# 35 or 50?



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 17, 2016)

I've been looking for my first "prime" lens to compliment the 18-55 kit lens I have. My main aim is to do seascape and landscape but I've also read they have great Bokeh effect I want to practice as well. These are the only lens at the moment that are in my price range unless anyone can possibly mention something better.
So which ones a better all around better choice?


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2016)

With your 18-55 do you find yourself more around the 50mm length
or the 35mm length?

The way you currently shot will impact how well you initially like the 35 v 50 lens.

This is the reason I don't have a 35mm lens.  I'm either wider or longer than 35mm.  Normally 18-24 or 50 or more.  But I shoot FullFrame so those are actual field of view for comparison of 52 (35mm) /75 (50mm) ish on a DX camera.


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 17, 2016)

I find myself in the middle so definitely probably more the 35mm length. For landscape I've noticed zooming to much in doesn't quite get the whole picture but leaving it at the starting 18 gets too much. I've actually been leaning towards getting the 35 more but I have read good things about the "nifty fifty".


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Designer (Nov 17, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> My main aim is to do seascape and landscape ..


For that application, and of the two choices, you will probably want the 35mm.  You should realize that the wider the lens, the less background blur, just so you know.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Nov 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> With your 18-55 do you find yourself more around the 50mm length
> or the 35mm length?
> 
> The way you currently shot will impact how well you initially like the 35 v 50 lens.
> ...



I second astroNikons opinion - 35mm for land/seascape is too long for my taste, and the 50mm will give you nice background blur.
35mm usually is not a focal length you´d go for when you want shallow depth. So you could stop down your kit lens to around f11, get pretty decent sharpness with it and probably get somewhere near the 35mm prime. What you can´t do with your kit lens is get that shallow DOF look, so I think the 50mm will add more options to your photography than the 35mm would.
Conclusion I´d go with the 50mm - usually it is cheaper too I think - at least if it´s a Canon. 

Sorry to not concur with your current tendency


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 17, 2016)

I would get the 35mm.


----------



## freddy21 (Nov 17, 2016)

I would also recommend the 35mm over the 50mm.  I got the 50mm and while it is a great lens focal distances are a little long for indoors in close quarters.


----------



## Piccell (Nov 17, 2016)

freddy21 said:


> I would also recommend the 35mm over the 50mm.  I got the 50mm and while it is a great lens focal distances are a little long for indoors in close quarters.


Not a lot of landscape photographers stay indoors anymore though, ever since they discovered that whole 'outside' thing.


----------



## freddy21 (Nov 17, 2016)

Yes but on occasion you can go indoors too.  Since the OP said "all round"  I would think that would mean both in and out doors.


----------



## weepete (Nov 18, 2016)

Depends, if you have a crop sensor camera it's not really wide enough for a general landscape lens. I'd be looking for a lens thats 22mm at the most because of the wider field of view.

If you have a full frame camera then a 35mm lens would be ok.

A lot of it will depend on what and how you shoot. I find it better to shoot at the longer end if landscapes have vertical elements (mountains, sea stacks etc) or if you are shooting breaking waves and the like, because longer lenses tend to make vertical components of the background look bigger because of perspective. if your compositions include a lot of foreground and horizontals  then the extra with can be more beneficial to include more foreground and sky.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 18, 2016)

Weepete makes a very good observation that you are shooting with a crop sensor camera.  You can shoot landscapes with any focal length lens, but the longer and wider you go the more 'specialized' the resulting images and the more selective your photo opportunities. For a 'General' landscape lens, I think would fall between 24mm and 30mm on a full frame camera.  On a crop sensored camera, ala a Nikon D3300, that would translate to lenses between 16mm and 20mm. For your first 'landscape' wide angle I suggest something around a 28mm FF or 18mm-20mm DX.  What is your budget?  For landscape autofocus isn't necessary y0u can pick up non-AF lenses much cheaper than those that AF.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 18, 2016)

B&H, (a good bar for pricing photo gear), has:

1) Rokinon 16mm, F/2, MF, @ $349;
2) Rokinon 20mm, F/1.8, MF, @ $599 (rounded diaphragm blades for softer bokeh);
3) Samyang 16mm, F/2, MF, @ $419; and
4) Samyang 20mm, F/1.4, MF, @ $499.

