50mm or 35mm for Nikon?

coopersim

coopersim

coopersim

Associate
Joined
7 Feb 2010
Posts
553
I'm after a portrait lens for my Nikon D5000 and wondered which I'd best with and if there is really any need for AF-S, or will I be ok with manual focus?

I've been using my new Samyang 8mm Fish Eye, but struggling to see when stuff is in focus or not, I guess this might just be because it's difficult with the wide field of vision etc?
 
Surely what it comes down to is the quality of the eyepiece? If you can't judge focus through it then no matter what lens you have it's going to be hit and miss.
 
I have the 50mm and love it! I spoke to quite a few people about the 35mm or 50mm and for portrait stuff they pretty much all recommended the 50mm because 35mm can be a bit to wide. The only problem I sometimes have with it is that my camera is a D90 (so cropped) which can make it awkward when i take it out and about as it's more 72mm which does tempt me to get the 35mm as well.
 
Superewza said:
Surely what it comes down to is the quality of the eyepiece? If you can't judge focus through it then no matter what lens you have it's going to be hit and miss.
Click to expand...

With wideangle lenses because the DOF is deeper it's harder to see exactly where the plane of best focus lies. That said, the viewfinder on the D5000 isn't really conducive to accurate focusing and the rangefinder dot isn't discerning enough to use it as a focus indicator...so AF-S would definitely be preferable.

As for 35mm vs. 50mm, 35mm is 'normal' on a DX body whilst 50mm is a short telephoto...depends how much of the person you want to shoot. For loose headshots get the 50mm.
 
Thanks for the advice, the D5000 is also cropped, which I'm not used to, pity really! I think the AF-S is probably the way to go in this case though, and with the 50mm AF-S being about £320 compared to £120 for the 35mm, I can see where this is going!
 
Nikkor 35mm AF-S F1.8 "A great lens for low light photography without flash"

That sounds like my kind of photography! I hate flash, looks so unnatural - probably just how I'm using it though...
 
I have/had had the 35mm AF-S 1.8, 50mm AF-D 1.8 and the 50mm AF-S 1.4. I found that only the 35mm still maintains a decent degree of sharpness wide open, both the AF-D 1.8 & AF-S 1.4 really only come into their own at about f2.8.

On my D90 (which supposedly fixes those purple fringe CAs) the AF-S 1.4 still had terrible purple fringing wide open. I only now still own the 35mm AF-S & 50mm AF-D, never saw the point of keeping the 50mm AF-S. The 35mm is on my camera 85% of the time - but I do whip out the 50mm for portrait stuff.
 
Going back to your original question, while the 35 is a nice lens, the 50 is a better option for portraits. It's also a fair bit more (again which it's also better built...)
 
I got the 35mm F1.8 to go with my D90 a couple of weeks ago and it's a lovely lens for the price (I paid £160). If i was getting a lens just pecifically for portraits, I'd go with the 50mm.
 
I think for portraits, you probably want the 50mm. 35mm would need you being too close maybe. I want to try a 35mm on my D90 at the next meet, if anyone's got one!
 
If you decide to go with a 50mm lens, I'd go with the Sigma 50mm EX HSM f/1.4, overall it's a much better lens for portraiture as it was designed as such, rather than a 35mm film "normal" lens :)
 
Just to throw a spanner into the works - if the focus is portraiture have you considered an 85-100mm lens? These are also great focal lengths on a crop-frame senor camera for portraits (indeed I prefer the 85mm to the 50mm for most portraits).

Just something to consider I reckon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom