For regular indoor family shots, I prefer my 35 mm over my 50 1.8
The 35 mm is ONE sharp lens (for the money)
The 35 mm is ONE sharp lens (for the money)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Whats the best prime lens for Nikon? 35mm or 50mm af-s 1.8g ?
- Thread starter Chuck-Norris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since you are taking pictures of people you should know that a wider angle lens will make people look less like themselves because it distorts things compared to the human eye, faces are very susceptible to these distortions because on some people it can completely hide their ears which makes them look really bad. The photogenic people will look fine with the 35mm but the ones who arent photogenic will be weird looking, whereas a 50mm will more or less make everybody look pretty normal.
I would go with the 50mm and just make do with the narrower fov by being more creative with the shots.
I would go with the 50mm and just make do with the narrower fov by being more creative with the shots.
Get the 50. Nikon is not good with 35's. It is their worst focal length.
Guess the old manual plastic 2.5 E version was about the best.
The 50 1.8 on the other hand is a legend. No cheaper and better generic lens. Better suited on an FX camera, but for portraiture it will be great on a DX camera.
Oh, and without the 2 options: best portrait lens is the 85mm PCE. That one cakes everything from 105DC's, 80-200 2.8's and 85mm 1.4 AFS-s.
When I see your indoor wish, remember that having a 75mm equivalent lens is not very handy. Maybe have a look in the 28mm dept. Ebay an 28mm 2.8 Ais and have the sharpest and most perfect made wide angle from Nikon ever for 200$. It is crazy sharp, corner to corner, full open as well, and you can shoot it against direct sunlight without significant flares, no distortion, 20cm closest focus.... Genius!
----------
(unless it is a 1:1 pixel crop at the top right corner)
Guess the old manual plastic 2.5 E version was about the best.
The 50 1.8 on the other hand is a legend. No cheaper and better generic lens. Better suited on an FX camera, but for portraiture it will be great on a DX camera.
Oh, and without the 2 options: best portrait lens is the 85mm PCE. That one cakes everything from 105DC's, 80-200 2.8's and 85mm 1.4 AFS-s.
When I see your indoor wish, remember that having a 75mm equivalent lens is not very handy. Maybe have a look in the 28mm dept. Ebay an 28mm 2.8 Ais and have the sharpest and most perfect made wide angle from Nikon ever for 200$. It is crazy sharp, corner to corner, full open as well, and you can shoot it against direct sunlight without significant flares, no distortion, 20cm closest focus.... Genius!
----------
showing a non-sharp image
(unless it is a 1:1 pixel crop at the top right corner)
As you go narrower, you'll get that shallow depth of field you're looking for, but you'll also be limiting your field of view. Spending a day with your zoom taped at 35mm and a day with it taped at 50mm is probably a good idea just to see what the field of view will be. Ignore the foreground isolation and just see if you can live with the framing.
I bought a 50mm f/1.8D for my D80 before there were good choices for wide primes. I wanted something I could open up to use without flash as much as possible. I found the 50mm to be way too tight in most of the rooms I was shooting in. I couldn't get two people and the present they were opening, for example. It was great for shooting outdoor portraits.
(I'm not sure the D5100 has the focus motor needed to use the D series lenses)
I eventually picked up a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which I really liked and did much better indoors. I can't remember what I paid for it but I'd swear it was less than I see it listed for now.
Wide aperture is important if you're taking pictures of kids-- VR will sharpen up the couch, but not the restless kids sitting on it...
Also, wide aperture gives you the foreground isolation you want when you're focal length is long enough. As your field of view gets wider you'll find that effect starts to go away.
I've since moved to FX format, and passed the D80 and Sigma 30mm to my daughter, but kept the 50mm (which is now about the same field of view as the 30 used to be on DX). I added a 35mm because I wanted a wider view. Then I found a good quality 20mm f/2.8D on Ebay because I wanted something even wider indoors. So, for me, it seems that field of view has been trumping depth of field.
In your case, you have that zoom when you want something wide. You may need a flash with it, but you've got it. If what you're really after is the shallow DOF, longer is better if your house is bigger than mine.
I bought a 50mm f/1.8D for my D80 before there were good choices for wide primes. I wanted something I could open up to use without flash as much as possible. I found the 50mm to be way too tight in most of the rooms I was shooting in. I couldn't get two people and the present they were opening, for example. It was great for shooting outdoor portraits.
(I'm not sure the D5100 has the focus motor needed to use the D series lenses)
I eventually picked up a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which I really liked and did much better indoors. I can't remember what I paid for it but I'd swear it was less than I see it listed for now.
Wide aperture is important if you're taking pictures of kids-- VR will sharpen up the couch, but not the restless kids sitting on it...
Also, wide aperture gives you the foreground isolation you want when you're focal length is long enough. As your field of view gets wider you'll find that effect starts to go away.
