# 35mm versus 50mm f/1.8 for D90?



## setao (Jun 4, 2010)

Hey! Hopefully a quick question for y'all - what's the difference (for a D90) and overall difference that I'll see between th two?

I do a little if everything for photography and can't really decide and due to redtocking fees, don't want to purchase both  anyone else hadna similar experience with them? 

Thanks!


----------



## rpm (Jun 4, 2010)

35mm = is about a 53mm at a 1.5 crop
50mm = is about 75mm at a 1.5 crop

both give great IQ from the reviews ive read, personally i have the 50mm and its a charm. depending on the kind of photography you want to do, it really depends which you need, that being said, what are you looking to use it for?


----------



## epp_b (Jun 4, 2010)

I have both.

The 35mm is a better match for a crop frame and performs much better wide open.  The 50mm makes a nice short, fast telephoto but has noticeable softness when used wider f/2.5.

If you can only get one, get the 35mm.  If you can get both, you'll happy you did; and they're both cheap enough lenses that it makes sense to have both, even if they are only EFL 22.5mm apart.


----------



## iskoos (Jun 4, 2010)

I did ask the same question before I purchased a prime for my Canon 500D.
I ended up getting the 50mm one because I knew I was going to upgrade to a full-frame sometime in the future.
I love the 50mm prime (I got 500 f/1.4). I love the bokeh and low light performance but I found it a bit too long for a cropped body. Mine is 1.6x and yours is 1.5x.

If you will be using this for heahshots and portraits, no poblem you can get 50mm. But if you plan on using this for group shots, you may be disappointed with the norrow FOV.

If you have the chance I would suggest you put both of them on your camera and see. Or if you have a simple kit zoom lense. Set it to 35mm and 50mm and see if you are going to be satisfied with the FOV (field of view).


----------



## Garbz (Jun 4, 2010)

mm are mm. Grab your kit lens and set it to 35mm and run around to see if you like it. Then set it to 50mm and see if you like that. Then buy based on your experience of which focal length is more useful for us.


----------



## Vinny (Jun 4, 2010)

+1



Garbz said:


> mm are mm. Grab your kit lens and set it to 35mm and run around to see if you like it. Then set it to 50mm and see if you like that. Then buy based on your experience of which focal length is more useful for us.


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 4, 2010)

Garbz said:


> mm are mm. Grab your kit lens and set it to 35mm and run around to see if you like it. Then set it to 50mm and see if you like that. Then buy based on your experience of which focal length is more useful for us.



+1 that's what I did.


----------



## Mbnmac (Jun 5, 2010)

I have a 35mm prime on the way with my D90, as well as a 18-55mm, I'll probably get the 50mm prime later (probably real soon) just cause I got a really good deal and want to know if it's worth going for a real wide angle lens later.

I'd say that they are cheap enough hat it's worth owning both and not having the zooms for the better quality pictures, but this is just from the hearsay online, using them yourself will give you the real answers


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 7, 2010)

Keep in mind that the dof a 35mm f1.8 is nearly twice as wide as a 50mm f1.8. 

Which means if you like that blurry background look, your better off with the 50mm.

I see a lot of misinformation about the 35mm f1.8 on a crop sensor body being like a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame body.  A better comparison would be to a 50mm f2.8.


----------



## ghache (Jun 7, 2010)

i sold my 35 to buy a 50.


----------



## epp_b (Jun 7, 2010)

> I see a lot of misinformation about the 35mm f1.8 on a crop sensor body  being like a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame body.  A better comparison would  be to a 50mm f2.8.


Indeed. This is a good thing to keep in mind, but there is still something special about having a wider angle of view with a still-shallow depth of field:


----------



## Pajuxy (Jun 10, 2010)

there's also an 85mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, just to add to the mix


----------



## irfan (Jun 11, 2010)

dont have a nikon, but I was using a canon 50 1.8 and just switched to using a sigma 30 1.4 because I couldnt stand the 50mm crop framing... to me it was pretty useless for candid indoor photos, which is what I want to use it for.