Rokinon and Samyang come from the same manufacturer in Korea (IIRC). These are well constructed and very sharp lenses. You have to do some research to fully understand why the Rokinon 16mm is less than the Samyang 16mm.  Some of their lenses have focus confirmation and some do not. I have never used a D3300 and I haven't a clue to how well MF works with a D3300.  But if you're on a budget and the primary use of the lens is for landscape, I'd take a hard look at these lenses.


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 18, 2016)

The 35 or 50 go for less then 200 so I was thinking one of these options at the very moment. If I had to wait I can definitely save up for something better, I have a coworker ahead of time on the photography curve and he mentioned I should get the 11-16mm Tokina. Although this isn't a prime lens which Is what I'm looking for and is a little up there for me right now. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dave442 (Nov 18, 2016)

I would go with the 35mm. If you are really going for that background blur then just keep saving for the 85mm. I often use my 35mm for landscape and just make a panorama shot. 

Of course it could be fun to try one of the manual focus lenses that Gary mentioned, but the 35mm is a good first prime lens.


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 18, 2016)

Why do you want to duplicate what you can do with your zoom lenses?  A 35mm or 50mm won't compliment anything you already own.  Use your money on  a telephoto lens like 105mm?   Expand your range.   The zoom will also give you a lot of narrow DOF, bokah and blurry backgrounds.  Good luck on whatever you decide.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 18, 2016)

I wouldn't say that you are necessarily duplicating anything. Yes, you have those to focal lengths in the zoom lens but the primes are totally different animals and I would say most of the time produce a sharper image. Yes, I am using a generalization and I try not to do that but I from my experience with zooms that I own and primes that I have or have rented, I find that the primes give me sharper images.

That being said, for the OP's situation, I think I would look at the 35mm over the 50mm.


----------



## KmH (Nov 18, 2016)

Nikon currently sells 5 five 35 mm prime lenses.
 4 of them are FX lenses and 1 is a DX lens.
The DX lens has purple fringing issues and soft focus when set to wide open.
Which of the 5 are you consideing?

Nikon currently offer seven 50 mm prime lenses, all of them FX lenses.
Which of the 7 are you considering?

A couple weeks ago I got back from a scenic long distance train trip and the vast majority of my landscape shots were made @ 18 mm.


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 18, 2016)

I was considering the dx 35mm, and the Fx 50mm 1.8 with AF


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 18, 2016)

But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 18, 2016)

Definitely since I've read before about the purple fringing on the dx 35.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 19, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


Yes, wait and opt for the better lens.  As your photographic skills and experience improve, you will/should be able to capitalize on the higher quality of a better lens.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 19, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.



how is this a better overall lens?  it's better at macro, but it's a very limited-use specialty lens.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 19, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> Definitely since I've read before about the purple fringing on the dx 35.



OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 19, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app





Gary A. said:


> B&H, (a good bar for pricing photo gear), has:
> 
> 1) Rokinon 16mm, F/2, MF, @ $349;
> 2) Rokinon 20mm, F/1.8, MF, @ $599 (rounded diaphragm blades for softer bokeh);
> ...



This is an excellent recommendation from an experienced professional, anyone of those is an excellent choice. He really has thought it out in consideration with a crop sensor. I have a D3300 and manual focus is not a big deal at all. Through the view finder (bright sunny day), you will see a green circle in the bottom left when you nail focus. If it is overcast, use live view (a little easier) and it is apparent visually.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 19, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> Definitely since I've read before about the purple fringing on the dx 35.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app



The only way I can get my 35mm to do that is if I am shooting wide open when I shouldn't be. Stopping it down eliminates that. It goes away a f/2.8. I trust very little of what I read on the internet anymore. I have made a lot of terrible purchases based off what I read on the internet (35 1.8g was not one of them). I am sticking with a select few, experienced pro's, from here on out. I am a seriously frustrated Nikon DSLR user these days is what I can say.


----------



## SuzukiGS750EZ (Nov 19, 2016)

Are you on a full frame or a crop sensor? And start are you looking to shoot with this lens besides landscapes. Anything?


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 19, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Pedro_lopez said:
> 
> 
> > But now I'm thinking it's better to hold off and just get a better overall lens instead of jumping the gun over price. I definitely know if I wait about two to three months, where I work it will be in high season and then I can definitely afford a used version of other lenses I'm looking at like the sigma 105mm 2.8 For macro and then a well priced wide angle I'm still debating for landscape.
> ...



