35mm or 50mm? - the age old question
-
A
- Thread starter Odot
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
i shoot nikon. I never found a nikon 35mm prime that i thought was worth the price so i passed on them. if i needed a 35mm i shot my 35-70 2.8d and it was great for a zoom but not prime quality. still it let me frame, when i brought it, to see what 35mm looked like. there was some difference for me between 35 and 28, but i then took a few steps towards my target to simulate 35mm framing if it was possible.
50mm lenses are a different story. I have too many of them. many camera bodies i bought or was given over the years had 50mm primes with them. seemed they were used as body caps as they came free with the camera. so i owned 8 at one point. from a non-ai 1.8 prime all the way to the plastic 1.8d lens (which is a great lens and the best new lens bargin in the nikon system). all were very high quality and unless I enlarged a 35mm shot up to say 16x20 it was nearly impossible for me to tell which was which lens. even the 1.8 e series lens, the good long nose version, is great. last year i was digging thru my dads old telescope case and found the e lens unused still in the box, so brand new. used it and was amazed at the quality it gives. 50mm lenses are very simply to make so they can give amazing results when needed and care is taken when shooting. since they are so cheap get one and if its not for you then you could probably pass it along for what you paid for it.
i did finally buy a 35mm lens for my nikons. the rokonin 35mm 1.4 MF lens. best 35mm lens i have ever used on a nikon system. its not auto focus but it is chipped so you can get focus confirm on the f100 and n80 (which cant use manual focus lenses) as well as allowing matrix metering, which i use when shooting chromes. its cheap but its very large so it does not get used as much as i tend to use 35mm as a "fits in the pockets of my cargo pants/shorts system" for walking around sort of thing
50mm lenses are a different story. I have too many of them. many camera bodies i bought or was given over the years had 50mm primes with them. seemed they were used as body caps as they came free with the camera. so i owned 8 at one point. from a non-ai 1.8 prime all the way to the plastic 1.8d lens (which is a great lens and the best new lens bargin in the nikon system). all were very high quality and unless I enlarged a 35mm shot up to say 16x20 it was nearly impossible for me to tell which was which lens. even the 1.8 e series lens, the good long nose version, is great. last year i was digging thru my dads old telescope case and found the e lens unused still in the box, so brand new. used it and was amazed at the quality it gives. 50mm lenses are very simply to make so they can give amazing results when needed and care is taken when shooting. since they are so cheap get one and if its not for you then you could probably pass it along for what you paid for it.
i did finally buy a 35mm lens for my nikons. the rokonin 35mm 1.4 MF lens. best 35mm lens i have ever used on a nikon system. its not auto focus but it is chipped so you can get focus confirm on the f100 and n80 (which cant use manual focus lenses) as well as allowing matrix metering, which i use when shooting chromes. its cheap but its very large so it does not get used as much as i tend to use 35mm as a "fits in the pockets of my cargo pants/shorts system" for walking around sort of thing
50mm gives a view similar to the human eye, but for street photography I do find I want to get more into the frame. 35mm works very well for this.
28mm is a bit too wide angle for my tastes in street photography unless you want to get up close to the subject.
That said, on a recent trip to London which included photographing Christmas lights, I used a 21mm lens but I wouldn''t have used this in daylight on the street.
28mm is a bit too wide angle for my tastes in street photography unless you want to get up close to the subject.
That said, on a recent trip to London which included photographing Christmas lights, I used a 21mm lens but I wouldn''t have used this in daylight on the street.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,525
- Format
- 35mm RF
But more is less.
Without "justified reasons" and forgetting that there are many factors involved to give you a figure: 35
35mm Fast . it's simple.
isn't it less is more?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,525
- Format
- 35mm RF
isn't it less is more?
The equation works both ways, but from a grammatical point of view you are correct.
No... it's more is more. I want more more MORE!! More of what... I'm not sure.
Definitely 50mm f1.8d, cheap, sharp and reliable. If you feel that you need something wider later you can invest in the 35mm but the 50mm i consider it a no brainer
I can relate to that feeling. I own about 6 35mm lenses even though i am not a fan of that angle of view...
