66 replies to this topic

[Merco_61]

Not wanting to burst your balloon, but have just come off the phone from a friend who is a very experienced photographer who has been using Nikon's for years. We talked about this very subject i.e. 35mm v 50mm and he reckoned the 50mm was the one to go for.

Why? A normal lens is an excellent tool to learn to get closer and communicate with the subjects and creating a presence in the pictures. A 50 on DX is too long to get that effect easily, and too short to get the flattering perspective of a true portrait lens.

Instead of buying a lens when one is not sure which yet I would get a piece of electrician's tape and lock the zoom ring of a standard zoom to the f/l I am interested in and go out and shoot with that for a day or two. Then I would lock it to the other f/l and try that. Then sit down and compare the two sets, preferably printed. After that exercise you know which is better to start with for *you* and *your* photographic vision.

I shoot mostly on FX and tend to like to go a bit wider than normal (35mm) and at the long end for short teles (105-135), but sometimes (quite often) the 50 is "just right".

[alden]

I guess if I had to pick just one it would be the 50... For portraits. It's like a 75 on a DX.

[Tony892]

We all have opinions Tony. Thanks for posting your friends. What is yours?
 
I have both a 50 & 35. If I could only have one I'd take the 35 for my DX camera. Learned by shooting a 50 for many years on a film body, & the 35 on a DX is the same for me. Just my opinion, carry on. 
 
Primes can be zoomed, with your feet.

Agree my friend, opinions are a bit like heads, we all have them. I should have added that my friend had owned bothy a 35 and 50, and his opinion was based on his experiences, particularly with landscapes. The 35mm is the first prime that I have owned and I am very happy with the quality of images that I have owned. Based on my minimal experience and knowledge, I would think that having both primes would be a great combination, although happy to stick with my 35mm for the moment (my wallet feels the same about this as well).I do like the 'primes can be zoomed with your feet' statement and it is a mantra that I have adoped and put into practice. :-)

[cowleystjames]

Ha Ha, this argument is a bit like Canon or Nikon, Audi or BMW, Black or White, etc. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
But seeing as it looks like we're all men answering, we'll just move on and be best of friends afterwards.
Ooh, controversial statement that one, I hope the wife isn't looking over my shoulder as I'll never hear the last of that!

[Squibs]

Thanks guys I can see that there is a 35 /50mm split debate forming . I am pretty much sold on the 35mm G (I think) lens, But I like the 40mm idea.

My reasons are  based on.

• Your sound advice.
• I also wish to capture the outstretched defiant hand, which I believe will be exaggerated more with a 35mm.
•  I'm also trying to increase my strike rate, if that makes sense (more keepers), so I think that the auto focus feature is wise to keep for the time being. To coin a phrase from angling. "I'm not a tackle tart!", so if I keep my options open now the likelihood of me "needing" more lenses is reduced.

Once again thank you for the advice and the warm welcome. Now all I need to do is to convince the big fat fella to make some room in his bag.

Squibs

[Jay]

Don't get the 50/1.8D.  I have one for my D600, and I love it, but there's no point in having it if it won't AF.  You could buy a manual focus lens if you want to.  It should save you even more money.  For the D3200, however, I would stick with the G lens.  I don't think the D3200 supports a lot of the metering modes for legacy lenses.  

The 50mm 1.8G is definitely the way to go.  AF and sharp as a knife photos with nice bokeh.  But as stated by others the 35mm 1.8g is definitely a better all round shooting lense.   Striclty portraits the 50mm is a no brainer.

[DanielJamesVersace]

Squibs, when I had a D5100 i started with the kit 18-55 and 70-300 which didn't auto focus so soon taught me and pushed my skills which for now i am grateful.

 

The first 2 and only 2 lenses i have purchased to date have been the 35 f/1.8G DX and the 50 f/1.4, Using these lenses on your camera will make them an ~52.5mm and a 75mm, these lenses are both beautiful for portraiture photography, I really do advise you grab both these focal lengths, the only issue i ever had with the 70-300 was it never auto focused but you have the best of both worlds you have covered an amazing amount of zoom lengths and having these primes will allow you fantastic speed and usage in low light without a flash.

 

Dont hesitate your on the right thought pattern with getting these lenses and good luck.

[Squibs]

Thanks guys. I really do appreciate your help and wisdom.

Squibs

[Serge]

You have 18-55 kit - set it up to 35mm and take few pictures, then set it to 50mm and do the same again. I have them both as they are must-have primes due to light, IQ and price.

