35mm or 50mm prime

[Sorabh]

Hi everyone

I own a Nikon d3200 with a crop sensor and a 35mm lens

I am considering purchasing a 50mm prime to take portrait shots. (I'd love to buy the 85mm but £300 is a little out of my price range).

My question is - is the 50mm significantly different enough from the 35mm to justify a purchase? I like to take some close shots of friends/family with nice landscapes and the 35mm does that well. But it does give a little distortion when I make my subject the central focus of the image.

Should I sell my 35mm and just buy a cheap 18-55 kit lens for landscapes and casual family photos? or keep both the 35mm and 50mm?

(I've also used the 55-200 which I found worked very well after editing but its lowest f stop of 4 just isnt enough for all situations )

thank you in advance for your responses

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC. First of all, would you mind clicking the "My Profile" tab at the top of this page completing the data there. We would appreciate that you fill in at least your first name and where you are from. We tend to be a fairly informal group here and go on a first name basis.

As for your lens question, I personally find the 50mm lens a touch short to do most serious portrait work on a crop-frame camera like yours, but you can certainly get away with it, especially for 3/4 or full body shots. I find I want something a bit longer for head shots or head and chest shots and when I first started off, I was shooting these with the 55-200mm lens. the f/4 maximum aperture was not really an issue, in my case. I also used the kit 18-55mm lens for some portraiture work on my crop frame camera (i.e. same crop factor as your D3200) at the 55mm focal length.

The Nikon 85mm lenses are full-frame camera lenses and are used by a lot of people for some portraiture work.

I do own a number of fixed focal length lenses (including the 35mm and 50mm Nikkors), but find the zooms give me a lot more flexibility in my work (I also have the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm Nikkors).

[Sorabh]

(Thanks for the heads up re the profile - now completed)

Thanks for your response ! - I understand the 85mm is the one to go for but it really is out of my price range for what I want to do. As the majority of my shots would be outside in good light - I think the 55-200 should fulfil my needs (at a much lower price point) especially seeing as though I heavily edit most of my ages in Photoshop anyway.

As an owner of both the 35 and 50 can you justify owning both ? The pics i take from a 35mm do have a different look to them than those taken from a 50mm. Most have been trying to convince me that all you need to do is take a step back and the 50 will behave like the 35 - but I dont think thats true...........is it?

[Sorabh]

PS I love your pics of the timber wolves! Which lens did you use?

[Shadowman]

How do you like the 55-200mm and which version did you try?

[Sorabh]

I used the VR version - I think the VR2 is lighter but not optically much superior. For the price I think its a steal and an excellent telephoto in good light.

[rpcrowe]

When I first used a 35mm film camera with interchangeable lenses it was the Leica M-2 rangefinder. I was a U.S. Navy Photographer and the Navy had purchased Leica Kits which included 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses. I tended always to use either the 35mm or the 90mm lenses and seldom shot with the 50mm.

When I purchased my first DSLR (Canon 10D), I bought the body only and added a 28-135mm IS lens. I liked shooting at or over 100mm for head and shoulder portraits.

I added a 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I (metal mount) lens but, did not use it very often. In fact, since I purchased my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, I have never used the 50mm and will sell it soon (laziness is the only reason I have not sold it by now).

Presently, my go-to portrait lens is the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I have no problems with the maximum f/4 aperture since I am not a photographer who likes exceptionally thin DOF in my dog or human portraits. Additionally, when shooting at a long focal length, f/4 will allow me to use selective focus.

[Manfred M]

As an owner of both the 35 and 50 can you justify owning both ? The pics i take from a 35mm do have a different look to them than those taken from a 50mm. Most have been trying to convince me that all you need to do is take a step back and the 50 will behave like the 35 - but I dont think thats true...........is it?

The reason that I own both is that we have the crop frame D90 (similar to your camera, with a 1.5 crop factor) and the 35mm is the "normal" lens on the crop frame camera and the 50mm lens goes on the full-frame D800 camera. I use these lenses when I want a "small" profile and don't have a huge looking lens when I wander around.

