Which Lens is Better for D5000 ? (AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D or AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G) ?

[bhanu_ls]

I have D5000 DX body and planning to buy a fast lens. i'm stuck to choose between "AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D" and "AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens",
i was quiet leaning towards 50mm f/1.4D as i had plans to upgrade to FX camera body next year. But now lost interest in upgrading to FX body.. willing to wait for good Mirror-less camera with bigger than CX sensor to come from Nikon, which i think might be around 2 yrs more wait.

So my Confusion now is, to get good image quality and sharpness (for portraits and closeups) thro my DX body, which lens shall i choose from above two ?! as the picture angle is 31° 30′ in 50mm for DX body and 44° in 35mm. but the lens construction is better in 35mm

my main concern is image quality and sharpness (AUTO FOCUS AF-S is not a concern for me i guess ?! even thou some say 50mm if hard to focus manually ) .... any Help appreciated. Thank you

[OsmosisStudios]

You'll have a hard time focusing manually at f/1.4 if youre not very used to it. I'd say go another route: AF-S 50mm f/1.8G

[Doug Sundseth]

All three lenses are very sharp. For a portrait lens, I'd probably go with one of the 50s (and probably the 50mm f/1.8G for the reason previously noted) because a short telephoto is often more flattering than a "normal" lens.

Note that none of the lenses you are talking about is a macro lens, so if by "closeup" you mean "macro", you'll need another lens for that.

Either the Micro 60mm f/2.8G or Micro 85mm f/3.5G works very well as a macro lens and the focal lengths work well for flattering portraits. I'll note though that both require a bit of space to shoot in if you want more than head shots.

[ccting]

I agree with Doug where 60mm micro f/2.8 will be good for both portrait and MICRO (2 in 1) is better than 50mm f/1.8 G. I also agree with Osmosis where you should go for 50mm f/1.8g instead of f/1.4 because 50mm f/1.8g is newer than f/1.4 and has some improvement...

If i am not mistaken 50mm f/1.8G has fastest autofocus, 35mm f/1.8g slower a bit. 50 f/1.4 is 2 times slower than 50 f/1.8. My brother bought 50 afs 1.8g because of its low price. The focusing will take some dust into the lens and that's why you need lens protector.....

35mm f/1.8 however, is much sharper than 50mm f/1.8; 50mm f/1.8g is sharper than 50mm f/1.4g
For low-light, i believe 35mm is more suitable than 50mm. The reasoning is f/1.8 @50mm has too shallow DOF @ short distance..

One thing to note is, 50mm needs 58mm proctector while 35mm stick to 52mm protector, and you can reuse your UV filter from ur kit lens for the 35mm but not 50mm lens.

Forget about AFD, our entry level camera does not have motor to autofocus.. that's why i hate my D5100.... U just need to spend more money on lenses.. Unless you are a hardcore photographer like Grace..who likes manual focus.. (i never get sharp images with manual focus..as I am wearing spec..)

If I am you , i will buy 60mm micro f/2.8 for 2 purpose: Portrait and product shooting. Consider Tamron 60mm f/2.0 ;D and tell me how it performs.. ;D

Finally, these info is come from secondary source, and take ur own risk to believe the statements.

[Madog]

I'll second Osmosis on the 50 1.8g. If "closeup" means "macro" as Doug said and the 60 or 85 he mentioned are too long, you could try the new 40 2.8 AF-S DX Micro.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by ccting

The focusing will take some dust into the lens and that's why you need lens protector.....

No, you don't. All my lenses are left without filters and none have dust in them that shouldnt be there. That's pure paranoia.

Originally Posted by ccting

35mm f/1.8 however, is much sharper than 50mm f/1.8; 50mm f/1.8g is sharper than 50mm f/1.4g

Is it? Here's a DPReview breakdown for the 35/1.8G vs 50/1.4G. They haven't done the 59/1.8G yet, but...

Here are the MTF curves for the 35/1.8G, 50/1.8G, and 50/1.4G

What do we see? Because the 50mm lenses are tested on FX and not DX, you have to cut the graph around x=15 mark, and the 50/1.4 is shown at f/1.4 and not f/1.8, we see that the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are essentially identical, but the 50/1.4 is better. Play with the DPreview link above and you'll see that it sharpens right up at f/2, jumping well above the 35/50 lenses

Originally Posted by ccting

For low-light, i believe 35mm is more suitable than 50mm. The reasoning is f/1.8 @50mm has too shallow DOF @ short distance..

This statement is baffling. Purely baffling. A 50mm lens, at the same aperture, with have a slightly shallower DoF than a 35mm lens at the same aperture, yes, but how does that make it more suitable for low-light? The only way that would be applicable is that because the lenses have the same aperture you'll end up wit hthe same shutter speed and it's therefore possible to handhold the 35mm at 1/40th instead of 1/50th or 1/60th of the 50mm. That said, Ive handheld a 50mm lens at 1/20th with excellent results.

Originally Posted by ccting

Forget about AFD, our entry level camera does not have motor to autofocus.. that's why i hate my D5100.... U just need to spend more money on lenses.. Unless you are a hardcore photographer like Grace..who likes manual focus.. (i never get sharp images with manual focus..as I am wearing spec..)

For the nth time, your issues with your D5100 (and your complete inability to do a modicum of research) are yours and yours alone; dont project them onto others.

Originally Posted by Madog

I'll second Osmosis on the 50 1.8g. If "closeup" means "macro" as Doug said and the 60 or 85 he mentioned are too long, you could try the new 40 2.8 AF-S DX Micro.

This is another option: you lose 1 stop on the max aperture, but it's a nice compromise and gives you macro capabilities as well