Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 5, 2012, 10:22 AM   #26
macrumors member
Join Date: Nov 2012
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)

"Buy/Own what you can afford to repair and replace and NOT something you can only afford to purchase"
desmotesta is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 05:41 PM   #27
macrumors regular
Join Date: Jul 2012
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.
zombiecakes is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 02:16 PM   #28
macrumors 68000
Join Date: Jul 2012
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!


Originally Posted by desmotesta View Post
The 35 mm is ONE sharp lens (for the money)
showing a non-sharp image (unless it is a 1:1 pixel crop at the top right corner)
blanka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 02:53 PM   #29
Analog Kid
macrumors 68030
Analog Kid's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
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.
Analog Kid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 03:31 PM   #30
shadow puppet
macrumors 6502
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 4th padded cell on the right
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.
shadow puppet is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 03:50 PM   #31
macrumors member
Join Date: Nov 2012

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
"Buy/Own what you can afford to repair and replace and NOT something you can only afford to purchase"
desmotesta is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2012, 11:51 AM   #32
macrumors 6502
Join Date: Jul 2008
Originally Posted by CocoaNut View Post
As others have already pointed out, a 1.4 lens will have shallower DOF than a 1.8 lens. Even though the "number difference" may seem small, you need to consider that 1) this 1.4 is one full stop more than 1.8 and 2) apertures are related by SQRT(2), or about 1.41x for each stop, in the quantity of light that comes through the lens in the same amount of time.

If you can afford it, go with the better glass.
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.
gnomeisland is offline   0 Reply With Quote

MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D3100: 35MM or 50MM? screensaver400 Digital Photography 11 Dec 26, 2013 09:18 AM
Focus issues with Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens. trs0722 Digital Photography 8 Oct 21, 2013 01:49 PM
Nikon 50mm Prime lens (1.4g or 1.8g) to big (tight FOV) for nikon d5200? Chuck-Norris Digital Photography 104 May 28, 2013 05:27 PM
Nikon D40x with 35mm prime for DisneyWorld Coconutsport Digital Photography 11 May 10, 2013 12:07 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2015, MacRumors.com, LLC