Which one is better for 35mm or 50mm

[wasabisashimi]

My camera is a APS-C sensor, and I am a casual learner who has no money or plan to go full-frame.

I want to get myself a prime lens.

I am looking at 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8

I don't shoot low light . What i shoot is my family, kids activities, babies or dog . I also have a hotshoe flash for indoor shooting.

I am having hard time deciding. I have a walk-around lens 28-105mm which I use daily. I need a faster, and sharper lens with nice bokeh for portraits.

I hear 35mm is good all task prime, and 50mm is good portrait. I am stuck in between. Help!@

[JKam]

I was debating the same thing. Similar situation as you, casual learner..

I ended up going 35mm because it was a better "all situation" lense. I also find that more people will want it if you decide to re-sell. I also tried shooting 35mm vs 50mm on the stock lense and preferred the 35mm setting.

I'm now debating whether I should get the 85mm f1.8 for portraits haha.

[Volvoman]

It its just portraits, the 50 is a good choice. It'll give you great bokeh as well. It you had a 35, it'd give you more flexibility when shooting anything but portraits indoors. When I was deciding, I set my zoom to 35 and shot a day without changing the zoom, and then did the same with with 50mm. For me, the 50 was too restrictive indoors. I could never get a group shot. I went with the 35mm instead. The Nikon 35 is very sharp, if thats what you're referring to.

[Sky_High]

My camera is a APS-C sensor, and I am a casual learner who has no money or plan to go full-frame.

I want to get myself a prime lens.

I am looking at 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8

I don't shoot low light . What i shoot is my family, kids activities, babies or dog . I also have a hotshoe flash for indoor shooting.

I am having hard time deciding. I have a walk-around lens 28-105mm which I use daily. I need a faster, and sharper lens with nice bokeh for portraits.

35mm

[gilly]

35mm.

[AstulzerRZD]

35mm if you're a Nikon user - Canon's 28mm is miles ahead of their 35mm f/2

[insomniac]

i have both.

id say the 35mm is sharper by a tiny bit and is sooooort of better for all around. i dont notice the difference in sharpness that much. i shoot so much 50mm im really used to it now. 50mm has waaaaaay better bokeh. the 35mm has pretty rough edges its bokeh. only NICE bokeh you can get from it is if you shoot objects with it. but the 50mm would be hard to use indoors and if you want to get a lot of people into the picture.

35mm - fast, wider
50mm - better bokeh

at the end of the day its what you prefer

[Ronin]

35. 50 might be a little too long to be an all-around lens on an APS-C.

[J89]

35mm hands down, 50 is more like 75 on a full frame because of the 1.5x crop factor for Nikon. I hate my 50!!

[inv4zn]

35mm.

I had the 50 1.8 and got rid of it fairly quickly. Prime example of where the 50mm falls short is if you're sitting across the table from someone and want to take their portrait, say in a restaurant.

If you can afford it, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is excellent. There are focus issues according to the web, but my first copy was bang-on and I've been using it almost exclusively. Depending on your camera model you may have micro-focus adjustments as well.

but overall, for the APS-C, ~35mm is a much more useful focal length.

[inv4zn]

Originally Posted by insomniac

35mm - fast, wider
50mm - better bokeh

This isn't always true, as depending on the aperture design, bokeh will change.

The canon 50mm 1.8 has pretty harsh bokeh, and isn't very pleasant.

Nikon 50mm comparisons below

[wasabisashimi]

so will 35mm still produce desirable DOF with nice blurr? or do I need to go for 50mm?

I kept thinking, most of the time, i just shoot my kids (portrait style) both indoor and outdoor. I have 28-105mm, so I don't need this prime lens to become an all around lens.

I am leaning towards 35mm as many here suggested, but will 50mm give a much much better portrait /bokeh style performance?

also 50mm is cheaper

[inv4zn]

Are you using Canon or Nikon?

I'm going to assume you're comparing the Canon 35mm f/2 with the 50mm f/1.8.

Comparing the two lenses, in terms of useful focal length, the 35mm will be better, as everyone suggested. It's closer to a "normal lens", and will be more or less the focal length of what your eye sees.

Since you said you don't do low light, the difference in performance of f/2 and f/1.8 is minimal. Of the two lenses, the 50mm will give better bokeh because of it's slightly wider aperture and longer focal length, if you shoot wide open.

But that's a comparison in bokeh, and frankly when comparing 2 cheap (it is what it is lol) lenses it shouldn't really be a deciding factor.

The 50mm is cheaper, and available pretty anywhere they sell Canon gear; maybe you can go to Best Buy and pick one up, if you find it limiting, return it.

I still recommend the 30mm sigma

[Hondaracer]

You guys think the 50mm will go on sale towards Christmas?
Posted via RS Mobile

[inv4zn]

I got my 50mm 1.8 on sale at Broadway Camera for 89.99 a few years ago...but that was before the Canon price hike.

They do go onsale, ~$10 or so at most though. Try and buy used.

[wasabisashimi]

i am the odd one with sony alpha DSLR, 35mm f1.8 = 250$ while 50mm f1.8= 160$, also 50mm f1.4 =$450

Its rare to see used sony lens on craigslist.... so i have to look at new ones.

Actually, I will try shooting at 35mm and 50mm on my zoom and compare how i feel about them.

Most portraits at shot around 70mm or even around 100mm outdoor cuz that give me the best DOF with nice blur (on a brighter day)

[inv4zn]

Oh lol.

In that case I know nothing of the lens build qualities and other factors such as AF motors and whatnot related to specific lenses, but comparing apples to apples, try and go for the 35mm.

An upside to buying "rare" (re: less popular :P) lenses is that you can generally sell them on craigslist pretty easily, and not lose as much money.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

This isn't always true, as depending on the aperture design, bokeh will change.

The canon 50mm 1.8 has pretty harsh bokeh, and isn't very pleasant.

Nikon 50mm comparisons below

so what am i looking at here?

[inv4zn]

^When a lens isn't wide open, the bokeh usually takes on a shape, according to the design of its aperture.

Those are 5 crops taken from the same spot using same focal length, but 5 different lenses.

The 50mm 1.4D has 7 sides because the aperture has 7 blades.

It just shows that the same focal length lenses do not translate to similar pictures, and there is a reason for more expensive lenses.

Imagine you took a nice portrait of someone and all the lights in the background turned out as septagons.

[wasabisashimi]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

so what am i looking at here?

I think we looking at the edges, circle/smooth better, hexagon= not good quality bokeh?

[bigzz786786]

why not consider the canon 28mm f1.8 usm? Bhphoto carries em for about 400 I think. I get all my camera gear from them
Posted via RS Mobile

[inv4zn]

^OP said he's using an alpha lol. But yes, BH PHoto will have cheaper gear.

BTW, the 28mm is outdated and for the same money you can get the much better sigma 30mm 1.4 lol

[wasabisashimi]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

^OP said he's using an alpha lol. But yes, BH PHoto will have cheaper gear.

BTW, the 28mm is outdated and for the same money you can get the much better sigma 30mm 1.4 lol

not funny that i have an alpha

[inv4zn]

No not really...well, kinda :P Now we're getting into the whole Canon is king debate, which I'm not going to haha.

Let us know what you decide to get, and post some shots