The field of view of a 50mm lens on two FX or two DX cameras is the same, just as it would be unusual to talk about changing your choice of focal length to allow for a switch between tech pan and HIE.
However, a D3x and a D3s are both FX cameras even though the D3x has twice the pixel count, just as a D7000 and a D1 have the same sensor size - over the history of Nikon's DSLR line, there have been only two standard sensor sizes, but lots of resolutions. So yes, the differing pixel count, and ability of the lens to resolve detail, is an important consideration in lens and body choice. besides portraits, it has its uses, such as low-light live music photography where flash is not allowed.įrank: I agree that a novice shouldn't go and buy a 14mm lens, believing that every longer focal length that they might want can be achieved by digital cropping/zooming. but its still a fun little lens, and very sharp when stopped down. So, once i got the tamron, i had little reason to use the 50. with the 50/1.8 D, i found that it wasn't all that sharp until 2.8, where it had more or less equivalent sharpness to the Tamron 17-50 at that aperture (which was wide open for the Tamron). i don't use 50mm on DX all that much, and on FX i have the sigma 50/1.4 so i'm covered. i tend to use fast primes at wide apertures-that's what they're there for-so to me, corner performance past 5.6 is less important. If i was buying today, i'd probably opt for the G for those reasons, also the AF-S. The MTF charts seem to indicate it's sharper, too. the samples from the G i've seen have much improved bokeh (though still not buttery or creamy IMO) and open aperture performance, but you have to compromise somewhere in lens design to optimize for those things, so it may have more CA and/or distortion. I work in computer graphics I know exactly what I want to do with an image, but finding out what Adobe decided it should be known as is a constant pain.Įric, just curious, does that go for both the 50 1.8 's ? ( the D and the AF-s G. I appreciate that terms such as "dodging and burning" and "unsharp mask" might have made sense to the experienced darkroom professionals moving to a digital workflow, but they're actively obtuse when you come from a different background. See how you like the focal lengths with your kit zoom - I'd say look at the images you've already taken to find your favourite length, but that may change with more DoF control.
On full frame, my normal lens gets relatively little use except in very low light, but my portrait lenses are used far more.
However, to be honest, I'd use the 18-55 that you're presumably already got as a walk-about lens, so the 50's advantage for portraits actually gives you more that you don't already have. As you say, I'd use the 50 if I was thinking of portraits and the 35 as a more walk-about lens. It'll also work should you decide to go full frame in the future (if only a film camera as a back-up). The 50mm gives you more resolution (the magnification is optical) and can lose the background slightly better. If you need a longer length, you can crop. If the reviews have been generous, I too would like to know.Ĭhristopher: If you want a normal lens, get the 35mm. This is why it's on my "to buy at some point" list even though I already have the AF-D. in the reviews I've seen, the bokeh is vastly improved on the AF-S G lens than the AF-D, as is the wide-open sharpness. You can get a "75mm equivalent" lens on an FX camera by taking a 50mm photo and cutting the edges off. It's the size of the sensor (limits of the image) that matter. More than that is irrelevant unless you're actually comparing different formats.įrank: while you're technically correct, I think introducing pixel density is confusing. Not that you can even use the 35mm f/1.8 DX to cover full frame. On FX, 50mm is normal and 35mm is a moderate wide-angle. A 50mm lens is a short telephoto lens used on a DX camera a 35mm lens on a DX camera is a normal lens.
Since the vast majority of DSLRs that are sold have crop sensors (and people don't often jump between Canon and Nikon, say - even though I did) the crop factor is irrelevant to most people. So many people discuss "equivalent" lengths when the person they're talking to has no idea what field of view that lens would give on a full-frame 135-equivalent camera - it may have made sense to DSLR early adopters (although not me, since I got a DSLR before I got a film SLR), but not to much of the current general public.* Just to add my voice to the calls, I think it's important that any talk of "equivalent focal lengths" is clearly qualified by the formats that it talks about.