Which lens

LionOfJudah · 15 Jun 2012 at 13:54

Hi guys,
Am looking at a new wide angle relatively cheap lens for my D90 and have narrowed to the following:

1) NIKON AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
2) NIKON AF-S DX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G
3) Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF Nikkor Lens

Price wise I'm happy with any of the above as all within budget.
What are your opinions?
Would 35mm be better for landscapes etc as in would I really get more wide angle than the 50mm lenses?

Thanks

Devrij · 15 Jun 2012 at 13:59

35mm is a better all-rounder than the 50mm, especially on a crop body. I wouldn't call it a landscape lens though. 50mm is a great portrait lens on an APS-C sensor though, and has other great uses, but you would find it a bit limiting on a day out in the country unless you focused on details.

LionOfJudah · 15 Jun 2012 at 14:27

I didn't mean landscape but wider angle. Of course I've got kit 18-105 lens as well anyway.
Not really into portraits but after a prime lens. I've got no plans at present for upgrading to fx sensor either so dx lenses suits me fine

K.C. Leblanc · 15 Jun 2012 at 15:02

Nikon's web site has a lens simulator that lets you compare focal lengths.

You can also experiment with setting your lens to different focal lengths and seeing which works best for you.

Why do you want a prime lens?

DanF · 15 Jun 2012 at 15:43

35mm on DX is very normal looking, it's not wide or zoomed in. 50mm is a bit zoomed in so pretty good for isolating objects like people.

Try setting your current zoom to 35 and walk around for a couple of hours with it, then do the same at 50mm, then again try shooting the same scene at both 35 & 50 then see which you prefer using. Personally I find 35mm isn't wide enough or zoomed in enough, I usually use 24, 45 & 90mm prime lenses now.

Ksanti · 15 Jun 2012 at 16:15

DanF said:
35mm on DX is very normal looking, it's not wide or zoomed in. 50mm is a bit zoomed in so pretty good for isolating objects like people.

Try setting your current zoom to 35 and walk around for a couple of hours with it, then do the same at 50mm, then again try shooting the same scene at both 35 & 50 then see which you prefer using. Personally I find 35mm isn't wide enough or zoomed in enough, I usually use 24, 45 & 90mm prime lenses now.

If you have a 45mm prime I'd gues you're on m4/3s, which means all of what you just said gets rendered pretty much invalid :/ as your opinions on a 35mm lens would (*2 for the m4/3 crop then divide by 1.5 for the APS-C Nikon crop) apply to a (just under) 50mm lens on his D90.

Unless you want it for landscapes (in which case stop the 18-105 down to f/8, you won't really get a cheap decent lens in your price range for landscapes, at least not over an 18-105), then get the 35. The 50's are nice but they're much more specialised on a crop than the 35, which is something that can pretty much live on your camera - it lived on my D5000 from the day I bought it, pretty much.

LionOfJudah · 15 Jun 2012 at 16:22

So would I get any benefit from the 35 over my 18-105? Especially for general "walkabout" photography.

DanF · 15 Jun 2012 at 16:23

Ksanti said:
If you have a 45mm prime I'd gues you're on m4/3s

um I have a nex-5n, using the 24mm sony zeiss and 45/90mm contaxt carl zeiss with an adapter

the 45 & 90 can be had really cheap 2nd hand

I did have a GF1 before this and a 20mm (40mm in 35 terms) did live pretty much on it all the time but I didn't invest in to that system any more. Really nice to use but a bit of an old sensor.

My other camera is a D300 and I did the classic I'm getting in to photography so I need a lens for every possible situation kinda thing before working out what I really wanted

Most used lenses on Nikon where probably in order nikon 16-85, sigma 90 macro, 70-300 vr (replaced with 70-200vr2). Lenses I bought but never really used where nikon 35, 50 and a tokina 11-16mm. Wide angle just isn't my thing really so probably the worst purchase but fun to try (I really don't think you need a very wide angle for good landscapes). The 35 always felt a bit of a let down for some reason as it seemed to give a harsh look to photo's. The 50mm got some use at first but just didn't jell with it for some reason. Just a shame they don't make a modern cheapish 24mm for dx.

So yeah you might want to work out the focal lengths you'd like to use or try first before buying stuff

Ksanti · 15 Jun 2012 at 16:37

DanF said:
um I have a nex-5n, using the 24mm sony zeiss and 45/90mm contaxt carl zeiss with an adapter the 45 & 90 can be had really cheap 2nd hand

Fair enough, then your point stands. I've always found a 35 on crop and 50 on FF a perfect 'one prime' length, personally.

DanF · 15 Jun 2012 at 16:49

LionOfJudah said:
So would I get any benefit from the 35 over my 18-105? Especially for general "walkabout" photography.

It just really depends on what you want to do, there's no real right or wrong way with lens selection, it's all about personal preference. The 35mm should be a bit sharper, it's much faster so can be used in lower light and can give you shallower depth of field. But to counter the low light use your current 18-105 has VR which helps a lot for slow/static objects. The 18-105 is a pretty good lens for the money.

ShakenNstirred · 15 Jun 2012 at 17:32

i went for the 35mm on my D5100

LionOfJudah · 15 Jun 2012 at 18:29

DanF said:
It just really depends on what you want to do, there's no real right or wrong way with lens selection, it's all about personal preference. The 35mm should be a bit sharper, it's much faster so can be used in lower light and can give you shallower depth of field. But to counter the low light use your current 18-105 has VR which helps a lot for slow/static objects. The 18-105 is a pretty good lens for the money.

The shallower depth of field is something I'd like compared to 18-105. Another reason I'm looking at this is to try a Len which hasn't got Zoom on it. Plus can pick 35mm for £150