Primes: 50mm vs 35 mm and G vs D

[orion318]

Hey guys,

Thinking about getting a prime for my D7000.
I currently only own the kit 18-105 lens.
It's nice but everyone raves about the quality of primes and how they're usefull to evolve your photography and since the camera always wants to flash my baby indoors (stop it) i think using a prime might help.

Besides photos of the child i would also use it for portraits of adults, and outdoors aswell.

So the question is 35mm or 50mm? I've tests both distances on my current lens and i quickly came to the conclusion (is it wrong?) that i could always walk the 35mm into a closer "50mm" crop while at 50mm sometimes you can't step back enough to fit everything in the frame.

But what about image quality of both lenses, distortion on the 35mm? bokeh quality etc.
and differences between the D model and the newer (more expensive) G?

So do i go for the cheaper 50mm 1.8D?
Or do should i go for the 35mm 1.8G? or for the similar priced 50mm 1.8G?

Price range wise the 1.4s are a little too expensive for me atm.

[TCav]

The 50 G has a lot less vignetting that the other two, especially the 35. The 50 D has less chromatic aberration, but not by much and only at smaller apertures. The 35 is sharper, followed by the 50 G.

See SLRGear.com's test results:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested)
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor (Tested)
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S Nikkor (Tested)

For portraits, and especially baby pictures, I think 35mm is too short. I think you'll find yourslef doing a lot of cropping and/or getting perspective distortion.

[tjsnaps]

Even the 50mm is a bit short for portraits, though usable. I still use my old manual focus primes on my D5000 when I want a large aperture. If money is an issue you can pick them up cheap then update the focal lengths you really like later on. On a D7000 you would still be able to meter, though focusing takes some practice on a DX camera.

[TCav]

Back in the film days, the rule of thumb for portraits was that the focal length should be from 85mm to 135mm. This gave the proper perspective, without you having to be too far away.

With an APS-C sensor, in order to get the same perspective, you'd need a focal length of from 57mm to 92mm. 50mm is short for head-and-shoulders portraits, but for 1/3 to 1/2 body shots, it's ok. YOu can confirm that by setting the focal length of your 18-105, just to be sure.

[orion318]

So would it be worth it to go with a 50mm 1.4 D instead of a 1.8G? it's only about 50€ more expensive so not really that much.

[zig-123]

Originally Posted by orion318

So would it be worth it to go with a 50mm 1.4 D instead of a 1.8G? it's only about 50€ more expensive so not really that much.

Hi,

This review written by Thom Hogan may help in explaining why a faster lens - i.e. a 50mm 1.4 does a better job of isolating the subject when taking portrait shots making it a preferable choice. Also, why you might want to choose a 50mm prime over a 35mm prime.

http://bythom.com/Sigma-50-HSM-lensreview.htm

Hope this helps.

Zig