Prime Lens: 35mm or 50mm?

[Nobie]

I've also tested the differences with 50mm via different lenses. You can see my three lenses in my sig, only the 18-70mm was a kit lens. The quality went how you are probably already thinking. The best was the 50mm 1.4, followed by the 24-120mm, and the kit lens rounding out the bottom. I haven't compared my 1.4 to a 1.8, but I went for the 1.4 because I wanted the fastest AF lens Nikon made. Will I see it, feel it in the field?...who knows. I guess I would have to have both the 1.4 and a 1.8 with me at the next concert, but I can rest my mind knowing it doesn't get any faster than what I have (for AF Nikon at least).

As far as the original poster mentioning the bathtub shots, funny indeed. I always have to put on my least favorite lens, the kit lens, when taking bathtub shots for the same reasons mentioned. I need the 18mm (27mm actual) to get the full tub. However, I'd still rather have my 50mm (75mm actual) vs. a 35mm. I know the eye is roughly a 45mm, but the 50/75mm I get with the 1.4 just seems much more natural to me when using. Who knows, maybe I have freakish eyes and see 65mm...because that's what it seems like.

[timspix]

I just picked up a 50mm and it is great for low light shooting, and portraits where you have plenty of room. The shallow depth of field is great. For everything else I us a Tamron 18-200mm 3.5 -6.3.

I have a Nikon D200 and D50.

[Nobie]

If it helps you, I just started a "50mm Only" thread where you can see the versatility of the "nifty fifty":

50mm Prime only challenge thread

[GEli]

If you have the light, there is little appreciable quality differences between the FA f/1.4 50mm and the DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lense when both are stopped down to their sweet spots. The current Pentax kit lense is a remarkable piece for the price. The faster lense is of course better for low light simply by the nature of its design - the kit lense is not a low light lense and doing a comparison between it and a lense designed for low light is rather pointless.

As for whether to get the 35mm or the 50mm, you should really know what you want before you buy it. Use the kit lense and get the prime version of whatever focal length you use most. As wulf has mentioned, this doesn't give you experience with a fast lense, but I would argue that that doesn't matter at all. If you are simply deciding between getting a fast 35mm and a fast 50mm, the fact that the kit lense offers slow versions of both means that the only qualitative difference you experience will be the kind of compositional choices those specific focal lengths afford you - which is precisely what you want when deciding which focal length you prefer.

When you do eventually settle on a length, go here and read reviews for any lenses you consider buying. You will most assuredly make you avoid any duds if you follow those reviews. You might consider a combo of a slower, macro 50mm (FA 50mm f/2.8 macro is a superb lense) and a fast 35mm (something like a FA* 31mm f/1.8 if you've got the cash), but that's more my ideal setup than any advise tailored to your specific situation .

[MikeM]

My continued thanks for your comments.

I'll be sure to check out the Pentax reviews.

Have any of you compared the Pentax primes? i.e. 50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.7, 35 f/2, etc.?

[junesix]

Mike Johnston at Luminous Landscape ranked all the 50mm lenses including the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.7 lenses here. He ranked the f/1.7 just one notch higher than the 50mm f/1.4 lens. However, realize that the f/1.7 lens is only commonly available in the A and M used manual focus versions. The f/1.4 however is available in the autofocus FA version. Since this is your first SLR, I recommend getting the new FA autofocus version.

Regarding the 50mm f/1.4, I've owned this lens and I have to say that it's amazingly fast and produces the most dreamy bokeh of any lens I've owned. Pictures come out super sharp and the large aperture means you can take pictures in low light without flash. For example, in this photo of a taco, the restaurant was actually darker than it appears in the photo. It's got that much light-gathering ability! That should also give you an idea of how razor-thin the depth of field is at f/1.4. The total area in focus is barely an inch or two - everything in front and behind of the center of that taco is already out of focus. Colors are extremely vivid and contrasty and something about the glass or the coating gives photos a warm tone which is great for portraits. If there's any criticism, it's that it gets soft wide open (ie. not so sharp when shooting things far away though this is rather common with super-fast lenses), the autofocus hunts a bit in low light, and there is some chromatic aberration in bright areas (that slight purplish ring around really white spots). Regardless, I think for the amazing performance at this price, it's hard to beat and I highly recommend it for a starter lens.

As for the 35mm, I haven't used it but based on everything I've read, it's also a magnificent piece of glass. The 35mm focuses a bit quicker, is very usable wide open, and doesn't exhibit the CA of the 50mm. The tradeoff is the slower aperture (reduced low light performance) and more importantly, that warm, dreamy tone and bokeh characteristic of the 50mm. And of course, the 35mm is a wider angle lens so if you like shooting landscapes and architecture, you may prefer it whereas the 50mm is more of a portrait length lens.

Overall, I think the 50mm is a much better bargain when you consider that it's $100 less than the 35mm. If you're not afraid to try a manual lens, then the 50mm f/1.7 is the best bargain of them all.

[GEli]

Well, for the price I would call the 50 f/1.7 a better value. They can be had for around $40 as opposed to the ~$200 most 50 f/1.4s are. Of course you also lose AF, which is a rather handy thing to have, so depending on your budget and your fondness of manually focusing either will work. They're both very similarly sharp (tack sharp with ever so slight softness when wide open). I settled on the FA f/1.4 because the used market for Pentax glass in my town is terrible and shipping in old lenses tended to remove any cost benefit to buying old glass. (Asking this question on a Pentax specific forum is one of the few ways guaranteed to start a fight that's sure to end in at least 3 bannings ).

As for 35mm, I've only played with the newer lenses at local camera stores so I can't really comment on older versions. The FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited is gorgeous but huge and expensive, while the more affordable FA 35mm f/2 is not as well made (plastic and such) but still produces very nice images.

[Andrew122]

I use the kit and 50/1.4 for my k10d and I think it satisfies me well enough not to bother with another lens in this range. I may need some telephoto later for sports.

50/1.4 is just excellent for low light indoors shooting including portraits. And the kit serves well outdoors when there is enough natural light.

[MikeM]

Originally Posted by GEli

Well, for the price I would call the 50 f/1.7 a better value. They can be had for around $40 as opposed to the ~$200 most 50 f/1.4s are.

I haven't seen the 1.7 A (not M) for less than $70. Got any secret places with great deals on them?

[GEli]

Originally Posted by MikeM

I haven't seen the 1.7 A (not M) for less than $70. Got any secret places with great deals on them?

I've seen them at the Marketplace on PentaxForums.com for around $40. I've also seen quite a few local places (pawn shops, private sellers) selling for around that price. The average price according to a slew of reviews at PentaxForums.com lense review section indicates that the A series 50mm f/1.7 goes for an average of $48 and the M series at $38. A better question may be 'Where are you shopping where all the 50mm f/1.7s are so terribly overpriced?'