I shoot primarily 24/40/85. I never warmed up to the 28mm, but if it is your favorite focal length, then adding a 50mm makes more sense than a 28/35 pair.
40 mm?
+1
28mm versus 35mm for street photography is a matter of taste. For photography in general, the 28mm and 50mm combination is favored by many, see the quotes above, because the 35mm and 50mm combination are too close together.
Considering the current market for film gear I'd say try em all. The OP mentioned wanting auto focus, but even a cheap manual focus 50mm f1.8 will let him figure out if he likes the focal length. If he likes it, he sells off the MF lens and buys the AF of his choice. Want to try a 35mm, then go ahead. The capital outlay doesn't have to be too much especially when you consider that if done right, its more like borrowing if you decide you don't want it. Check prices, don't pay too much, and sell it when your done with it. I've been doing this for a while now, its a fun way to try different gear and if done carefully its nearly self sustaining.
And in keeping with the tone of the thread... I prefer wide's but find a 24 and 35mm to be my favorites. I rarely put a 50mm on my cameras, I like to capture more in a scene, like our eyes do. I've recently been moving even wider and now have a lovely Tamron 17mm Adaptall 2 lens to use on my various bodies. Not an easy focal length to shoot with, but a fun exercise.
And in keeping with the tone of the thread... I prefer wide's but find a 24 and 35mm to be my favorites. I rarely put a 50mm on my cameras, I like to capture more in a scene, like our eyes do. I've recently been moving even wider and now have a lovely Tamron 17mm Adaptall 2 lens to use on my various bodies. Not an easy focal length to shoot with, but a fun exercise.
The age old answer is probably different than years ago. Most pro Zooms are often better than primes in the 28-50mm range. Buy a good f2.8 24-70 or similar and be done with it.
In the past I probably used my 35mm more often for street photography and vacation than my 50.
In the past I probably used my 35mm more often for street photography and vacation than my 50.
I've been using a 28-48mm f4 recently. Eliminates the question.
50mm lenses may not seem exotic to the purchaser because they are the standard lens and therefor are common. For more time than not zooms were not commonly available at inexpensive prices. Everyone had a 50 for the most part. A purchaser may not have ever got around to getting another lens even if they bought a camera with interchangeable lenses.
Let's not forget:
1) 50s are almost always the most corrected and perfected lenses in any 35mm system.
2) Great images were taken with cameras that did not offer interchangeable lenses.
Let's not forget:
1) 50s are almost always the most corrected and perfected lenses in any 35mm system.
2) Great images were taken with cameras that did not offer interchangeable lenses.
In the 28 to 35 focal lengths they are not better than pro primes or even very good quality primes. Not better if you consider not only sharpness but freedom from lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberrations, freedom from distortion, uniform performance at all distances, focus shift and (last but not least) good "bokeh".
Tele zooms are another matter; they have started to be designed earlier than wide zooms.
well i have the older nikon 35-70 2.8d zoom lens, and i found it to be better than any of the nikon 35 primes i tried out (I tried 4 of them). your results may differ. I have an 11x14 fiber print hanging in my hall from a roll of tri-x taken with that lens, developed in d76. the print is very sharp, with little grain (stll surprises me that tri-x and d76 could be that sharp and grain free). A friend insists I'm lying and that i used a prime lens with tmax 100 for the neg.
The 35-70/2.8 is a very good zoom lens but not perfect, and i would really like to check out which 4 nikon 35mm primes you used as a comparison. Please don't take this into offence, quite the opposite: I'm thinking about buying another Nikkor 35mm.
I have the PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 and it is tack sharp even on the corners wide open at f2.8, shows no distortion and no visible abberations in general, which is something that i doubt the nice 35-70/2.8D would achieve.
Yes!
There have been quite a few sitings of Big Foot in Hazelwood. In fact I have seen Big Foot there myself. It seems Big Foot has moved to Pacific though. Still not too far from my house.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_56170f11-d387-55a8-b6cc-2cb351182e17.html
Plenty of bears at the St. Louis Zoo. What kind do you like?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |