Prime Lens: 35mm or 50mm?

[MikeM]

I just ordered a new Pentax K10D kit.

I'm planning on getting a fast prime lens for it some time soon.

A 50mm f/1.8 lens goes for around $200 (I think the f/1.4 isn't much more), while the 35mm f/2 is about $300.

For me, a fast lens is especially attractive for low-light indoor work. I'm wondering if I will be too limited by the effective 75mm length of the 50mm lens and would be better suited with the ~50mm effective of the 35. Indoors, its much easier to get closer than it is to back farther away.

I suppose it would be no contest if the 35mm didn't cost 50% more. So bottom line, is it worth it? What are your experiences with these types of lenses?

[RexK_Cozumel]

You might want to check on the price of the 1.4 as opposed to the 1.8 I know for nikon there is a big price difference between the two. That being said the 50 is a nice lens cause it is cheap but really depending on the size of the rooms you are thinking about shooting in the 35mm might be better suited for your purposes. I am sure the image quality of both of them are pretty good.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by RexK_Cozumel

You might want to check on the price of the 1.4 as opposed to the 1.8 I know for nikon there is a big price difference between the two. That being said the 50 is a nice lens cause it is cheap but really depending on the size of the rooms you are thinking about shooting in the 35mm might be better suited for your purposes. I am sure the image quality of both of them are pretty good.

Pentax doesn't currently make a cheap 50mm f/1.8. But their f/1.4 is cheaper than Nikon or Canon's and just as good.

To answer the original question, though, the answer is "it depends".

35mm will give you a nice "normal" focal length, good for all sorts of general photography. 50mm on a 1.5× crop sensor ends up being a very nice close portrait length. You probably really want both, actually.

Just to throw some more confusion into things: the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited is also a beautiful lens. One or two stops slower than the above lenses, of course, but it's nice and sharp wide open.

Additionally, there's a new 55mm and 30mm on the lens roadmap — the 55mm for this summer and the 30mm in the unspecified future (next summer?). These are ★ lenses, which means they'll have ultrasonic focus motors (SDM) and weather sealing. The max aperture for the 30mm isn't known yet, but it's presumed to be fast. Probably these will be expensive, but worth keeping in mind.

[MikeM]

Then again I could also pick up a used manual focus 50mm 1.7 for around $100.

I think I'm going to be persuaded by price at this point at get the 50 1.4 (just checked, only $200 at bhphotovideo). That is unless someone convinces me that I'll be utterly dissatisfied with the longer focal length.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by MikeM

I think I'm going to be persuaded by price at this point at get the 50 1.4 (just checked, only $200 at bhphotovideo). That is unless someone convinces me that I'll be utterly dissatisfied with the longer focal length.

You won't be. It's a good focal length. It is, however, not going to get you the whole scene — just details.

[ianmdesign]

I have a 50 1.4 and i love it...granted i shoot a canon but it is still a crop body. Don't get me wrong at times i wish it was a little wider and there are times where i wish it was tighter. Overall I'm glad i got it because it works great in low light, its super sharp, has great brokah, light, and is fun to use.

[WooD]

I got a Nikon 50 1.8 for CHRISTmas. I love the lens, but if I'd have had a choice. I'd have picked the Nikon 35 f/2.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by MikeM

Then again I could also pick up a used manual focus 50mm 1.7 for around $100.

That might not be a bad option. Fast glass means a minimal depth of field at the open end unless you are quite a distance from your subject, so it is often easier to set the focus yourself rather than relying on the camera to select the right point to make sharp (and, certainly on my lenses, those designed for manually focusing make the job much easier than the tiny focus ring on the kit lens).

The other advantage is that it is much cheaper. If you really like it, you come out ahead; if you decide that you do want the auto-focus ability you are not too far down and will have a much better idea of whether 50mm or 30mm will best meet your needs.

Wulf

[essjay]

I picked up a 50mm 1.8 a while back (for my canon) and I love it. Providing you know what you're getting into, and use it appropriately, it's a great lens to have in your arsenal.

[MikeM]

Originally Posted by WooD

I got a Nikon 50 1.8 for CHRISTmas. I love the lens, but if I'd have had a choice. I'd have picked the Nikon 35 f/2.

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


Wulf:

That's not a bad idea, especially considering the state of my budget. What I'm really after is a fast lens and that definitely fits the bill.