Prime Lens: 35mm or 50mm?

[pageta]

I have both. I got the 50/1.8 first because of price. While I was pleased with the pictures, since most of my photography is done indoors, there were certain scenes I simply couldn't take because of lack of being able to back up far enough.

For instance, bathtub pictures of my boys. I could only get one boy in the picture and so the context was always lost. I have lots of pictures of each of them laughing, but you never know why.

For Christmas I got the 35/2. I use it almost exclusively. I could take pictures of family at Christmas and get everyone in the picture, not just a couple. I never find myself needing to back up more than I can in order to capture the shot.

I also take natural light photos almost exclusively and so my aperture is almost always set at 2.0 or thereabouts. I put my camera in shutter-priority mode, set the shutter speed at 1/80 which is as slow as I can go without getting camera shake or motion blur, and then I adjust the ISO accordingly. Works like a charm.

I think you need to have a clear idea of the settings you will be taking photos in, and then decide based on that.

[MikeM]

I'm changing my mind after every post!

I was about to buy a 50mm f/2 manual focus for $70, but I think I'll shoot with the kit lens for awhile. It will cover the focal lengths of both lenses and I can see what I use most.

[WooD]

Originally Posted by MikeM

What makes you wish you had the 35? What situations do you find yourself shooting in.

The focal length wood fit my needs better than the 50, and a friend of mine has one, and its top notch.

Gotta be careful about buying a used one thou. The first ones had a probelm with grease inside the lens from the factory.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by MikeM

I was about to buy a 50mm f/2 manual focus for $70, but I think I'll shoot with the kit lens for awhile. It will cover the focal lengths of both lenses and I can see what I use most.

The only problem with that is that you don't get the experience of using a fast lens. There is a big difference between 50mm at f/5.6 on my kit lens and 50mm at f/1.8 (or stops in between) on my 50mm prime - not least in the ability to grab pictures in lower light and also the options afforded by minimal depth of field.

... which reminds me, I must try testing 50mm at f/5.6 on both lenses and compare them that way. Has anybody done experiments like that?

Wulf

[ancientsanskrit]

I, too had the kit lens and then went on to purchase a 50 f/1.8.

As Wulf stated, the prime lens is a world of difference in lower light situation coupled with the faster lens; it is quite a difference.

Depending on manufacturer I would first try out the 50mm lens. While I enjoy Canon's 'nifty-fifty,' for the price (purchased for around $35--they usually go for $60-75 in the used market) you just can't go wrong. However, AF issues and pentagonal bokeh had me itching for a Carl Zeiss f/1.7 Contax w/ adapter as a full-time manual. I got the chance to try this lens out on my 1.6X crop Rebel XT, and let's just say while static objects came out beautifully, it was a real pain in the rear end for real-time photography. So I have dismissed this lens, and would like to test out a 50mm f/1.4. However, these lens are still quite pricey.

I found that the kit lens is dependent on manufacturer. Case in point, I absolutely loved the Nikon kit lens, but am not much a fan of Canon's version. Though, I have heard that the newer 18-55mm w/IS is quite a nice lens. I felt that when the aperture was near f/5.6, I got reasonable shots in the higher focal lengths. Never did any direct testing with the prime, though. It's a fine lens to start off with and will run laps around most P+S in my opinion.

[xxpinballxx]

WULF, funny you say that...i did just that last weekend. Boredom set in and I got out the two lenses and tested them both in a well lit area and a low light setting.
In both cases I manually focused and found the prime to be the much better shot of the two. The 18-55 kit lens came out a bit soft and the low light setting it was really inferior.
I think it showed me alot about the importance of glass. I knew good glass makes a difference but comparing the two really but the importance on good glass as oppose to getting a better camera. I was planning on a D300 or possible a D200 and a lens this spring but now and thinking along the lines of replacing my kit lens and 55-200 with some much better glass.

[Klaidas]

xxpinballxx, do you still have those test-images somewhere? and want to upload them too? :]

[WooD]

Originally Posted by xxpinballxx

WULF, funny you say that...i did just that last weekend. Boredom set in and I got out the two lenses and tested them both in a well lit area and a low light setting.
In both cases I manually focused and found the prime to be the much better shot of the two. The 18-55 kit lens came out a bit soft and the low light setting it was really inferior.
I think it showed me alot about the importance of glass. I knew good glass makes a difference but comparing the two really but the importance on good glass as oppose to getting a better camera. I was planning on a D300 or possible a D200 and a lens this spring but now and thinking along the lines of replacing my kit lens and 55-200 with some much better glass.

I did a similar test with a friends 70-300 compared to my 300 f/4. It was night and day difference. Also a thousand dollar difference. When I bought the 300 I was looking hard at Sigma's 100-300 f/4. I heard good things about the lens, and it wood be great to have the variable size, but I've also read a lot about how primes always beat out the variables in image quality.

[xxpinballxx]

i guess when the focal range is not an issue the quality can go into the actual focusing.
Thats the same I hear about primes...always a better option but for the hobbyist is really is a pain switching lenses so often.

[Usuqa]

i have a gx10 (re badged k10d) and i picked up a ka 50mm f1.7.

There is a world of difference between my 18-55, 50-200 at 50mm compared to the prime. The ability to shoot in low light without a flash, being able to isolate subjects and blur out backgrounds. I mostly shoot with the lens wide open and i just love how the photos look with a shallow DoF.

I used to have a k 55mm 1.8 but i sold it for £12 and got the ka 50mm 1.7 for £30 . If ur getting an old manual lens its worth while trying to get one with the "A" setting on the aperture ring so the lens can communicate with the camera. Its not needed but makes using the lens much easier and you have the ability to use the different modes other than Manual. If you get one without the A setting you can use the green button next to the shutter when in Manual mode ad the camera will adjust settings anyway.

When it comes to primes, you would probably want a few anyway.. 35,50,85 all make good portrait lens. 35mm for body shots, 50 for shoulder head and 85 for face from what ive been reading.

Dont be scared of using manual lens, they are alot more fun imho and make it feel like i had more to do with the photograph

heres a quick photo i took of ma uncle.

iso200 1/2000 50mm f1.7.
It has been cropped the length of the image would be about 40-50% wider.

the 50mm prime is the lens thats mostly always attached to my camera