Nikon camera 35mm vs 50mm

[Fantastic4]

I have been scouring blogs and stores to research which one is better and I get so overwhelmed by the details of each. I have a Nikon D5100 currently shooting with the kit lenses. I'd like to upgrade to a good lens that I can use for the majority of my shots and then eventually add a good telephoto lens. I'm not an aspiring professional. I just want to be able to take great pictures of my family, everyday events, adventures and some landscape/architecture type. When I take pics of my family I like to capture background too as I think that adds to the story vs a close up head shot. All that said do you have advise/opinions on these two lenses...or want to confuse me more with a different option!?! :/

Any tips or advise is greatly appreciated!

 

[havoc315]

Neither is "better." When I was shooting ASP-C, I used 35, 50, 85, and 135 primes. Each wonderful, each with a different use.

35mm is obviously wider. On a crop Nikon dSLR, it's the equivalent of 52mm. It will allow for fuller landscapes. Indoors, it will let you get more into the frame without running out of room to back up. That's also considered a very "natural" view -- somewhat equivalent to what you see with your eyes on a normal basis.

50mm--- On a Nikon crop dSLR, is the equivalent of 75mm. This is a much better focal length for portraits. Let's you take pictures of people without having to stand uncomfortably close (or the people being too small in the frame). It can be a better focal length for capturing fine detail.

Here is an excellent article and examples of focal length affect on portraits:
http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010...h-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/

You will notice that the best portraits were at focal lengths of 70-135mm. A 35mm lens can distort a face in unflattering ways.
But in a tight indoor space, there isn't always room for 50mm -- At least not if you are taking group shot. (And this is why zoom lenses are convenient, though often lack the quality of prime lenses).

Basically, the best answer I can give you --- Get both, lol.

 

[wiigirl]

Basically, the best answer I can give you --- Get both, lol.

 

[havoc315]

For what it's worth, I would "walk around" more often with the 35mm. But swap it for the 50 fairly often.
If you don't need the super fast aperture of a prime (1.4, 1.8 depending on the lens you are looking at), you may be well served with an improved zoom, something like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 -- It's considered a good upgrade from a kit lens at an affordable price. I used it for a while before I dropped it and broke it, lol.

 

[DSLRuser]

I have a d7000 and have both the 35mm 1.8g and the 50mm 1.4g.

The 50mm is great for everything except shots with charecters. I find the 50mm is just a little to tight when taking pictures with charecters for example. unless all you want is head shots.

the 35mm is great for those imprompt charecter pix with the kids.

I find myself keeping both of these close by.

here is my range of lenses

10-20mm sigma
35mm nikon 1.8g
50mm nikon 1.4g
55-300mm nikon

i find those 4 lenses can get most any shot I can think of.

 

[HPS3]

I would definitely get the 35 if I was only buying one. The 50 it's just not wide enough to be a carry around lens on a crop sensor. I have a 35 on a Fuji X camera and wish I would have bought the 23.

 

[Silock]

35mm is more flexible.

 

[havoc315]

OP... you have a kit lens. Try walking around for a day with it set to 35mm... and then try a day at 50mm...
Which is more appealing to you?

 

[photo_chick]

OP... no one can answer this question but you. And if your asking this question then you're probably at a place where focal length is going to boil down to field of view. Most people with crop cameras seem to prefer the field of view a 35mm gives you over the 50mm. I'm one of the others who prefers the 50mm.

Beyond field of view, you can also consider how focal length influences distance to subject which affects perspective as well as depth of field. Images shot with a 35mm and 50mm lens of the same subject with the same framing will look somewhat different.

Neither is more flexible, better, more preferable or anything else than the other. It all comes down to the aesthetic you want in your images. And no one else can answer that for you.

 

[Silock]

I think there's more flexibility with the 35mm in terms of what you can get in frame. There's just not always enough room to physically back up and capture what you want. This seems especially true given the OP's preference to get a good bit of background along with a portrait and for wanting to do some landscape/architecture. That's not to say that you can't get a lot of background with a 50, or good architectural photos, but it's going to require more room, which isn't always there.

The 50mm may force you to get creative with your shots. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing, though. Sometimes, you don't have time to be creative, especially when trying to capture a moment. And for how often people advocate "zooming with your feet," it's amazing how that option is rarely possible when you really need it to be (especially in a place with boundaries, like WDW or a zoo). That could be a good thing and a bad thing with both lenses, but with the 35mm, if you get something a bit too wide, you can always crop it down. I would consider that to be more flexible than the opposite, where you can't quite get everything you want in frame. I realize there's still depth of field to consider, but I find that to be secondary to getting good subject framing first.

Given the OP's stated preferences, I think the 35mm is the clear answer.

But good shots can be had with either.

 

[handicap18]

Of the 2 I would use the 35mm as a general purpose walk-around lens on the D5100. Back before zooms got good and became popular, the 50mm lens was the "kit" lens when buying a new film SLR. On todays crop dSLR camera's, the 30 or 35mm lens would the 50mm film lens equilivent.

I'll agree with what a few other posters said, set your kit lens to 35mm and don't touch it, only shoot from that focal length for a while, then try the same with the kit set to 50mm. That will tell you the difference.

Also, wait a little while and get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I used that lens on my D300 and LOVED it. Great image quality. Great focus. Excellent in low light. Highly recommended lens especially for the price.

 

[Fantastic4]

OP... you have a kit lens. Try walking around for a day with it set to 35mm... and then try a day at 50mm...
Which is more appealing to you?

That's a great idea thanks!


Thanks for all the input.

 

[DisneyPope14]

Adding my 2 cents...

I travel with a 24mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4. I have often wondered if I would be better off with a single 35mm.

Like all lenses they have pros and cons. I tend to favor my 50mm while in the parks. I have the hardest time while meeting characters. The 50mm isn't wide enough in most character meet and greets. Otherwise I love the 50mm.

 

[mickey2000]

Of the 2 the 35mm
My walk around lens is the 18 - 105 VR !