35mm vs 50mm
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Hey /p/, I have a Nikon D3200. I'd like to buy a fast prime lens. My thoughts are wondering around these two lenses. Those are the recent prices for new ones. Please help compare the two from every possible aspect. I'm also thinking about to sell the D3200 in the future, but I don't know what to choose instead (ASP-C, full frame). Thanks.
(I know I should put it into "gear thread" but that is just full of everything, a jumble. So yeah, please be kind.)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 600 Image Height 593 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:07:08 20:00:25 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1447 Image Height 793
I don't see why you couldn't just post your special snowflake poorly researched simple question which has already been answered a million times in the containment thread, but to answer your question the AF-D version is not even fully compatible with your camera and a 50mm lens in general is probably just not the most suitable option for a crop sensor camera anyway.
But you could've found that out easily by yourself:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3200.htm
You can read right there what lenses are compatible with your cameras and what lenses Uncle Kenny recommends and see detailed charts and reviews and whole lists of lenses that are recommended to fit both your camera and whatever needs you may have.
>>2879201
use your kit lens like a fixed lens for awhile in both focal lengths. personally I feel like 50mm on a crop sensor is too long much of the time and the 35mm would get more use.
the optics of the 35mm are still a little worse than those of the 50mm afaik but that's not really what you should be worried about if you're looking at these lenses
>>2879210
I know these thins, and I don't care if I have to focus and set the aperture manually. Just saying. I'm intereseted about the quality, sharpness, etc.
>>2879225
>I'm intereseted about the quality, sharpness, etc.
then buy a 28mm f/1.8 G and stop bothering us
>>2879229
ah, good advice, thanks. please send me $700, and I will buy it at once. Though I'm on a bugget here, but I want to get the best(!) possible(!) for my money.
>>2879231
Well the 50 f/1.8 AF-D is a piece of shit only remarkable for being dirt cheap, and it doesn't even work with your camera, so if it's just between those two lenses then it's pretty much decided.
>>2879225
if you're willing to spend $210 on a 35mm f/1.8 your alternative should be the $180 50mm f/1.8 G which actually autofocuses on your camera, not the f/1.8 D
>>2879201
/thread
>>2879201
It's obvious, take the one on the right, you have 15mm more for 55$ less.
>>2879291
>>2879225
You will care about manual focus when the shitty plastic stiction prevents you from turning the ring any less than 1/4" at a time. I own the 50mm and I will never manually focus it.
>>2879201
Probably the first thing you should know is that the 50mm f/1.8D won't autofocus on your D3200, although it will on any of the D7000 series for crop sensor and I believe all of Nikon's full-frame cameras.
Beyond that, I regret not replacing my 35mm f/1.8G after my camera and lenses got stolen. When I got insurance money, I got a body plus a 50mm and 105mm macro. On a crop body, the 35mm is a great focal length. But the 35mm won't cover the sensor of a full-frame camera, if you ever decide to upgrade in that direction.
