35mm or 50mm? - the age old question

[narsuitus]

35mm or 50mm?

I prefer the 35mm.



Rangefinder by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[destroya]

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

 

[Agulliver]

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.

 

[cliveh]

50mm gives a view similar to the human eye, but for street photography I do find I want to get more into the frame.

But more is less.

 

[LAG]

35mm or 50mm? - the age old question . What would you do?

Without "justified reasons" and forgetting that there are many factors involved to give you a figure: 35

 

[Greg Heath]

35mm Fast . it's simple.

 

[Ces1um]

But more is less.

isn't it less is more?

 

[cliveh]

isn't it less is more?

The equation works both ways, but from a grammatical point of view you are correct.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

No... it's more is more. I want more more MORE!! More of what... I'm not sure.

 

[carlostaiwan]

while we at it, what would you consider to be the best 50 or 35 for the F100 (AF lenses only please)? Thanks

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

 

[flavio81]

No... it's more is more. I want more more MORE!! More of what... I'm not sure.

I can relate to that feeling. I own about 6 35mm lenses even though i am not a fan of that angle of view...

 

[faberryman]

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.

 

[kivis]

40 mm?

 

[Ces1um]

40 mm?

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[EdColorado]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

keep in mind that the 43-86mm





Nikkor zoom is a real lemon optically

 

[RichardJack]

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.

 

[faberryman]

I've been using a 28-48mm f4 recently. Eliminates the question.

 

[rthollenbeck]

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.

 

[flavio81]

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".

Tele zooms are another matter; they have started to be designed earlier than wide zooms.

 

[destroya]

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.

 

[flavio81]

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.

 

[mynewcolour]

40 mm?

Yes!

 

[Alan Gales]

Every time I have the 35mm on, I run into Bigfoot or a bear.

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?