'Nikon 35mm F1.8G DX AF-S' or 'Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF'?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

'Nikon 35mm F1.8G DX AF-S' or 'Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF'?

(26 posts) (14 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

timo

new member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 2
offline

Im about to buy a Nikon D90 with the 18-200mm VR lens and am looking for a suitable lens to use in low light conditions. Namely at my sisters wedding in the evening. I have been told that this one is a good choice for a decent price...

$423 AUD
Nikon 35mm F1.8G DX AF-S
https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/index.php/lenses/nikon-lenses/nikon-standard-telephoto-lenses/nikon-35mmf1.8g-dx-af-s.html

However, after some investigating I figured this non DX lens is just as good, but for less than half the price. I appreciate its not got the DX technology, but do I really need that? What does DX actually do, excuse my ignorance?

$188 AUD
Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF
https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/index.php/vmchk/nikon-50mm-f1.8d-af.html

Does anyone know what the fundamental difference is between these two lenses and is it really worth twice the money? Im just a hobbyist and not a super keen photographer. But Im willing to spend the money if it gives me something noticeable.

I look forward to your replies.

Cheers.

Tim.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

timo - 35mm DX will not work on full frame cameras (You will have a visible vignetting as the image circle is smaller); using on a DX camera (everything expect d700, d3 or d3x) the 35mm will act as a 52.5mm lens on a full frame, and 50 will act as a 75mm lens, means that the 35 is wider; both of this lenses will work with Your Nikon d90, however the 35mm should focus faster, as it has a ultrasonic drive, this also allows it to be used on some amateur bodies (d40,d60,d5000)

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

Adamz has told you all about the fundamentals, but for what is worth I prefer longer 50mm 1.8 on D90 even if it is a bit slower to auto focus (IQ is about the same) and it works great for macro with extension tubes.

Posted 3 years ago #
timo

new member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 2
offline

Nice one guys thats very helpful.

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

What adamz told you is true.

I happen to have both of these lenses. After much, much searching I finally got the 35mm f/1.8 which I'm prone to favor over the 50mm f/1.8. Why?

1. It it is EXTREMELY sharp. It has a little fall off on the corners at f/1.8, but available light shots...you'll never notice.
2. I love the way it handles.
3. The DOF can be controlled very easily, more so than the 50mm which tends to be a little too shallow for my taste, especially in avaliable light situations, i.e. evening weddings as you mentioned.

Your choice of the D90 with the 18-200 VR is an EXCELLENT choice. You will love this lens.

I purchased the 18-200 with my D200 a couple of years ago and couldn't be happier. I also have the D40 (my wifes) and I just purchased the D90 body for a back-up. I am using the D90 more and more, it is the smartest camera Nikon makes.

I don't have unlimited funds so I tend to do a lot of research before purchasing. I imagine the 35mm f/1.8 will become my mainstay prime lens. (If my wife doesn't take it)

Posted 3 years ago #
jjreason

senior member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 61
offline

Get the 35mm 1.8 if you can, I find that focal length much more useful on a DX sensor. Although, I can see the 50mm on DX being good for weddings. Wouldn't have to get so close for candid shots. It's a toss up IMHO.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I plan to get both, and the 35mm first

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

Why not look at the 50mm f/1.4 AF or AF-S? Still cheaper than the 35mm f/1.8, and the extra 2/3 stop will help a lot at a wedding. The extra reach of 50mm over 35mm is also nice for portraiture.

EDIT: nm on the pricing, It's early morning here and I didn't notice the AUD. Still, it's worth considering.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97413-GREY/Nikon_1902_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

on DX format 35mm is much more usefull as a general lens.. however, You already have a general lens in the 18-200.
so you will need to decide what you need the low light lens for. if it is for portrait shots do consider the 50mm but becasue its a short tele in dx you will still find that the 35mm gives you more usage once you switch to the low light lens for general low light shots. Also because you are a new photographer you wont know what kind of photographer you are in terms of focal length. The 18-200 will really help you settle of focal lengths you like. then you can buy primes that suit your style ( focal length of choice ). if you are statistically "normal" then the normal lens (35mm) would be the best choice. as for me my first prime was the 150mm macro.. not too normal :-( !!

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

On DX 35mm is boring and therefor absolutely useless at least for me, it is not wide, not portrait, not tele, it is nothing at all.
On the other hand heartyfisher is right, 18-200 is almost everything you will ever need, and if you want some useful accessory you should probably do better with a tripod, or an extension tube set if you are after macro, it is not to expensive and is very handy.
If you are after landscape you will find some wider zoom better buy, Sigma 10-20 for example does not cost much more then 35 f/1.8 AF-S.

