[lenses] 35mm/1.8 or 50mm/1.8 for D90?

SpicyMcHaggis

Veteran X
i got a gently used d90 about 2 weeks ago, and i'm looking into picking up a fast prime for it. never really used a prime before, except a super fish-eye on my D200 (stolen).

both the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8 seem like budget options but have significantly high abilities given their price point. i'm shooting with a D90, so i've got the 1.5x crop, which means the 35 is a 52mm equivalent, and the 50 is a 75mm equivalent in 35mm/full-frame.

i know the "nifty fifty" has been a favorite prime for decades on 35mm film, and for the APS-C frames in the DX, the closest thing to it is the 35. the 50 is going to be a mild telephoto, which seems pretty good for portrait stuff (more on that later), but a bunch of people online complain about it being difficult to use indoors.

basically, my typical pictures are of cars/motorcycles and landscapes, with some night shots throw in for fun. i particularly like low-light and playing with narrow depth-of-field, which is why i've been looking at primes. i'd like to get into portrait/candid street stuff, but more likely from a distance (across a street or something -- not sure how most koreans take to foreigners in their faces snapping pictures). i don't usually take many photos indoors, so i'm thinking that the 50mm might suit my typical usage a bit better.

i don't really plan on upgrading the body to a full-frame any time soon. i figure if i have that kind of money, i probably wouldn't be slapping a $100 lens onto it anyways...




cliffs:
-looking for a fast prime for a nikon d90, either 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8
-like nice bokeh/narrow depth of field
-usually shoot cars/motorcycles, landscapes, night photos
-want to try portraits/candid street stuff
-don't care about whether or not it'll work on a full-frame
 
I have both.

The 35 is the plastic body, AF-S ,very light, and seems like a toy. That said, theres discussions about some of them not being super sharp.

The 50 is metal, AF-D, and pretty sturdy. Mine is pretty good at 1.8, but razer sharp by 2.8.

I'd go for the 35, personally. Its wide enough to get almost all of your needs, and I find myself constantly backing up when I have the 50 on. Your best bet would be to bring your body to a camera shop and try both.
 
always good advice, test em out first and then decide

I prefer working with a 50 (in the very rare instances that I even use a camera - I'm an audio specialist) because I generally do observational work and by dint of that I'm usually already pretty backed up, but it's just personal preference

give em both a test run
 
Since when is the 50 metal? It's right next to me and its very much plastic. The 35 is actually better built since it's an AF-S.

They're both essentially the same lens performance wise, which means they're both excellent.

Get the 35 if you want a "normal" field of view on a crop body, get the 50 if you want a good portrait lens (75mm equiv)
 
The first lens you should EVER buy is a 50mm - The metal 1.4 one not the shitty plastic 1.8 one. It's cheap as shit and considered the best lens made.
 
wish i had friends w/ either one, or i'd try them out before buying. i'm currently living in korea (in seoul), so finding a camera shop that would let me try one out before buying is pretty unlikely.

i'm going to try and find some tape so i can test out sticking to a single focal length (one for a little while, then the other) on my 18-55 VR and see how i like them. i've looked at a good number of test shots, and on the 35, the bokeh seems consistently decent, while on the 50, it'll either be perfect or look really fucked up/distracting...

with the 50 1.8

perfect:
3412569298_34a23ee27b.jpg


3721925345_64fa040b21.jpg


horrible:
mbr5tu.png


333754297_MVYxQ-M.jpg


in between:
3825458357_bdef3e74cc_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top