No, the 35mm will not behave like the 50mm if you step back. The angle of view of both lenses on different. If you frame your subject at the same size, the 35mm lens will show more background (and conversely the the 50mm lens would show less).

[Manfred M]

PS I love your pics of the timber wolves! Which lens did you use?

Nikkor f/4 - f/5.6 80-400mm VR (original version).

[Sorabh]

Perfect - answered what I wanted to know perfectly.

thanks friend

[MrB]

Should I sell my 35mm and just buy a cheap 18-55 kit lens for landscapes and casual family photos? or keep both the 35mm and 50mm?

If you would like to consider a good standard zoom lens, and cost is a factor, have a look at the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD, at around £250 or less. It is well regarded:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...ron175028d7000

Cheers.
Philip

[DanK]

Have you considered the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? It lacks VR, but it is optically very good, particularly on a crop sensor (which crops off the slightly soft corners). It would give you a wide range of classic portrait focal lengths. When I shot with a (Canon) crop sensor camera, that was the lens I used for probably 85% of my photographs of people. (I do candids, not formal portraits.) And it is relatively cheap. I just looked on Amazon UK, and they have in on special for 312 pounds.

[Sorabh]

Have you considered the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? It lacks VR, but it is optically very good, particularly on a crop sensor (which crops off the slightly soft corners). It would give you a wide range of classic portrait focal lengths. When I shot with a (Canon) crop sensor camera, that was the lens I used for probably 85% of my photographs of people. (I do candids, not formal portraits.) And it is relatively cheap. I just looked on Amazon UK, and they have in on special for 312 pounds.

Thanks mate. That's definitely food for thought. Have you heard of the sigma 50-150 2.8. I found a guy on eBay selling it for 180 but it was the version 1 model with no VR. Apparently it has some focus issues too.... But that's the ideal zoom range I would love to have.

[Sorabh]

Have you considered the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? It lacks VR, but it is optically very good, particularly on a crop sensor (which crops off the slightly soft corners). It would give you a wide range of classic portrait focal lengths. When I shot with a (Canon) crop sensor camera, that was the lens I used for probably 85% of my photographs of people. (I do candids, not formal portraits.) And it is relatively cheap. I just looked on Amazon UK, and they have in on special for 312 pounds.

Cheers mate. I did consider it but the focal points I find myself shooting at most are 35 50-55 and 135. Considering I can get the two primes 35 and 50 each for £100 I didn't think this lens would be worth it ...

[Dave Humphries]

No, the 35mm will not behave like the 50mm if you step back. The angle of view of both lenses on different. If you frame your subject at the same size, the 35mm lens will show more background (and conversely the the 50mm lens would show less).

I get what you mean Manfred, but is Sorabh then crops in PP (the D3200 is a 24 MP camera), so the subject fills the frame (giving the same angle of view) as if shot with 50mm from the same camera-to-subject distance, the result will be (almost*) identical.

* Of course, you will be losing (MP) resolution on the subject, plus I suspect there may be a slight difference in measurable DoF and/or background blur, but I doubt it would be noticed in the real world (unless side-by-side comparison is done). Good PP techniques (especially sharpening for size of image displayed/printed) will be far, far more decisive to final image quality.


I own both 50mm (which I got first) and 35mm lenses - I got the (very cheap) 35mm because in use, I found the 50mm too narrow an angle of view when shooting 'small group' candids at a party.

I was concerned that even buying the 35mm after the 50mm, it was too close in focal length to 50mm to be worth while; ideally I would have preferred something around 28 to 30mm focal length (at f/1.8 or f/2 and fast auto-focussing), but the cost of those lenses compared to the 35mm, given my only occasional need for it, made the choice (for me).

If I had got the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 first, I really doubt I would have ever bought the 50mm prime.

Before I go I'll just say; welcome to Sorabh to the CiC forums from me, Dave

[Sorabh]

I get what you mean Manfred, but is Sorabh then crops in PP (the D3200 is a 24 MP camera), so the subject fills the frame (giving the same angle of view) as if shot with 50mm from the same camera-to-subject distance, the result will be (almost*) identical.