Posted 3 years ago #
Connor Broaddus

senior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 66
offline

I had this exact problem about two months ago, and ended up going for the 50mm f1.8. The crop factor will make the 50 much better for weddings and for portraits, but if you are looking for a low light walk around lens, you want the 35. It's all about the use of the lens. Personally, I prefer the 110 USD price tag, FX capability, and better build quality of the 50, but that's just me. :)

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

I tried to post a picture, but no luck.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

I agree with heartyfisher for the most part. Find what FL you tend to shoot at and perhaps get a prime or two that best suits you. My first prime is a 300mm so we will all have different needs.

I think the 35mm is a great lens having borrowed my roomates. You can use it for portraits, you just have to be closer.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Robert - just please paste a link, and I'll embed it for You

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

Deleated

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

RobertD, The photos cant be uploaded to this web site. Ie we all host them some where else and embed a link. like

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

What adamz told you is true.

I happen to have both of these lenses. After much, much searching I finally got the 35mm f/1.8 which I'm prone to favor over the 50mm f/1.8. Why?

1. It is EXTREMELY sharp. It has a little fall off on the corners at f/1.8, but available light shots...you'll never notice.
2. I love the way it handles.
3. The DOF can be controlled very easily, more so than the 50mm which tends to be a little too shallow for my taste, especially in avaliable light situations, i.e. evening weddings as you mentioned.

Your choice of the D90 with the 18-200 VR is an EXCELLENT choice. You will love this lens.

I purchased the 18-200 with my D200 a couple of years ago and couldn't be happier. I also have the D40 (my wifes) and I just purchased the D90 body for a back-up. I am using the D90 more and more, it is the smartest camera Nikon makes.

I don't have unlimited funds so I tend to do a lot of research before purchasing. I imagine the 35mm f/1.8 will become my mainstay prime lens. (If my wife doesn't take it)

Photo below was taken with the 35mm f/1.8G
Shot at f/5.6 - 1/60. Shot horizontal and cropped to vertical. Distance about one foot.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Robert - I've edited Your post to show the picture, If You can please click the Edit link and see how the proper link should look like, as for pictures, You need to store them on remote server - flick, pbase are good places to put the pictures on the web

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

adamz
Thanks. I looked at the edit link and it looks very confusing.
I won't use flickr because of the stupid Yahoo ID you must establish. I will not deal with Yahoo for various reasons. I'll check out pbase.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

I use pbase but it offers a limited free service. For hosting and linking to sites such as this, photobucket would be a better choice and it gives you the embed link automatically so all you have to so is copy it and paste it over here.

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

Gentoo
I forgot about photobucket. I already have an account there. Thanks.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I love the 35/1.8 for available light(on D90). I have the 16-85 which I'm very happy with when there is sufficient light, but when not, the 35 is a wonderful lens. I love the resolution and contrast, and with the hood on, it's an extremely nice handling lens on the D90. Other than for portraiture, I think 60-90mm focal lengths (35mm equivalent) are of little use. I wish they made a 23/2. From my experience in available light the most useable focal lengths are 28 and 35 with apertures of 2.0 or better. For most Leica users I've known, the 35/2 was the standard lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

OOh! The Leica 35mm F2. I love that little lens!

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

The 35 1.8 seems to mesh seamlessly with the D90. My D90 is currently being used by my roommate at Comicon. He's able to get awesome shots he would have never got on his D40. I've played with that myself on my D90 and the way it renders the colors and contrast is near perfect! The sharpness is also amazing.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

I got this lens about 2 weeks ago, and honestly, it's my new favorite. I'm hooked onto primes now. It makes my D40 ultra small. When you compare it to the Nikon P6000, which my friend has, I lose the huge zoom range that he has, but there's absolutely no way he can touch me when it comes down to low light. Also, it autofocuses on every new camera body, which is nice because it's a pain when you need to focus manually on the D40. It is absolutely tiny on the D40! It's almost as small as a P6000! It also beat the Sigma 20mm 1.8, at least on my terms. My cousin got that lens for his Canon XSi and we were taking pictures of little kids with our family. A $200 lens beat a $550 lens based on sharpness alone wide open. His lens was way too soft at 1.8, he had to stop down to 2 or 2.8 all the time.

I'm interested in which lens you chose, because you never replied.

Posted 3 years ago #