But being honest: 35 is my fav. I love this lens. You can use it inside and outside. With 50mm shooting in interiors is a bit tricky - unless you are a spider and have ability to walk or stick to the walls

[jlp410]

35mm is good for walk around on crop sensors. 50mm is good for portraits. If you're shooting moving kids it's better to get 50mm to give them more space to play

[Squibs]

Well I've only gone and sent off for the Nikkor 35mm AF-S f/1.8g. It's been a very close call with all the advice (I'm grateful for all), but went for the 35mm in the end. Mainly due to the fact that with a DX sensor you crop to about 50mm, so the logic is to have the finished image around the 50mm mark which seems to be the best for what I'm trying to achieve. Looking forward to it arriving and as Nikon and Amazon uk are doing a bit of a deal I'm also looking forward to £20 cash back.

Picked up an external storage as well, as happily I'm running out of photo storage on the PC.

Once again thank you for all of your advice and welcome.

[imasmrt1]

The fact is, prime lens isn't necessary. Usin a bit of Tape "lock" your telephoto lens at 50 mm. Look at setting up the shot with it locked in. This helps you learn to set up, and to compose. As far as DOF goes, have a bit of fun. Pic a subject, pic a place to set up. And without moving, use the different magnifications on that Zoom lens. Take the exact same shot, from the exact same spot, and notice the blur difference from one shot to the next. It will help you to improve immensely.

[alden]

I can get a really decent bokah with my 55-300 zoom set at around 100, if I am close to the subject -- around 8-10 feet. I shoot it wide open, which for that lens at that focal length is around f/4.5.

 

It makes for a nice portrait lens when I use it that way. 

[genevievephotog]

I would agree with everyone else here. I have the 35 and 50 1.8. I would have to say the 50 1.8 is the best way to go. You won't be disappointed

[Louicio]

On APS-C, a 30-35mm prime is an amazing lens to have =)

[asokell]

See my thread on if you had to start buying your kit bag again what would you do diffetent. I had similar thoughts and got some good comments. I went with ghe 50mm f1.8. No regrets.

[Tony892]

But would everyone not agree that it is just as important the way you use the kit as the number of lenses in the camera bag? I know that one of my faults is that I will often say about various activities; "if I only had this or that, things would be so much better", instead of concentrating in getting the best out of what I already have. Touch of the western society disease.

[TBonz]

Tony,

 

That is very true.  I have friends who seem to think that new golf clubs or whatever will make them better.  The truth is that equipment can improve your "game" (golf, hockey, baseball, photography or whatever) but it won't make you better.  Translated, I can (and have) shot sports with lots of different lenses.  I'm far from the best sports photographer out there, but I can get some quality images.  The final image coming off a high end lens that is appropriate for the subject will be better than the image coming off an equally high end lens that isn't the right choice.  A 400mm 2.8 is going to give me a much better image of a soccer goalie making a save than a 24mm 2.8.  The reverse would be true if I wanted to shoot a team photo after the game!

[Merco_61]

I agree fully with Tony and Sportz2pix. Being familiar with the lenses you have is much more important than having the *best* glass, but good tools makes the work easier.

I have shot badminton with Tri-x in a FG with a 80-200/4.5 manual zoom when that was all I had available but it is much easier with a 80-200/2.8 and autofocus.

I like my primes and have probably got too many, but a zoom or three can definitely have it's place in the bag.

I think it is hard to beat the kit zooms (double lens kit) complemented with a 35 and a 50 for speed when there just isn't light available on a DX body to start out. After shooting for a while you will start to get a feel for what you need to get next.

Don't fall into the trap of listening too hard to people who say that –This shot can't be made with this lens, you need that one... Try it yourself, and if it is an expensive lens you think you need after trying with what you've got rent one over a day or two.

[TBonz]

 

I have shot badminton with Tri-x in a FG with a 80-200/4.5 manual zoom when that was all I had available but it is much easier with a 80-200/2.8 and autofocus.

 

I think it is hard to beat the kit zooms (double lens kit) complemented with a 35 and a 50 for speed when there just isn't light available on a DX body to start out. After shooting for a while you will start to get a feel for what you need to get next.

Try it yourself, and if it is an expensive lens you think you need after trying with what you've got rent one over a day or two.

 

Been there, done that with the Tri-X and zooms...and the rentals...haven't shot badminton but many other sports including tennis which is fairly close...

 

If I were starting out now as I did many years ago back in my second year of high school, I would probably have a bag with exactly what you described along with a decent flash.  With a DX camera and those lenses I think I could have shot everything that I shot for the newspaper in college.