----------



## ifi (Jun 11, 2010)

epp_b said:


> > I see a lot of misinformation about the 35mm f1.8 on a crop sensor body  being like a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame body.  A better comparison would  be to a 50mm f2.8.
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is a good thing to keep in mind, but there is still something special about having a wider angle of view with a still-shallow depth of field:



Very good shot :thumbup:


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 11, 2010)

ghache said:


> i sold my 35 to buy a 50.



Interesting. Most people do the opposite based on what I have seen. 

The 35mm 1.8 is sharper than the 50mm 1.8. If sharpness and DOF are your concerns, then skip both and get the 50mm 1.4.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 11, 2010)

epp_b said:


> > I see a lot of misinformation about the 35mm f1.8 on a crop sensor body  being like a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame body.  A better comparison would  be to a 50mm f2.8.
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is a good thing to keep in mind, but there is still something special about having a wider angle of view with a still-shallow depth of field:



Nice shot... which illustrates another good point of comparison, if you like to take photos of "things" wider can look better, if you more often take photos of people, then a longer focal length is more flattering.


----------



## Tbini87 (Jun 11, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> epp_b said:
> 
> 
> > > I see a lot of misinformation about the 35mm f1.8 on a crop sensor body  being like a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame body.  A better comparison would  be to a 50mm f2.8.
> ...



would you say the 35mm lens is too short for portraits? I have the 35mm 1.8 on the way, but it seems that 35mm may be too short for portraits. i have been thinking about picking up the 50mm solely for shooting people (babies, couples, etc). however, if the 35mm lens will do then i don't want to spend the extra money (though the $125 doesn't seem too bad).


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 17, 2010)

Tbini87 said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > epp_b said:
> ...



35mm on a crop sensor is not too short, on a full frame it may be. For head shots you might want to stand back a little and crop the photo later. Unless you're printing 16x20 or larger a little loss of resolution won't hurt. You'll end up with the same look as using a longer focal length. 

Distance to subject is what matters, the further away you are the more the perspective is flattened which makes for a more flattering photo. 12-15 feet is a good range.

If you already have the 35mm I wouldn't recommend picking up a 50mm for portraits, instead I'd look for an 85mm 1.8, which would compliment your 35mm better. 85mm on a crop sensor is similar to 105mm, which has long been a favorite focal length for portrait shooters. That or you could look for a 105mm macro prime, which is good for headshots and can double as a macro lens if you're into that sort of photography as well.


----------



## ghache (Jun 17, 2010)

i had a 35mm and i sold it for the 50m. 
i had my hand on a 85mm 1.4 yesterday and WOW, if it was not that expensive i would buy one hands down


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 18, 2010)

ghache said:


> i had a 35mm and i sold it for the 50m.
> i had my hand on a 85mm 1.4 yesterday and WOW, if it was not that expensive i would buy one hands down



The 85mm 1.8 isn't nearly as expensive, and almost the same wow factor (almost).


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 18, 2010)

the advice i received from a salesperson at a real camera store was to get the 50. on a crop body its a 75. equiv, and they said that 75 is about where a portrait lens should start. since i shoot mostly ports, thats the direction i went. did i receive good advice?....i dont know, but i saved $100, and i LOVE LOVE LOVE my 50.


----------



## Bhirschyphoto (Jun 18, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > i sold my 35 to buy a 50.
> ...



Agreed.

The MTF chart (I know, I know... I went there) on the newish Nikkor 35mm 1.8 is one of the best I've seen in the Nikkor lineup.  About 2 years ago I was going through this same discussion with myself.  I did a number of controlled test shots to test the 50mm and the 35mm Nikkors and ended up walking away with the 35mm for one of my dx bodies - granted the 50mm is for an fx body, but thats what I tested it on, so I'm not talking apples to apples directly.

Nonetheless, the 35mm Nikkor AF-S 1.8G is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned.  I've had several discussions w/ Nikon shooters about how the strength of the 50mm Canon and it's popularity has transfered over to the 50mm Nikon with the Canon version being the much superior of the two.  I just fine that I had to split hairs over short focal length primes when they are all just so damn sharp (unless Im putting significant money towards it, right?!)


All that being said, take a look at the posted MTF charts (I'm sorry, I know MTF charts don't mean everything  ) and maybe that will help somehow.

With this type of conversation I've found that most people stick to their guns on the 50mm vs 35mm topic, so I just present all this as opinion.

Cheers,
Brian


----------

