Attention photographers! What lens to buy?

spardavr4

spardavr4

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
I'm debating on two prime lenses to buy for my D5100. I'm torn between the 35mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.8.

To those familiar with photography/these lenses, which do you prefer for photographing cars (stand still no action shots).

Thanks in advance for you expertise :xyxthumbs:
 
If Nikkor, both are great lenses. On a digital, 35mm will be neutral (what the eye sees) and 50mm is very slightly telephoto (slightly shortens depth of field). Either would be excellent. Very fast and will work well in low light. Have both but generally just use my 24-120 AF-S VR unless I'm really serious.
 
mjlinane said:
If Nikkor, both are great lenses. On a digital, 35mm will be neutral (what the eye sees) and 50mm is very slightly telephoto (slightly shortens depth of field). Either would be excellent. Very fast and will work well in low light. Have both but generally just use my 24-120 AF-S VR unless I'm really serious.
Click to expand...

I totally agree and +1 on the 24-120 VR. Great lens. If I could only get one of the two, I would probably opt for the 35 for shooting cars.
 
I have both lenses for use on my D7000 but find that I go to the 35MM most often when doing portraiture indoors where space is limited. Both lenses produce excellent results in a wide range of conditions and subjects. Have you read Ken Rockwell's website (http://www.kenrockwell.com/)? He has a lot of good information that will help in making a purchase. Also, one thing to consider is the 35MM is a DX lens made for cropped sensor camera's (D7000, D3100)and not recommended for full frame or 35MM camera's. So if a full frame camera like the new D800 is in your future this maybe something to consider although for the cost these are not a huge investment and easy to sell.
 
Last edited:
The newly released nikkor 28mm 1.8G looks sick.

You may find that 35mm on a 1.5x crop sensor is all a little too close. I've got the 50mm 1.8 that I rarely use because it's too close for the images I shoot.

Definitely go to a local shop that stocks the glass and test them out with your camera body before you purchase.

Look into the 16-85 vr II. I love it. Not a fast prime, but the range is amazing and the images are really sharp.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
 
Wow! Thanks for all the great recommendations! I will look up these other lenses and see if they are within my price range.

I do not have a full frame camera, and doubt I ever will buy one.

Edit: Just searched for these lenses. LOL, a bit much for my price range, they do look awesome!
 
I'd go with the 35mm lens since you have a 1.5x crop factor on that camera. That will get you closest to natural viewing distance (about 53mm).
That should be a really good lens for you.

Outside of that, I'd get something that gives you a wide angle, as I find that best for automotive photography usually. Even if it's a zoom range from like 17-55mm, that should be great. If you're able to get even wider, that's a plus.
 
If I could afford the 28MM 1.8G I'd go that route. Next on my list to purchase is the 35MM 1.8 too!
 
I own both the 35 and the 50 and the 50 is night and day better than the 35. Its a bit tighter in range and you have to get into a farther position for some shots but the clarity is so much better.
 
If you're doing car shows you may want even wider than 35. It can be pretty hard to get a good shot when they're close together. But if it's just 1 car at a time I think I'd go with the 50.

Probably the best way to figure it out would be to rent both lenses and see which one you like best. Either local or through a place like lensrentals.com.
 
lol you guys are making this harder to choose now.

It is only 1 car at a time, maybe a maximum of 2 in a shot. I am looking for excellent clarity and really good depth of field. I guess the 50 mm gives much better bokeh than the 35mm, which is making me stray towards the 50mm. The only thing I'm not sure of is if the 50mm tight range will hinder me in taking pictures. For example, having the camera close to the ground and looking up at the car would be pretty hard to do with the 50 mm.
 
You will have framing issues, especially if you don't have the car all to yourself (ie. a car show) using 50mm * 1.5 = 75mm

Clarity and bokeh are worthless if you can't compose your shot correctly.


If you have a zoom type lense now, bring it to 50mm and go around your car and see how far back you have to be to get a desired shot into frame. I think you'll realize that 35mm or lower is well worth any loss when taking photos of cars.
 
brentech said:
You will have framing issues, especially if you don't have the car all to yourself (ie. a car show) using 50mm * 1.5 = 75mm

Clarity and bokeh are worthless if you can't compose your shot correctly.


If you have a zoom type lense now, bring it to 50mm and go around your car and see how far back you have to be to get a desired shot into frame. I think you'll realize that 35mm or lower is well worth any loss when taking photos of cars.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. I have to stand pretty far away to get the car into the shot. Then I have to stand even further to get a nice background into the shot.

I think I'm going to go with the 35mm, just because I can also use it as an everyday lens.
 
Yeah.
I have a 50mm prime, which my camera has a 1.6x crop factor. So that's about 80mm. Great pictures, but fairly limited use when taking pictures of cars.

I almost always use my 17-55mm EF-S lens (I'm on a Canon 50D). Which converts to a range of 27-88. Doesn't have nearly as good of an top aperture, but I'm able to get the shots I want with it.

A prime 35mm should produce excellent photos.
 
Thanks for the help in deciding :)

Maybe in the future I'll buy a 50 mm to complement my 35 mm.
 
Sunshyne said:
I own both the 35 and the 50 and the 50 is night and day better than the 35. Its a bit tighter in range and you have to get into a farther position for some shots but the clarity is so much better.
Click to expand...

You have any sample images to show this? I've read this on reviews of the 35 before. Just curious before i decide to buy one too.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
 
I actually went to Hunt's and asked to use a 50 mm prime lens to compare to a 35 mm.

It's true, the 50 mm is WAY better and the view is not that much harder to compose a shot with. I canceled my order for the 35 mm and went with the 50 mm. I feel the 35 mm wasn't that much of a difference to the kit lens of my camera, but the 50 mm was much better.

Check out this forum I searched for. He had the same question and he ended up getting the 50 mm and posted some first shots using it. Looks pretty damn good.

35mm vs. 50mm Prime Lens - Page 3 - Nissan 370Z Forum
 
For photographing cars, you want to go wider. Go with the 35. Car photography is about the only type of photography that benefits from the barrel distortion of wide angle lenses. It accentuates the curves and lines of the car. This will also give you some more room to shoot.

Keep in mind, especially with prime lenses that...obviously...you aren't going to be zooming the lens. You will be physically moving your body to get what you want in the frame. The 35 will give you that extra room in tighter spaces.

Personally, I use a Nikon 16-35 f/4 for car photography (but I have a feeling that isn't in your budget). It literally stays on my camera all the time when photographing cars. Go wide baby!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top