umbrella's, and the good sources of light in my house. Cost is a factor so I have narrowed it down to two lenses: Nikon AF-S 50mm 1.8 or the AF-S DX 35mm 1.8G. They are both about the same price and that is basically my budget. I am just not sure which one would be better recommended for portraits with tiny tottlers as the main models. I am looking for the lens that will give me the best bokeh and versatility. Obviously I will also transition as the child grows to more outdoor portraits but that isn't my primary focus right now.

Now I have read many many posts comparing these lens and I apologize for an additional post. The reason I did this was because I have one factor that may affect which lens people may recommend to me. I use photography at work to photograph crime scenes and as such I have access to some additional camera equipment. The backup equipment is left for us to take home in order to encourage us to work on our photography skills. I have access to a Nikkor AF 60mm 2.8 Micro lens. Nobody else seems to use it so I am able to take it home all the time. We use it at work for Macro photography but when I played around with it, I think I could use it for some portraits. I have a D7000 with its own focus motor so I don't have to manually focus.

So keeping in mind that I own a cop sensor D7000, have an Nikon 18-200 lens, full access to a 60mm 2.8 micro, which of the two above lenses would you recommend for photographing portraits of young newborns and then transitioning into infants?

Thanks for taking the time to respond for all that do.

 

[manicmike]

I'd say it depends on your working space. In a normal sized room I found the 50 too long and the 35 just right.

 

[Braineack]

Pretty much what mike said. But the 50 should beat the 35 in bokeh.

 

[madtonic]

The first place that I will probably be setting up for a makeshift studio is my kitchen. 17x 11 with a screen door covering 5 feet of the 11 foot wall. Other 11 foot end is open concept to living room and another large window. Natural light is actually pretty good. I figure I will have between 0-6 feet of comfortable space in front of the baby to take pictures. Maybe a couple more feet if I hop on top of cabinets and mangle myself into a pretzel.

 

[Overtime]

I have both of these lenses. I use them on a d7100, mostly for pictures of my daughter who is 7 months old. The 35 is perfect for on the floor shots. If you plan on staying dx, this will be the lens for you!

 

[D-B-J]

I haven't used the 35, but I feel that would be too wide for me. I just used the 50 for a shoot today, and really enjoyed it. It's a nice range to work with as a prime.

Jake

 

[lonewolfsx]

I personally would go for the 50mm, it's an incredible lens and you will keep it for years and years even if you go full frame in the future (you never know, FX is getting less expensive every few years).

The 35mm is nice and the wide-angle distortion won't be as noticeable on a newborn, but it still won't render them as flatteringly as the 50mm will. Hop on google images and look up "focal lengths for portraits," there is one test with a blonde-haired woman which shows the pretty drastic difference there... in general, wide angle is BAD for people photography. Keep in mind that test is done on full frame, so the 35mm here will look something like 50 in that test, and 50mm here will be similar to 75 or so.
I've never used the 60mm, but I've heard nice things about it. I still stand by my 50mm suggestion between those two lenses, but have you considered something like the 85mm f/1.8G? It's a little more zoomed so you will be slightly further away, but if you have a helper to keep the baby positioned well the background blur that lens will create is far nicer than either the 50mm or 35mm. 85mm on crop will be ~130mm which will be really nice on the baby's face... it's my next lens purchase for sure.

Another way to figure this out... shoot a few babies, or take shots you've already done, and use something like a focal plotter (there's a plugin for lightroom that does this) to see what your most common focal lengths are. Since you have the 18-200, you could shoot a few with that lens and see what lengths you prefer since that lens includes 35, 50, and 85. Note however that this is only for framing composition, the background blur quality "bokeh" will be far worse with the 18-200 than *any* of those other lenses.

 

[JTPhotography]

The 50. For babies especially, it will get you closer and give you more background blur.

 

[jaomul]

50mm. If you use a 35mm to fill the frame with a headshot you will have distortion and an unflattering picture. Try the shot with your 18-200 set at 50mm and 35mm and do a headshot and you will see what I mean. The 50mm naturally puts you further back so suits portraits better. Of course you can use the 35mm for portraits, but dont get to close