[jqp]

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX

or

Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 D

There are other differences in these sub-$200 lenses, but what is the practical difference between 35mm and 50mm on a DX camera?

[low.pfile]

jqp,

I have a 24mm /2.8 and a 50mm /1.4, close but not your exact question. I was shooting with my D80 (DX) just this weekend. I tend to like the 24mm for more general shooting as it is more like a 35mm on film/FullFrame digi. The 50mm crops the same as a 75mm-ish(FF), so it gets in too close for general shooting for me (street/candids) though it does take great face shots from a good distance.

So angle of view is the obvious practical difference because the distortion that you get with wider angles is more obvious with the 35 than the 50 ( the 1.5 factor does not get applied to the AOV). So any closeup headshots with the 35mm will be slightly distorted--it is very obvious with my 24mm--hardly fisheye, but definitely a bloated middle area.

Do you have a wide zoom? If you care about shooting people candids.... with the zoom try the 2 focal lengths with a basic head and shoulders shot. to see if which you prefer.

I don't have experience with both lenses to give any input on the optics of each.

[JohnR]

Hi, I think the answer depends somewhat on why you are asking this question in the first place... however if it were me I would get the 35mm and save up for the 60mm AF-S Micro. Or, just skip the 35mm and get the 60mm

While I quite like the 50mm length on DX, IMHO the 60mm, while more expensive and "slower", is a superb lens and doubles as a portrait lens as well as of course doing macro and pretty much anything else extremely well. Some folks will say that you need a longer lens for proper macro - I don't necessarily agree but then again I have the longer lenses for when I want to use them - but the point is how superbly flexible that 60mm lens is.

JMHO

[jqp]

Thanks for the input - I have a 35mm on backorder

[jqp]

Looks like the 35mm I ordered won't be in for a while - there is a run on them apparently, prices going way up...

SO I am going for a 'cheap' Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 D for $134. It looks pretty good for the price.

[rmassey]

I finally received the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX two days ago and have done a few shots with it and like the results.  I was backordered on this one too and to my surprise it finally shipped. 

My understanding is the 35mm in digital lenses is 52mm in Film speak whereas the 50mm is 74mm.  I was used to a 50mm with my old Oly OM-1, so I went with the new 35mm Nikkor.  For $200 it seems like a real bargain.

I went to shoot some concert/bar shots last night w/o flash and it works great if you can get close enough.  I was in the front row seating, so it was perfect.  F/1.8 + no flash and very light weight makes things very easy.  My only other lens is the Nikkor 16-85 F/3.5. 

[jqp]

That's great! I decided to keep my order in after some more reading and the above advice. I would like to make sure I have a prime that doesn't start too close. Also, this lens has no external movement, which is good for use in dustier environments - it should stay clean on the inside as long as it stays on the body.

Hopefully it will come soon, but I have plenty of shooting to do before I get my first prime.

[WerTicus]

I have a 35mm , 50mm and 90mm on a cropped sensor.

I find I love the 90mm more for portrait photos, the 35mm for landscapes (despite not being ideal width for that) and the 50mm is f1.4 so its most versatile for low light as well as being a middle of the road lens length wise.

I guess that just shows my preference for longer lenses over wider though.

[Pez]

I think the downside to the 50mm is that you unless you're doing portraits it is a very hard lens to use. That said it can give very intimate and wonderfully composed shots. Because of the high aperture the and shallow focusing point the high level of haze really snaps the attention to the subject. I have the 50mm 1.8 aperture lens. Here's a for instance:

This is my Cat Chai


Note the intense focus on a single portion of her face specifically the nose mouth and eyes. Everything else fades into a beautiful haze that gives a very intimate feel.

Here's another one.

Ryah


I really really love this lens. The high (or is it low, I can never remember the terminology ) aperture lends itself well to being able to take some great pictures in lower light without a flash as well.

[jqp]

Finally the 35mm lens came in! Got it on Friday.

It is definitely different compared to using the 18-200mm. I really like the f/1.8 but it sure is a narrow dof!

[JohnR]

Cool. Looking forward to hearing how you go with it. Narrow DoF is a wonderful creative tool, but a hard one to master - I constantly struggle with it - knowing how much DoF to use, that is. Sometimes I will "aperture-bracket" because it can be hard to judge in-camera.

[thunderbrick]

Finally the 35mm lens came in! Got it on Friday.

It is definitely different compared to using the 18-200mm. I really like the f/1.8 but it sure is a narrow dof!

Yeah, but if you are judging the DOF by looking through the lens wide open, that's not a good indication of what you'll actually get when you shoot and the aperture closes down to a smaller opening.

[Pez]

If you don't mind me asking, how much?

[jqp]

That is the photographer in her right eye...

[jqp]

If you don't mind me asking, how much?

I got it for $200 from Adorama - I had seen it on Amazon at one point for $340

[jqp]

See the Puparazzi and Catographers topic for a few more cat photos with this lens

[JohnR]

Nice image