I meant that way I use the 105 for macro specifically and then a wide angle lens like previously mentioned for landscape. That together would fit "my" overall needs.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 19, 2016)

I've also done searching here and noticed some tips about keeping the focal length at one distance for a whole week and seeing which one is more preferable so I will likely do this until which time I decided which lens to buy.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Nov 19, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> I meant that way I use the 105 for macro specifically and then a wide angle lens like previously mentioned for landscape. That together would fit "my" overall needs.



that's what I thought you meant, but wanted to make sure you just weren't buying a "nicer" lens, just to have one 



Pedro_lopez said:


> I've also done searching here and noticed some tips about keeping the focal length at one distance for a whole week and seeing which one is more preferable so I will likely do this until which time I decided which lens to buy.



This is a really good idea.  Primes are great, but if you buy one that doesn't mix with your shooting, you wont like it.  For example, if you bought an 85mm 1.8g for your D3300, despite it being an amazing lens for the price, you may find you don't like it that much because it's such a long lens that you really can only use it in certain situations, or have to back up so far to actually use it how you'd like.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2016)

Skip the wide-angle for landscape convention, and move right into using a telephoto for landscapes, and selecting interesting things you can see by using a narrow-ish angle of view. For the beginning shooter, wide-angle landscapes often end up being dull, or listless, because "wide-angle" also means "_tiny recordings of faraway stuff_". I am being serious....if you're new to landscape photography, you will very likely make more-interesting and better photos by using a normal to telephoto lens length. 

MANY landscape shooters find that a 70-200mm zoom is one of their most-used lenses.


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Nov 21, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Skip the wide-angle for landscape convention, and move right into using a telephoto for landscapes, and selecting interesting things you can see by using a narrow-ish angle of view. For the beginning shooter, wide-angle landscapes often end up being dull, or listless, because "wide-angle" also means "_tiny recordings of faraway stuff_". I am being serious....if you're new to landscape photography, you will very likely make more-interesting and better photos by using a normal to telephoto lens length.
> 
> MANY landscape shooters find that a 70-200mm zoom is one of their most-used lenses.



Funny cause I went this morning to try some seascape photos and I found myself either moving closer or using the 55mm Focal length. I could maybe just try getting the other kit lens 55-200mm nikkor or maybe the 70-200 like you said. That would definitely run in my price range for a while too. I also figured out the need for a gradient ND  filter as today I clearly could not get the ocean and sunrise just right.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 24, 2016)

AFAIK Rowen Galen (famous landscape photographer) hat a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 75-150mm f3.5 zoom with him (he strongly believed in traveling light).


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 24, 2016)

Derrel is right. Wide Angle shooting is much more difficult because you have so many elements in your composition. If decent teles were not soooo expensive I would recommend a 200mm or 300mm even.

But. A medium tele lens is more versatile.

As a beginner I shot a lot 50mm and 135mm on Film or as you say today FX. 50mm for general photography. 135mm for outdoor portaits and detail capture.

Think about a used 105 or 135 manual lens. Try one from a friend.


----------



## Bubba Jones (Nov 24, 2016)

Pedro_lopez said:


> I've been looking for my first "prime" lens to compliment the 18-55 kit lens I have. My main aim is to do seascape and landscape but I've also read they have great Bokeh effect I want to practice as well. These are the only lens at the moment that are in my price range unless anyone can possibly mention something better.
> So which ones a better all around better choice?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


"...to compliment...", should be, complement. Two different words, two different meanings, and two usages.


----------



## Andyj (Nov 27, 2016)

I have both 35 & 50mm lenses. Both are good but 35mm definitely wins on sharpness and I think is more usable in general.


----------



## greybeard (Dec 1, 2016)

Back in the 70's when I got my 1st SLR (Minolta SRT 201 35mm) it came with a 50mm normal lens.  That is what I learned with and that is the perspective I am most comfortable with.  So, with a crop frame camera like your D3300 and my D7000 I use a 35mm 1.8.  I have a 16-85 3.5-5.6 vr which is a really great normal zoom but, I usually just use the 35mm and let my feet do the zooming.


----------



## Solarflare (Dec 1, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> If decent teles were not soooo expensive I would recommend a 200mm or 300mm even.


 Um ... really ? My AI 300mm f4.5 cost a friggin 180€ and it was actually expensive at this price (It was a poor student I bought it from, so thats why I was OK with the price). Optically ? Possibly my best lens. Either way its just pure bliss.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 1, 2016)

Late to the party.  Have you considered making panorama landscapes?  I've made a few using the 50mm, both with and without a tripod.


----------

