# Is having a 35mm and 50mm prime lens overkill?  Your thoughts?



## Stradawhovious (Dec 3, 2010)

Is it silly to have both a 50mm and 35 mm prime lens? It seems that they are both good for specific shots, but is the overlap between them too great to justify having both? (assuming the budget isn't limiting)

Sometimes with the 50mm I just wish it was a little wider....... and I would assume that with just a 35mm sometimes I would wish it was just a little longer. Also, it seems that the Bokeh effect might be a little more pronounced with a 50mm lens (assuming the same speed and make of the 35mm)

Thoughts? 

Or am I just overanalyzing the ever loving snot out of this.......

I tend to do that......


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 3, 2010)

I'd maybe go with a 24mm and a 50mm, rather than the 35mm & 50mm.


----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 3, 2010)

Well Dan if it is overkill what is my problem; I have 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 53, 55 & 58mm primes as well as 100, 135 & 200.  Maybe a lens buying addiction?


----------



## MohaimenK (Dec 3, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> I'd maybe go with a 24mm and a 50mm, rather than the 35mm & 50mm.



Oh no way not 35mm and 50mm. I am thinking 35mm or 50mm now and then down the road get the 85mm and then further down get the 135mm 2L

I was thinking more in the 35mm vs the 50mm to be honest because I get the option to take group pics and I can always come closer where with 50mm if I am at a tighter spot I can't move back.


----------



## PJL (Dec 3, 2010)

Ron Evers said:


> Maybe a lens buying addiction?


You could start a 12 step program.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 3, 2010)

Yeah, I agree that the 24mm would be more advantageous, but at $2,000+ for the 1.4...... well...... The budget can't hold that.

Yet. 

I ask this because I bought both. I found a great deal on the 50 1.8 a month ago, and came home with the 35 1.8 on an impulse buy. The 35 can be returned if necessary, I'm just trying to decide if I would regret returning it later.

Ron, I already have a nasty addiction to purchasing firearms....... I'm not sure my bank or relationship can withstand another seriously expensive addiction......

Oh boy. What have I gotten myself in to?!?!? :lmao:


----------



## MohaimenK (Dec 3, 2010)

Oops! ignore my comment, I thought this was my thread. Damn I asked a similar question but I asked about the 1.2 and 1.4 L versions sorry


----------



## Blake.Oney (Dec 3, 2010)

I don't think there's anything wrong with having both. Since you have a D7000 the 50mm would act more like an 85mm for portraits and the 35mm would act more like a 50mm. I'm getting the 35mm next, and then the 85mm. Those are the 3 main, and pretty much only primes that I want.


----------



## icassell (Dec 3, 2010)

Stradawhovious said:


> Yeah, I agree that the 24mm would be more advantageous, but at $2,000+ for the 1.4...... well...... The budget can't hold that.
> 
> Yet.
> 
> ...




Of course it depends on what you like to shoot.  Frankly, I would get a 35 before I got a 50 as it is closer to the 35mm equivalent of the 'standard lens' and a focal length that is closer to what I use more often on my 17-50.  The only reason I have a 50mm prime is that it was dirt cheap when I bought it used.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 3, 2010)

There.  Is.  No.  Such.  Thing.  As.  Too.  Much.  Glass.  Period.


----------



## rainking (Dec 3, 2010)

tirediron said:


> There.  Is.  No.  Such.  Thing.  As.  Too.  Much.  Glass.  Period.




/end thread


----------



## reznap (Dec 3, 2010)

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is an affordable fast prime.. if you can get a good copy (people say they have QC issues and some front or back focus).  I've never used one, but I'd really like to have one


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Dec 3, 2010)

tirediron said:


> There.  Is.  No.  Such.  Thing.  As.  Too.  Much.  Glass.  Period.



:cheers:


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 3, 2010)

tirediron said:


> There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Too. Much. Glass. Period.


 

I think I'm gonna like it here.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 3, 2010)

20,24,28,35,50,55,60,85,105,135,180,200,300,400...those are the primes I like.

A 35mm and a 50mm are a good pairing. They are vastly different! I consider the 35mm and the 50mm to be essential lenses on FF format.


----------



## Dao (Dec 3, 2010)

tirediron said:


> There.  Is.  No.  Such.  Thing.  As.  Too.  Much.  Glass.  Period.





You need to talk to my wife and brain storm her with above statement!  :lmao:


----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 3, 2010)

Oh no Derrel, don't tell me that.  Seems Ive got some holes to plug.  :er:


----------



## reznap (Dec 3, 2010)

Ron has the largest collection of manual focus 50mm primes in the world :sillysmi:


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 3, 2010)

Stradawhovious said:


> Yeah, I agree that the 24mm would be more advantageous, but at $2,000+ for the 1.4...... well...... The budget can't hold that.
> 
> Yet.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that a 24mm f2.8 can be shot hand-held at 1/2 the shutter speed of the 50mm, so it will have same usability in low light as a 50mm at f2--which is the lowest aperture that will create sharp photos with the 50. The 24mm f2.8 is quite sharp wide open.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 3, 2010)

Ron Evers said:


> Oh no Derrel, don't tell me that.  Seems Ive got some holes to plug.  :er:



Yeah....the holes suddenly sprout where the money just starts leaking, then blasting uncontrollably, out of your checking account!


----------



## Doc Robinson (Dec 7, 2010)

I came on here to ask the exact same question.  I have the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 and think I want (well I know I want) the 35mm 1.8.  The 50 is awesome, but many times I feel like I need a wider angle...I don't mind moving for the shot, but sometimes it isn't possible...getting closer is usually always possible, so I have even considered returning the 50 and getting the 35 for the flexibility...It is $250 less and I'm only losing 2/3 of a stop.


----------



## davidrh (Dec 8, 2010)

Doc, I did the same thing -- bought the 50mm 1.4, but found it wasn't flexible enough for my needs.  It's often impossible to move back enough to get the shot you want, especially if you're shooting indoors (which is when I'm usually using wide apertures).  The 35mm works better in more situations, and you won't even notice the 2/3 of a stop.


----------