* Of course, you will be losing (MP) resolution on the subject, plus I suspect there may be a slight difference in measurable DoF and/or background blur, but I doubt it would be noticed in the real world (unless side-by-side comparison is done). Good PP techniques (especially sharpening for size of image displayed/printed) will be far, far more decisive.


I own both 50mm (which I got first) and 35mm lenses - I got the (very cheap) 35mm because in use, I found the 50mm too narrow an angle of view when shooting 'small group' candids at a party.

I was concerned that even buying the 35mm after the 50mm, it was too close in focal length to 50mm to be worth while, and ideally I would have really preferred something around 28 to 30mm (at f/1.8 or f/2 and fast auto-focussing), but the cost of those lenses compared to the 35mm, given my only occasional need for it, made the choice.

If I had got the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 first, I really doubt I would have bought the 50mm prime.

Before I go I'll just say; welcome to Sorabh to the CiC forums from me, Dave

Cheers Dave, for the welcome and for the advice!

It's what's been worrying me too. I bought the 35mm first because I thought it would be more handy (taking shots indoors, parties, celebrations) and generally taking pics of friends/family when travelling. I have to admit at f4 it's very similar to the 18-55 kit lens but the max aperture of the kit lens is limited by only going up to 3.5 and it's useless in low light/golden hour time (my fav time) so I guess this cheap £100 lens was a must for me.

I would like to take more portrait shots now and 'fill the frame' so to speak. I understand what you say about cropping but I don't really want to crop - I just want a crisp image with the subjects face -waist filling the shot. I cant do this on the 35mm without some type of distortion. Plus I think the bokeh on the 50mm is a bit nicer.

Right now im really considering two options:

1. Option 1 - buying a 50mm prime and a 55-200mm (both costing around £180 in total)

OR

2. Option 2 - buying a used sigma 50mm-150mm f2.8 non IS version (costing around £200-£220)

Not sure what to do - but inching towards option 1. Especially considering the sigma is quite heavy, a very old lens and doesnt have VR.

thanks !

[tclune]

The Sigma 50-150 is an extraordinary portrait lens, with or without OS. The other choice is a couple of OK lenses. The only worry I would have in opting for the Sigma is that there were a lot of mis-centered lenses produced by Sigma on that design. Assuming that it is a good copy (big assumption), the Sigma is a much better choice to my mind. If you can readily return it if one side is out-of-focus, I'd say get the Sigma. FWIW

[Manfred M]

I get what you mean Manfred, but is Sorabh then crops in PP (the D3200 is a 24 MP camera), so the subject fills the frame (giving the same angle of view) as if shot with 50mm from the same camera-to-subject distance, the result will be (almost*) identical.

I also know what you mean, Dave. The issue with portraiture on the 35mm lens is that to fill the frame, one often has to get so close to the subject that we start seeing distortion in the face (long nose, large mouth) and if one steps back a bit to correct this, then the scene gets too much background. I find that if I have enough space, I will shoot a longer lens to flatten out the shot. On the D800 I use a 105mm lens where others might go to the 85mm one.

I own both 50mm (which I got first) and 35mm lenses - I got the (very cheap) 35mm because in use, I found the 50mm too narrow an angle of view when shooting 'small group' candids at a party.

Agreed - for a group shot the 50mm is probably going to be too long and depending on the size of the group, even the 35mm might be too long. We are getting into scenarios where a wider angle zoom, like the 18-55mm might be a better choice as getting focal lengths of around 24mm (36mm FF equivalent) might be a more appropriate.

If I had got the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 first, I really doubt I would have ever bought the 50mm prime.

Agreed. I can't remember ever shooting the 50mm lens on the D90, but do pop it on the D800 when I want to be less obtrusive in a "family" setting. If I were shooting with the D90, I do the same thing with the 35mm lens.

[Mike Buckley]

If I had got the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 first, I really doubt I would have ever bought the 50mm prime.

I bought the Nikon 35mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 and have wished for a 50mm lens only in some rare, very specific situations in my makeshift studio. If my makeshift studio had been less makeshift, I wouldn't have ever had that wish. I still have no plans to buy a 50mm lens.