Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 26, 2006, 5:09 PM   #1
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 43

I want a cheap lens that'll be good as both a walk around and a low light lens for handheld no flash photography.

My options are 50mm f1.8 brand new for 108 gbp or a 35mm f2 (non-D) second hand for 140 gbp

My concerns are that the 50mm on my d50 (so 75mm) will be too long for indoor, close proximity wide shots. And also for outdoor street shots. The pros obviously are cheap, sharp, light weight.

The 35mm pros are sharp (i think) wider angle (52.5mm) and closer focussing, and light weight. Cons are it's second hand, and obviously used though i'm told that the glass is immaculate and the diaphragm is spotless (ie no sign of excessive oil). Slightly expensive i feel. If i could get it for 110 then it'd be better.

Anyway, your views/opinions/images/links etc in relation to the lenses would be great. I do know a lot about the 50mm in as much as i've read reviews and seen pics but not that much on the non-D 35mm f2.

nacoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 26, 2006, 5:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215

I cannot understand why everyone wants a 50mm lens. I thought it was too long when I used film! Maybe I am missing something or just taking different pictures to everyone else. My money would be on the 35mm (or a 28mm).

keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2006, 6:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
rey's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949

Just like any other lens, your usage would dictate which one is better for you.

The 50mm is great for portrait as pictures appear more flattering, also on parties and indoor sports, so you don't have to be up in people's faces to get good shots. I've used the 50mm with D50 on middle-school wrestling meet, basketball games, and indoor school events with success. It works great for my god-daughter's pre-school events, as it allows me to stay four or five feet away and get great shots without distracting them.

If you want to take group pictures, then obviously you'll need a wider lens.

Good Luck!

rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2006, 6:39 PM   #4
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 43

thanks guys.

I'm keen on the 35mm purely because it's a bit wider. I've tried some example shots using my 18-70 set at both focal lengths and i'm leaning towards the 35mm f2 IF it's in good enough condition. What i would like to see and hear is experiences and images taken using the 35mm.

How sharp is it.
Does the fact that it's a non-D make a big difference.
Is it gong to be a better walkaround town type lens.

nacoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2006, 9:57 AM   #5
Senior Member
mtclimber's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143

Keep in mind the 1.5X additive. A 35mm lens becomes a 52mm lens. You might want to look for something a bit wider.

mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2006, 8:16 PM   #6
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 43

Well guys,I bought the 35mm. Got the price down from 140gbp to 95gbp + a hoya HMC UV filter thrown in.

thanks for all the advice.

i've uploaded a few shots to my site gallery
nothing spectacular as it's my first day with the lens and the weather was shocking also the dof at f2 at 25cm is sooo shallow, that'll take some getting used to. But if you're interested.
password is moonshine

nacoya is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:40 AM.