Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G vs Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8G

James J

James J

James J

Soldato
Joined
4 Dec 2002
Posts
14,520
Location
North Lincolnshire
I'm getting mightily confused when trying to compare what both of these lenses could offer me in terms of portrait and landscape photography due to crop factors, CA being mentioned and tonnes of other stuff in the reviews I'm reading on both lenses. Sadly, due to owning a D5100, to get autofocus at all I have to use AF-S or AF-I lenses, which considerably increases the price of the lenses I was originally looking at (like the Nikon AF 50mm 1.8 for example which is half the price of the DX AF-S version).

Due to the crop factors I'm looking at the equivalent of 75mm with the 50mm lens and 52.5mm with the 35mm lens. Which lens has the best DOF out of the two? Really struggling to see exactly what I'd get in terms of real photos, even when using nikons own lens simulator program which takes the crop factor into consideration.

Has anyone used either of these lenses at all? (especially with the same body)
 
What will you be taking photos of? For portraits the 50mm 1.4 is exceptional, the sharpness and resolution the lens gives has to be seen to be believed, I couldn't recommend it enough. I don't have the 35mm 1.8 (yet), but everything I've seen suggests its quality is just as good as the 50mm 1.4.

IMHO the 35mm may be a bit too long for landscapes but that will depend of the effect you're after, and many people find it's not quite long enough for portraits. From the pics I've seen where the 35mm has been used, it's a nice "general" lens especially around town etc. Although people seem to use it for just about everything with good results.

It all boils down to what focal length would suit you better.
 
I have the 50mm on theD90. Nice cheap lense and great for portraits. Sometimes I do find it a tad long to be used easily, especially indoors.

The other slight issue with it for me is that it doesnt get tack sharp until f4. Even then its no sharper than my 18-105. Its useable from around 2.8 on, but if you are pixel peeper you can really tell the differance in sharpness of it compared to one taken at f4 on. The 50mm 1.4 is supposed to be better wide open. Its gets nice and sharp at 2.8 see here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Simple way to find out which you prefer is to set you standard lense to 50mm, dont change it and use it for a day. Then change it to 35mm and do the same. Which ever you prefer get that one. The 50mm is supposed to have slightly better bokeh but ive seen pictures taken with the 35mm and it still looks nice.

I want a wide angle lense next, something my 18-105 cant actually do. Trouble is they are bloomin expensive.
 
Last edited:
James J said:
I'm getting mightily confused when trying to compare what both of these lenses could offer me in terms of portrait and landscape photography due to crop factors, CA being mentioned and tonnes of other stuff in the reviews I'm reading on both lenses. Sadly, due to owning a D5100, to get autofocus at all I have to use AF-S or AF-I lenses, which considerably increases the price of the lenses I was originally looking at (like the Nikon AF 50mm 1.8 for example which is half the price of the DX AF-S version).

Due to the crop factors I'm looking at the equivalent of 75mm with the 50mm lens and 52.5mm with the 35mm lens. Which lens has the best DOF out of the two? Really struggling to see exactly what I'd get in terms of real photos, even when using nikons own lens simulator program which takes the crop factor into consideration.

Has anyone used either of these lenses at all? (especially with the same body)
Click to expand...

the 50mm will give you more bokeh due to the 'tele' affect.
the 35mm (a cracking lens also) will give you a wider FOV which comes in handy on a crop, however you give up some bokeh (but not that much).
However the amount of bokeh will vary according to how close or far away your subject is to you, the closer you get the more bokeh you get, this is why Full Frame camera's allow for greater DOF control.

What you can do to maximise bokeh on your crop, is to think and frame the subject the way you want in camera, so you don't need to crop much if at all in post.
This also has the benefit of forcing you to think and learn about composition, but eventually as you sound like you've been bitten by the bokeh bug, you'l want to go FF.
 
Ejizz said:
the 50mm will give you more bokeh due to the 'tele' affect.
the 35mm (a cracking lens also) will give you a wider FOV which comes in handy on a crop, however you give up some bokeh (but not that much).
However the amount of bokeh will vary according to how close or far away your subject is to you, the closer you get the more bokeh you get, this is why Full Frame camera's allow for greater DOF control.

What you can do to maximise bokeh on your crop, is to think and frame the subject the way you want in camera, so you don't need to crop much if at all in post.
This also has the benefit of forcing you to think and learn about composition, but eventually as you sound like you've been bitten by the bokeh bug, you'l want to go FF.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to be able to go FF due to the cost of it for a good few years yet so I'll have to make do with what I have at the moment. To be fair it'll be enough for me, its just very hard and not so cut and dry when looking at lenses due to the crop factor kicking in lol. Been using the 18-55mm that came with my camera at both 35mm and 50mm and I think portraits would look better on the 50mm whilst landscapes definitely better on the 35. I think I'm gonna have to use both lenses before buying to make sure theres a difference in quality over the 18-55 before I splash the cash on glass.
 
^^^
There is a quality difference, and personally I would save and buy both the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8 afs.
I'v just ordered a copy of the 50 1.8 as I was going to get the sigma 1.4 or nikon 50 1.4 but have heard that at 1.8 the 50 1.8 is actually sharper than the Nikon 50 1.4 and from previous bad experiences I don't trust Sigma's Auto Focus.
When I get it I'l do a quick comparison and let you know my impressions.

Below landscape was shot with the 35mm 1.8 @1.8 and my D7000 (which has the same sensor as the 5100). I exposed for the sky and lifted shadows in post along with a bit of colour boost.

land7L.jpg
 
Last edited:
Very nice and yeah I'll be looking to get both but the 35mm is on the hitlist first now :)

Lovely shot btw.
 
Ejizz said:
^^^
There is a quality difference, and personally I would save and buy both the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8 afs.
I'v just ordered a copy of the 50 1.8 as I was going to get the sigma 1.4 or nikon 50 1.4 but have heard that at 1.8 the 50 1.8 is actually sharper than the Nikon 50 1.4 and from previous bad experiences I don't trust Sigma's Auto Focus.
When I get it I'l do a quick comparison and let you know my impressions.

Below landscape was shot with the 35mm 1.8 @1.8 and my D7000 (which has the same sensor as the 5100). I exposed for the sky and lifted shadows in post along with a bit of colour boost.

land7L.jpg
Click to expand...

Just had to jump in here and say that's an amazing photo Ejizz!

I think a 35mm lens is definately going on my wishlist :)
 
50mm on a D90 owner here, being honest I would say get the 35mm. Don't get me wrong i love the 50mm but I quite often find it too wide, especially indoors or in social situations.
Or just get both as I am about to do :D

*edit* I see you've already ordered it and want both lenses, well done :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom