Nikkor 50 mm 1.8 vs New 35 mm

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by carbonmotion, Feb 11, 2009.

  1. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a


    Jan 28, 2004
    San Francisco, CA
    I currently own a D40, but will upgrade to a full frame in two years or so. Which lens will get me the most bang for the buck? Is the new 35 mm's auto focus ability worth the extra money?
  2. 88888888 macrumors 6502a

    May 28, 2008
  3. Cliff3 macrumors 68000


    Nov 2, 2007
    SF Bay Area
    If you're buying a lens for your D40, then go ahead and buy the 35mm if that's the focal length you want. If you want to buy lenses with an eye towards an eventual FX body purchase and don't want to use that camera in DX crop mode, then don't buy DX format lenses.
  4. toxic macrumors 68000

    Nov 9, 2008
    buy the new lens. you need a lens to use now, not two years from now. what you should be doing is deciding between the Nikkor 35mm and the Sigma 30mm.
  5. compuwar macrumors 601


    Oct 5, 2006
    Northern/Central VA
    Take 2+ years of pictures with the AOV you want on FX, or take 2+ years of pictures with a different AOV- seems like a no-brainer to me. What's it work out to, $9/month? You can feed a starving D40 for $9/month...
  6. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Dec 23, 2006
    In my imagination
    Basically, and this issue that people seem to have over DX and FX lenses is a bit overrated.... justified, but overrated at times.

    For you, owning a D40, you should get the $200 35mm now and have smooth accurate autofocus. Not that you didn't get that with the 50mm though.

    Use the 35mm and feed your D40 as compuwar says. When you go FX then you can drop the cash on a $100 50mm or AF-S equivalent then, maybe even sell your D40 and 35mm to offset the cost.

    There should be no reason to continue spending money on DX lenses unless you plan to move to FX in the next few months to a year. Nikon's newest FX lenses aren't consumer glass, and will cost you a pretty penny along with the body. As a D40 owner, SORRY, I just don't see you going from a D40 to a D700 and 24-70 anytime soon. And by two years from now, I assume you mean to move up to an FX system that's either below the the D700 range, or in the USED D700 or equivalent range?

    Get the 35 mm now. I plan to move to FX with the D4/D800 system in a year and I still ordered one. Fought myself from ordering two.
  7. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    The new 35mm is a DX only lens. Won't work for full frame but in two years you will have made, what, 2,500 images with it? If it retains only 50% resale value it will only cost you a buck a week to own. If you need a 35 and you can afford it get it.
  8. mcnicks macrumors regular

    Jan 8, 2006
    I tend to think that autofocus is overrated. Ok, I know that there are situations where it is essential but, for the most part, I do not like the camera making decisions for me.

    My 50mm f/1.8D has not been off my D40 ever since I got it. It is a wee bit narrow for general use, I suppose (I am looking forward to getting my hands on a 35mm for that reason) but still the 50mm is a fantastic lens for the price, great for group portraits, pets, picking things out on the street and such.
  9. FX120 macrumors 65816


    May 18, 2007
    The great thing about lenses is that they tend not to loose a ton of value if they are desireable lenses in the first place. Two years from now you'd probably have no problem selling the 35 for $150 if you wanted to.
  10. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Dec 23, 2006
    In my imagination
    If Nikon keeps the cropped sensor mode on the FX bodies now, his lens will work, albeit with less sensor area.
  11. Nicholie macrumors regular

    Jul 6, 2008
    Huntsville, Al
    Both, if you can afford it.

    The 50mm becomes a 75mm on a DX body, practically turning it into a portrait lens if you don't mind being a bit close to your subject.

Share This Page