Is it worth buying a 35mm lens?

[kmchristie23]

When I'm not shooting family photos for clients, all of my pictures are of my kids. My 2 most frequently used lenses are my 50mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm. I have a hard time getting indoor shots of my kids using the 50mm, because our play spaces aren't that big. But, I LOVE the quality shots I get as opposed to the 18-55. Is it worth spending $200 for the 35mm, or just use the 18-55 when we are indoors playing?

[homank76]

Are you sure that the 35mm would be wide enough for you? I would take your kit lens and see if it would be, if it is, than yes get it as it's a great lens. If it turns out that it's not wide enough, which it may not by I would take the money and invest it into a descent flash.

[dlambert]

Interesting. There are a couple threads going on right now about wide primes for landscapes -- I'm looking for something wider that's got the same sharpness of the 50. I've seen recommendations including the 17-40 f/4 L and 17-55 f/2.8, too, and I've got a friend who swears by (not at) the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

[PaulVI]

Consider the even wider 28mm f/1.8 around $350. It's better than the 35mm in terms of angle of view and in sharpness. (Search my profile for a thread regarding the 35mm. Someone suggested the 28mm to me, and linked a comparison.)

Or, for $20, you could get Dr. Kobre's Lightscoop to use with your 18-55mm, provided that you have low-enough ceilings to bounce your on-camera flash.

I have both, but I use my 28mm more often, by far. It's great indoors. It may well be what you're looking for.

[inkista]

Paul, I think the OP shoots Nikon. She's probably talking about the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8, not the Canon EF 35mm f/2.

The 35 might be worth it, but if you're using a flash, you can probably get away with the 18-55. The 50mm is sometimes too tight on a crop body for shooting in smaller spaces. I'd suggest using the flash and the 18-55, and then later analyze the EXIF of the shots you like afterwards, and seeing what focal lengths you were using.

Unfortunately, "worth it" means a lot of different things to different people, because budgets, usage, and preferences vary. You're the only one who can really determine if a 35mm lens is going to be worth it for what you shoot and how much you can afford to spend.

[bigben6]

i love my 35mm f/1.8 i just got, same situation as you but i do NOT have the 50mm f/1.8. IT HAS BEEN GREAT.... before i bought it i shot (@ ISO 1600) all day at 35mm and 50mm and the 35 was much more functional... still not super wide, but i have found it very very good and functional...

[PaulVI]

(Oops. Sorry about the mix-up. I was paying half-attention, reading in google reader on Android, in a restaurant!)

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by PaulVI

(Oops. Sorry about the mix-up. I was paying half-attention, reading in google reader on Android, in a restaurant!)

The OP never said one way or the other. If you weren't really familiar with lenses and prices, there is no way you could infer that she was using Nikon equipment (I'm not sure how Inkista knew ). I've made the same mistake often enough. Canon is what I shoot, so when someone uses a familiar sounding lens like the 18-55, I just automatically see "Canon". That is the main reason why I have my main gear in my sig, so nobody makes the same erroneous assumption when replying to me.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Preeb

(I'm not sure how Inkista knew ).

Inkista knows all. Do not question her awesomeness.

(In all likeliness, it was probably the price the OP mentioned: The Nikon 35/1.8 is $200, the Canon 35/2 is $330)

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Inkista knows all. Do not question her awesomeness.

(In all likeliness, it was probably the price the OP mentioned: The Nikon 35/1.8 is $200, the Canon 35/2 is $330)

That was what I figured. I'm not up on lens prices even for the Canon products, much less for Nikon.