35 mm or 50mm lens?

[antipeko]

Hi!

I have a D80 camera and I want a lens to take pictures of people in possibly low light conditions (e.g. pictures of my little baby at home) without flash, and that it is fast enough to allow me to capture that special moment. Which lens would you recommend me? I guess the options are 35mm or 50mm prime lenses? Any specific model or any other lens?

Thanks a lot!

[jdepould]

A 35 might be a better bet with the crop factor, sometimes the 50 is just too long in close quarters. I love my 50 f/1.8 though.

[antipeko]

Thanks jdepould for your input. You say the 50mm might sometimes be too long. I gues you are right, but would those situations be frequent? Can you give me an example where you have experience 50 mm was too long?
Would both 35mm and 50mm work well for portraits and wholebody?

If I go for the 50mm, and assueming I have enough money, shoud I go for f1.4 of f1.8? (I guess f1.4?)

Thanks

[bertone61]

If I would buy the 50mm lens I would buy the 50/1,8 and save a lot of extra money. The differences between the 1,8 and 1,4 are really not that big. The price difference is incredible and the 1,4 is not that much better.

Just my 2 cents
Cheers
Steve

[antipeko]

Good to know! Thanks for the 2 cents!

[antipeko]

Well, I am still in a doubt.

The options are:
-Sigma 30mm f1.4
-Nikon 35mm f2D
-Nikon 50mm f1.4
-Nikon 50mm f1.8

In principle it seems that the difference between f1.8 and f1.4 is not so big, while the price difference it is big. Good! I have now only three options

-Sigma 30mm f1.4
-Nikon 35mm f2D
-Nikon 50mm f1.8

The Sigma begins to be expensive for what I was expecting, but still I could afford it if it is really worthy.

I want to shoot portraits as well as wholebody on dim light (and possibly also outdoor scenes). Would the Nikon 35mm f2 be ok for this? That is, what would be the point (in terms of low light) where I could not get a proper shoot with the Nikon 35 and I could get it with the Sigma or the Nikon 50?

[jdepould]

Head-to-toe portraits are actually where I've run into trouble with the 50.

[adz929]

I'm still having a hard time making this decision myself, however, I did end up buying the 50 f/1.8 anyway, as, given the price, it's one lens you can't go wrong with, it really should be part of every Nikon shooters kit.

[antipeko]

I think I will finally buy both the Nikon 35mm f/2 and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (for the same price as the Sigma).

Do you think it is a good decision?

[jdepould]

Definitely. The 50 is so cheap and so good that there's no reason on Earth not to get it.

[dang]

Here's a couple of nice review of the Sigma 30mm that might be of interest:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MtR9 http://whichlens.com/index.php?blog=5&t ... &tb=1&pb=1

[sean_mcr]

I shoot with a 35mm prime 90% of the time (on a cropped canon body). I shoot in very tough light at times and 2/3 of a stop (F/ 1.4 1.6 1.8 ) is no small amount in such conditions. It all depends on the environment you shoot in, out in light of day it's not such an issue but that's normally why you'd choose fast lenses

[mad_monte1]

Get the 35mm,, on your cropped sensor, it will be more useful. You can always crop you photo a bit to bring in your subject if needed and if you can't get closer. A 59mm on a cropped sensor is mainly a " portrait
length lens,,,,,