Nikon f1.8 50mm or 35mm

[Chris3323]

I am relatively new to photography. I received a D3000 for x-mas and at this point have been learning the ins and outs with the stock lens. I am ready now for something new, and from what I've heard these lenses are among the most popular. I was looking into the 50mm f1.8 good price at just $119. Lately I've seen the f1.8 35mm. Is the 35 worth the extra money? I am not opposed to it if it is. I guess I just don't understand the main differences. Or if anyone has a better idea please do tell.

 

[sphelps]

I'd go with the 35mm over the 50mm 1.8. The 35mm is the newer style which to me has a nicer feel and smoother and faster focusing. The 35mm is also equivalent to a 50mm full frame on your camera and you'll probably find more uses for it. Also at around $200 that is still a super cheap lens.

 

[kilroy217]

I agree with sphelps, but in addition I might suggest looking into a macro lens. For your tank, there is nothing better. I have the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR, which is not cheap, but they have other macros out there that seem more reasonable as an alternative.

 

[Chris3323]

Yeah i found out that the main thing is... and i feel dumb for overlooking it... the 35 will have autofocus motor built in while the 50mm does not. thus on my camera there will be no autofocus on the 50mm. I dream of getting a macro It is just so hard for me to spend that kind of money when I would use it for just my tank. As of now I am looking for a lens that I can still use to get great tank shots but also great other things. Thanks guys.

 

[kilroy217]

I shoot more than just my fish tank with my macro lens:

 

[Chris3323]

hmmm.... i guess i have just misunderstood what a true macro does. I assumed it was for super closeups but i guess you can use it to get good detail in somewhat close pics as well.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

hmmm.... i guess i have just misunderstood what a true macro does. I assumed it was for super closeups but i guess you can use it to get good detail in somewhat close pics as well.

Put your hand up to your face and touch your nose to the palm of your hand. You can't focus on your skin right? Lets pretend you could. Now move your hand away from your face. It comes into focus but...if you could have focused on your hand when it was touching your nose, wouldn't you expect to be able to see it further away?

A macro lens vs. a "regular lens" can focus on your skin when the palm of your hand is touching your nose. It still works if your hand isn't so close though.

 

[tyoberg]

As mentioned before, your camera won't autofocus the 50mm f/1.8. There's a new f/1.4 version that's stellar though.

I had a 35mm lens for a while and use my 50mm's more often. Mostly kids and people and such.

 

[InLimbo87]

I love both these lenses! The 50mm 1.8D is the best $100 I've ever spent on something photography related, and the 35mm is also a great bargain.

Here are a couple of samples of mine:

35mm







50mm

 

[Chris3323]

I am thinking now that I should save the $80 for something for my tank and just get the 50mm w/o autofocus. Manually doing it doesnt bother me all too much anyway.

 

[sphelps]

Might not bother you when you think about it but huge mistake IMO. $80 in photography is minuscule and to pass up a feature like auto-focus because of it makes about as much sense as not fixing your 30K car because of a $50 deductible. Perhaps for a macro lens with a larger benefit passing up the auto-focus makes sense as manual focus is a common approach for macro but for the 50 or 35mm not so much. I hardly ever use the manual focus on my 50mm. In fact I was given a 60mm MF and never used it so I bought the 50mm 1.4 and love it, use it all the time.

Also macro lenses are called macro because they can focus close enough to achieve a 1:1 ratio. The definition of macro is based on this 1:1 magnification, if you're not shooting at that particular focus point then by definition it's not really a macro. Macro lenses are still prime lenses just like non-macros and of course can be used in the same way. Think of macro as simply another feature of the lens and not the definition. They also come in a variety of focus lengths.

 

[tyoberg]

I am thinking now that I should save the $80 for something for my tank and just get the 50mm w/o autofocus. Manually doing it doesnt bother me all too much anyway.

If that's the case, consider this...

I think I'm pretty good at manual focus. In fact, I do it 99% of the time with my DSLR. The 50mm f/1.8 AF has a small, undampened focus ring--twitchy and tricky. Manual focus lenses are a lot easier to manually focus than AF lenses.

You can get a 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/2 or a 50mm f/1.8 Series E or 55mm Micro (all of these are manual focus lenses and your light meter will not work) for $40 or less. If you don't like having to chimp (shoot quick and look at the LCD to adjust the exposure if necessary), then you can sell the lens for $40. In the meantime, you'll be on the accelerated ISO-Aperture-Shutter learning curve.

A good reference for Nikon/Nikkor lenses
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html

The best resource for manual lenses on Nikon DSLRs
http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/

 

[qfrisco]

I love, love, LOVE my 35mm 1.8G! I had the 50mm 1.4G (the autofocus one) and loved it too, but ended up taking it back for the 35mm as the 50mm was a bit too long on my D60.

I use the 35mm 1.8 for FTS and fish shots, but have a dedicated macro (105mm f4 manual focus) for taking coral pics.