# Nikon 35mm 1.8 VS 50mm 1.8



## Lunchbox (Oct 19, 2010)

I miss my 50mm 1.8 something awful and now i see the 35mm 1.8 is a decent price and i read the all might ken rockwell review and it saying it was good and all but i wanted the opinions of some that may have it on here


I like the 35mm focal length but just wondering if it is as good as the 50mm quality wise.


----------



## christian.covert (Oct 20, 2010)

I have the 50 f/1.8 and I wish that I would have gotten the 35. The quality is still there on the 35 and it also has an internal focus ring so it is super quiet. what are you planning on shooting?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Oct 20, 2010)

im not an expert on glass.  but i just picked up the 35mm 1.8 and have really enjoyed it so far. quick focus. seems worlds better then the kit lens. focal lenth just seemed better for me then the 50. but this is comeing from an amature.


----------



## djacobox372 (Oct 20, 2010)

35mm cost twice as much, but overall is a more "normal" focal length for aps sized sensors. 

Keep in mind that f1.8 on a shorter focal length won't give you as narrow of DOF as it does with a 50mm. 

If you miss your 50mm, why not just buy another one.


----------



## Mbnmac (Oct 21, 2010)

I have the 35mm, along with the 18-55 and 55-200, and it's by far my favorite lens to use when I'm not trying to shoot something needing 200m etc.

It has really nice bokeh, but I've not truly explored the possibilities there, do a search on Flickr for the 35 and 50, see if you like what you see.


----------



## FattyMcJ (Oct 22, 2010)

Having both the 50 1.8 and the 35 1.8, the 35 gets far more use than the 50.

It's silent, has a lens hood, is a better walk-around focal length...it's just more useful for me.  

My $0.02 YMMV


----------



## Markw (Oct 22, 2010)

Ive got both lenses as well. I use them both equally. Sometimes I find that the 50 is too long, so I use the 35. But the opposite is also true with having the 35 being a tad too short sometimes. The 50 is a great portrait lens, it gives excellent bokeh. I can give you sample images if youd like, but I doubt youll find too much difference in optical quality. The 50 is near quiet focusing as well, but not as quiet as the 35. I can barely tell if it actually is focusing sometimes because I cannot hear it. In real life shooting, however, this is not a huge deal. The 50 is still super quiet. The lens hood is a plus, but not a must. The 50 feels like it has a better build quality, but the 35 is no slouch. 

In all, both are great lenses. You really could benefit from both in different ways, and there really is no say-so answer here. Mainly, you have to choose which focal length youd prefer and go for that. Other than that, there arent many differences to really worry over besides the extra $100 for AF-S.

Mark


----------



## orb9220 (Oct 22, 2010)

Yep find times indoors and tight spaces the 50mm is just too cramped.
Starting out would recommend the 35mm first.
.


----------



## CNCO (Oct 22, 2010)

i have the 50mm and i love it for up close n portraits. its very sharp. i have not worked with the 35 but i know it more expensive and nikon would not charge us for something that wasnt needed. personally id have to play with one first.


----------