I've since moved to FX format, and passed the D80 and Sigma 30mm to my daughter, but kept the 50mm (which is now about the same field of view as the 30 used to be on DX). I added a 35mm because I wanted a wider view. Then I found a good quality 20mm f/2.8D on Ebay because I wanted something even wider indoors. So, for me, it seems that field of view has been trumping depth of field.
In your case, you have that zoom when you want something wide. You may need a flash with it, but you've got it. If what you're really after is the shallow DOF, longer is better if your house is bigger than mine.
Thanks so much to the OP and for all the replies.
I just bought a D5100 and also have been considering these lenses. I'm going to give myself time to work with my kit lenses and see what results I like in hopes of getting a better grasp on what results I like best & at what settings. But also being a lover of blurred bokeh backgrounds, I like what these lenses have to offer. 'Course the $400 Sigma lenses have me drooling like an idiot savant as well. But that's fodder for another thread.
I just bought a D5100 and also have been considering these lenses. I'm going to give myself time to work with my kit lenses and see what results I like in hopes of getting a better grasp on what results I like best & at what settings. But also being a lover of blurred bokeh backgrounds, I like what these lenses have to offer. 'Course the $400 Sigma lenses have me drooling like an idiot savant as well. But that's fodder for another thread.
----------
[/COLOR]
showing a non-sharp image (unless it is a 1:1 pixel crop at the top right corner)[/QUOTE]
That image is cropped/copy of an image that was also converted to Jpeg with NO PP
If you dont know how sharp (especially for the money) the 35 mm is, I dont need to sell you on it - I dont work for Nikon
[/COLOR]
showing a non-sharp image
(unless it is a 1:1 pixel crop at the top right corner)[/QUOTE]That image is cropped/copy of an image that was also converted to Jpeg with NO PP
If you dont know how sharp (especially for the money) the 35 mm is, I dont need to sell you on it - I dont work for Nikon
f1.8 is NOT a full stop slower than f1.4. They are fairly close in terms of light transmission and depth of field. Generally a better lens is a more expensive lens. I don't shoot Nikon (I just happened to glance at this thread because my brother and most of my friends do) but I have heard the 50mm & 35mm f1.8 are excellent for the price. The G lens may be better overall but it may not have the same "bang for your buck". Weigh your usage and budget before deciding. The DoF difference for most is negligible.
i actually droped and killed my kit lens
amazely the glass didnt break
anyhoo i purchased a second hand 18-135m DX lens (apparently the kit lens that original came with a d90?)
great all around lens and the zoom is so much nicer then the kit lens that came with the d5100, but i wanted a nice lens for bokeh (blurry backgrounds) so decided to try a prime lens.
honestly i bought both the 35mm and 50mm lens, unfortunately it wont be till the holidays till i can actually test ONE, and only one cause i have to return one under 14 days lol. i can only afford one.
i like the 50mm but for a stupid reason, i think its a nicer quality and built lens then the 35mm but obviously it comes downt o the photo.
i came on here to see if any of you have experience with taking pictures with these prime lenses.
you are right about the 50mm, im worried the 50mm might be to "tight".
ive read the bokeh on the 50mm would be better (and a quote from digitalrev that the 50mm scores more "keeper" shots)
from your post i assume you sitll recomend te 35mm under the circumstances?
appreciate your help!
@OP
I have an old 50mm f/1.4 AF, not the AF-S, and you might be able to find one on eBay for a decent price. Just keep looking. I have also had luck from local Craigslist ads as well. I think I bought mine a long time ago for my F100 and I'm glad I hung onto it.
I also have a 18-55mm DX VR GII #2211 which you might consider. Yes it has the cheap plastic mount and body so don't expect it to survive a drop but the flip side it is extremely light. It is a $249 lens but I found a virtually new on eBay for $60 and I actually found it to be a capable little lens. It isn't a very fast lens but VR helps that. It took me a while to look past the plastic mount but at the price I paid I can buy another if gets damaged. I take care of my equipment and recently bought a wrist strap so I am not planning on plan B, lol.
I have an old 50mm f/1.4 AF, not the AF-S, and you might be able to find one on eBay for a decent price. Just keep looking. I have also had luck from local Craigslist ads as well. I think I bought mine a long time ago for my F100 and I'm glad I hung onto it.
I also have a 18-55mm DX VR GII #2211 which you might consider. Yes it has the cheap plastic mount and body so don't expect it to survive a drop but the flip side it is extremely light. It is a $249 lens but I found a virtually new on eBay for $60 and I actually found it to be a capable little lens. It isn't a very fast lens but VR helps that. It took me a while to look past the plastic mount but at the price I paid I can buy another if gets damaged. I take care of my equipment and recently bought a wrist strap so I am not planning on plan B, lol.