# Nikon 35mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.8D need help deciding



## ariel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

Hello everybody.  I'm looking into buying a wide angle lens or a standard lens so I can shoot indoors with low light.  I'm now sure if I should get the 35mm 1.8G or the 50mm 1.8D, or shell out another couple hundred bucks for the 50mm 1.4D?  I am shooting with a D90 and often find myself in low sight situations.  Im not sure what the main difference is between the D and the G and not really sure what to look for in a wide angle or standard lens.  I noticed that the 50mm 1.4D has an aperture ring, does that mean I have to manually change the aperture settings on the lens itself instead of through the D90 body?

Thank you in advanced for any help.


----------



## flatflip (Jun 2, 2011)

They are both great lenses. I like the price on the 50mm better  . Have you checked out the 35 and 50 range on your kit zoom lens? Indoors? To see what range you might prefer? The 50 can get a little too close-up in my house.


----------



## wilsoncs3980 (Jun 2, 2011)

I have the 50mm 1.4G and I can tell you it is a fantastic lens.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 2, 2011)

35mm f1.8 happily  lives on the front of my cam.


----------



## Jens Hofby (Jun 2, 2011)

Go for the 50mm 1.4 if not then the 1.8.
Good luck


----------



## flea77 (Jun 2, 2011)

The 50mm 1.8D and 1.4D both have rings, no, you do not have to manually set them but they CAN be used on cameras that the 35mm 1.8G can not be used on because it does not have that ring.

Personally, I prefer the combo of a 50mm and 24mm as 35mm just seems pretty useless to me. Not wide enough for interior shots really, not long enough to get any compression for portraits (assuming a crop body). But that is just me, try them out and see what focal length works best for you and get that.

On another note, given the choice between say a 50mm 1.8D and 50mm 1.8G, I would take the D. They are typically built better, and they work on other cameras such as the N90s I use for some B&W work where the G will not. Again, personal preference.

Allan


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 2, 2011)

i chose the 35 because on my non full frame camera its already a 52mm. and although you all are hatin' I love that lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





my tokina 11-16 gets in the tight spots


----------



## ariel_ (Jun 3, 2011)

flea77 said:


> The 50mm 1.8D and 1.4D both have rings, no, you do not have to manually set them but they CAN be used on cameras that the 35mm 1.8G can not be used on because it does not have that ring.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the combo of a 50mm and 24mm as 35mm just seems pretty useless to me. Not wide enough for interior shots really, not long enough to get any compression for portraits (assuming a crop body). But that is just me, try them out and see what focal length works best for you and get that.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Allan.  This information helps a lot.


----------



## Tneuville (Jun 3, 2011)

I have the nikon 35mm 1.8 prime lens. Remember that this lens is a fixed focal length so if you are looking for a prime lens I would say the 35mm is a good lens. It does have a crop factor because of the sensor so you will have the effect of a 52mm.
If money wasnt an issue I would of opted for a focal range of 17-55 to get combo wide angle with portriats but who can afford that  right? 
The 35mm is priced right at around 200$


----------



## ariel_ (Jun 3, 2011)

Thank you all for the input.


----------



## KmH (Jun 3, 2011)

I had the Nikon AF-S 35 mm f/1.8G lens but sold it after a short time, because of the CA problems the lens has.

It's an inexpensive lens, so it appeals to a lot of budget minded photographers willing to accept some technical issues because of the low price.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 3, 2011)

KmH said:


> I had the Nikon AF-S 35 mm f/1.8G lens but sold it after a short time, because of the CA problems the lens has.
> 
> It's an inexpensive lens, so it appeals to a lot of budget minded photographers willing to accept some technical issues because of the low price.


 
Could that have been a problem with your specific lens?  You got me paranoid about mine being junk. I haven't noticed that problem in mine.  Here's a few thousand pics and I'm not seeing it either, am I not looking right?  I'll toss a junk product in a heart beat.  I'm looking here: Full-size sample photos from Nikon 35mm F/1.8


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 3, 2011)

The 50mm is half the price and just as good, just a slightly longer focal length which can be a hinderance or an advantage depending on the situation.

One thing that is overlooked by many is that the 50mm will give you a tighter dof for that blurry background which so many desire.


----------



## KmH (Jun 4, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I had the Nikon AF-S 35 mm f/1.8G lens but sold it after a short time, because of the CA problems the lens has.
> ...


No, but don't take just my word for it.

Nikon AF-S 35mm F1.8G DX Lens Review: 4. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review


> *Conclusion - Cons*
> Slightly soft and low in contrast wide open
> Lateral chromatic aberration somewhat higher than traditional 50mm 'standard' primes
> Prone to purple fringing and bokeh chromatic aberration, most visible at large apertures


----------



## Dao (Jun 4, 2011)

KmH said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...




Similar test result with photozone.   But for $200, it is not bad.  According to photozone, the CA can be easily corrected in post processing as well as in-camera CA correction.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 4, 2011)

KmH said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



KmH:  Thanks for the reply


----------



## KmH (Jun 4, 2011)

Dao said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...


Lateral CA is a b!tch to correct post process.

Longitudinal CA is what gets fixed by image editing applications.

Chromatic aberration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Image processing to reduce the appearance of lateral chromatic aberration*
> Chromatic aberration results in a permanent loss of image detail even before the optical image is digitised or captured. This detail cannot be restored other than by recapturing the original scene with a better lens. Some digital image manipulation software producers and camera software producers falsely claim the ability to remove or correct chromatic aberration from camera images post capture. However, what these software effectively do is reducing the appearance of fringes produced as a result of lateral chromatic aberration.
> In an ideal situation, post-processing to remove or correct lateral chromatic aberration would involve scaling the fringed color channels, or subtracting some of a scaled versions of the fringed channels, so that all channels spatially overlap each other correctly in the final image.


----------

