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 or 50mm? - the age old question . What would you do?
isn't it less is more?But more is less.
isn't it less is more?![]()
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 brainerwhile we at it, what would you consider to be the best 50 or 35 for the F100 (AF lenses only please)? Thanks
No... it's more is more. I want more more MORE!! More of what... I'm not sure.
+140 mm?
I find the difference between 35 and 28mm enormous and although I have both focal lengths I prefer the the 35mm f2 for street shooting I feel the 28mm pushes the background too far away and can cause too much distortion if it's used too close up
If you already have a 28mm, go for the 50mm. You can always have it in your bag for portraits or situations in which the 28mm is too wide. plus 50mm are usually cheaper and smaller.
I usually carry the nikon 28mm f2.8 ai, and the 50mm f1.4.
IMHO the 28 and 35 are too close together to make sense getting both. So I would get the 50 over the 35.
That you have had trouble with the 50 is only because you are so used to shooting with the much wider 28. Spend a few weeks shooting with just the 50, and your eye and brain will get used to it and it will get easier. The tighter angle of the 50 makes it easier to be selective in the subject, rather than the wide scene of the 28.
Alternatively, I used a 'normal zoom;' 43-86 in the past, and 28-85 or 35-105 today with my Nikon, or a 50 prime for my OM2.
With a 24 as my wide lens for both Nikon and Olympus.
I find the difference between 35 and 28 significant. However a 50 would be the best companion for your 28.
keep in mind that the 43-86mmIMHO the 28 and 35 are too close together to make sense getting both.
So I would get the 50 over the 35.
That you have had trouble with the 50 is only because you are so used to shooting with the much wider 28.
Spend a few weeks shooting with just the 50, and your eye and brain will get used to it and it will get easier.
The tighter angle of the 50 makes it easier to be selective in the subject, rather than the wide scene of the 28.
Alternatively, I used a 'normal zoom;' 43-86 in the past, and 28-85 or 35-105 today with my Nikon, or a 50 prime for my OM2.
With a 24 as my wide lens for both Nikon and Olympus.
Most pro Zooms are often better than primes in the 28-50mm range.
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".
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.
40 mm?
Every time I have the 35mm on, I run into Bigfoot or a bear.
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: ![]() |