Thanks for your advise and suggestion.

I think I will go with 35mm f1.8.

Photography is a hobby for me and I do not think I would go crazy with it so DX will be the only body I would purchase and use (unless price of FX drops dramatically)

If you are going to get the 35mm f/1.8 DX, consider picking up a used 35mm f/2.0D lens instead. Wider lens, so you would be shooting through the sweet spot in the middle since it is cropped for FX.
I would say go wide. I had the following lenses on my D700 (35mm 2.0D, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8D) and the 35mm is my walkaround. I rarely used the 85mm, and ended up selling it.

oneANT said:
...Hey, did anyone notice I didnt say Zeiss even once.

I have to admit, I scanned your post for zeiss first thing. ;-) I was surprised.

chinese_ys, I own and use both. They both have great image quality. The 35 has some barrel distortion and doesn't handle out of focus highlights as well (there's a green fringe around them). If I had to choose to own one and knew I'd never go FX, I think I'd choose the 35.

I'd certainly agree about the 35/1.8. Great lens and a more useful focal length on DX than the 50. For my taste the 50 is too short for a tele, a portraits and too long for most uses when space is tight. I don't use the 35 much, since I haven't been doing much available light work. I also like focal lengths that are outside "normal" - that is 28mm and wider and 85mm and longer. Most of my use of my 16-85 has been towards 16 or towards 85, not frequently in the middle. Since you have the 18-55, take a look at your favorite shots and see what focal length you used. A little statistical analysis might help in your decision making.

Cloudy days: nope. Night: yes.

Focal length and hand-held cameras: the lower the focal length of the lens, the slower the shutter speed you can use without seeing camera shake. Lower the shutter speed and you increase the light getting to the sensor.

Please see above for an edit to my post...maybe that will help you out with your choice.

Well we don't know your shooting habits. You could be taking photos at dusk, for instance. Or you could live above the arctic circle, in perpetual (well in winter anyway) darkness. Also, not everyone gets scared off by a bit of rain (whether or not that's smart depends on your camera body) :).

At 50mm any unsteadiness is more magnified, so at 35mm you should be able to use about half a stop slower shutter speed than with a 50mm.

Anyway, it sounds like you will be using it indoors, I would definitely recommend the 35mm.

anjz said:
Both are good for low light shooting.

You may find a little advantage from the 35mm in low light, as you may be able to hand-hold the camera at lower shutter speeds relative to the 50mm.

Low light shooting does apply to outdoors----if there's not much light outside :)

Why is 35mm is better for lower speed hand held than 50mm?

If you mean cloudy as "there's not much light outside", then even my 18-55mm kit lens can give great result and I donot think I would shoot outside while its raining :)

Both are good for low light shooting.

You may find a little advantage from the 35mm in low light, as you may be able to hand-hold the camera at lower shutter speeds relative to the 50mm.

Low light shooting does apply to outdoors----if there's not much light outside :)

I'd personally base the choice on what I planned on shooting, as opposed to the small advantage in light-gathering ability you may (or may not) experience in real world shooting of both lenses.

Another poster commented on the 50mm being tight indoors. This is certainly an accurate statement. However, the 50 is great for some indoor shots. For instance, I use the 50 for full body shots of my baby daughter--but I could also use the 35 for those shots. I choose the 50, however, for the shallower depth of field it offers to me. NOTE, however, that I personally use a 50mm 1.4 and a 35 f/2. With those lenses, I do, in fact, find a big differences in the narrow depth of field I can achieve (because I can open up the lens to 1.4 with the 50 and only 2.0 with the 35). With the 1.8s (50 and 35), you should find that the 50 affords you the opportunity to blur the background more, because it has a longer focal length and wider max aperture. However, you will be shooting closer to your subject with the 35mm, so that will help make up some of the difference.

Long and short of this: go to the store. Try both for a while...then pick up one.

anjz said:
What are you going to photograph? If you intend to use it indoors to take 1/2 body group shots, then you should get the 35mm 1.8 (BTW, I'm speaking only to focal length. I've never shot with the 35 mm 1.8. I do use the 35 mm F/2 and love it).

ShadeofBlue said:
Indoor or outdoor? The 50 is usually too long for indoor on DX.

I mainly concern for using either 50 or 35 f1.8 in low light shooting but just wonder whether low light shooting applies to outdoor shooting or not?

What are you going to photograph? If you intend to use it indoors to take 1/2 body group shots, then you should get the 35mm 1.8 (BTW, I'm speaking only to focal length. I've never shot with the 35 mm 1.8. I do use the 35 mm F/2 and love it).

你好
你中国人吗

Both are fine lenses but your question is really about Focal Lengths.

On DX 35mm is a general purpose lens, the 50mm is a mild tele ...both essential FLs in any kit.

35mm will give more drama to a scene, 50mm will isolate the subject better.

Both are primes, so IQ will be near optimum (for practical purposes) at either FL.

...Hey, did anyone notice I didnt say Zeiss even once.

I have both, I prefer the 35mm. It's a more natural focal length on the DX.

They are both super sharp.

Indoor or outdoor? The 50 is usually too long for indoor on DX.

Hello, Guys

Just a quick question, which one you guys recommend for DX body under following assumptions?

Assumptions:
1.DX body can be the existing one or new coming one
2.DX body can auto focus with 50mm F1.8
3.Mainly used for low light shooting
4.Really care about the IQ

Thanks,