threedeers Loc: Northern Illinois

I rented both for about $15 and tried them out. My main reason for the lens was low light. In the end, I got the 35mm on my D7200 because it fit more situations than the 50mm. Now find myself using it more than I thought.

Kuzano

Since I purchased my Fujifilm X-E1 and it came with the kit 18-55 f2.8, that lens is sharp, covers the range, has a relatively fast aperture (not 1.8, but...) and for that is a great price.

I just picked up another (near new, low count), X-E1 with that same lens for $450 total.

After using that lens, I have to be truly hurting for a faster aperture to buy a separate prime (or 2) to get 35 and 50mm focal length.

Tough to beat the image quality of that fuji lens with it's EBC coating and quality glass.

I've been shooting Fujinon lenses since the late 60's and not many lens mfrs can match the results. Also shoot Fujinar and Fujinon large format lenses by preference.

ACTUALLY!... this lens is one of those cases where the lens made me buy the camera. The 18-55mm f2.8-4

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

For decades, I've used 24, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, and 135mm primes on full frame digital and 35mm film cameras. On a D7200, (1.5X crop factor) these focal length choices create 36, 52.5, 75, 82.5, 127.5, 157.5, and 202.5mm equivalent fields of view.

The classic "normal" lens on 35mm film is between 43mm and 58mm, so I *might* use a lens that equates within that range for "general" photography (whatever that is!). That would be the 35mm focal length on a DX or APS-C camera. (52.5mm field of view).

Most of the time, though, a "rubber normal" 24-70mm or 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom lens suits me just fine... On DX, that provides a 36-105mm or a 42-112.5mm full frame equivalent field of view.

Indoors, I tend to use wider lenses than outdoors. I'll reach for one size shorter prime, on average. My old 35mm f/2 Nikkor was a favorite on my Nikon FTn. On a DX camera, I'd want a 24mm.

I tend to use primes for low light, no-flash work, or any time I need shallow depth of field, or when I travel light.

The 50mm would be a good lens for street photography on DX, although if you're going for the classic look, the 35mm would probably be more typical of what the "old masters" used.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Nothing wrong with that suggestion. Another option would be a 28 mm. It really depends on what the OP will be shooting. I personally use my 35mm much more than my 50, but some people want to go longer, and others wider.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

(To me) "not long enough to be useful, nor wide enough to be interesting"--own several of each-- never use them--1930's technology
Stan

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, on an APS-C camera such as the D7200, a 35mm focal length gives the angle of view of a "normal" lens, and a 50mm serves as a short telephoto.

It really comes down to personal preference. I have never really liked "normal" lenses (that were commonly supplied with cameras back in the days of film... when zooms were less common and less capable). I always preferred slightly wider or slightly longer focal lengths, and not bothered carrying a normal lens. So on my own APS-C cameras I tend to use 24 and 28mm as my normal, 50 and 60mm as short tele/portrait lenses.

OTOH, some people love a normal lens. I think it was Henri Cartier-Bresson who used virtually nothing else on his Leicas, throughout his career.

If your camera came with a zoom, it probably includes those focal lengths in it's range. You could set the zoom and tape it in place to experiment with each focal length (and others), to see what you prefer.

If you've been shooting with a zoom, you also can analyze your images to see what you've tended to use most, when you weren't thinking about it. I've used a software that will compile info about images on a hard drive and produce a neat bar chart that shows what focal lengths you're using more and less often. I can't recall the name of the software, but it was a freebie. You probably can Google it.

EDIT:



Stan, Nice! That pretty much sums up my feelings about "normal" lenses too, too.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

But is that true with a DX format? Given the 1.5 crop factor, the 35mm would be closer to what the eye sees, wouldn't it? If that's true, then a 24mm DX lens would be more equivalent to a 35mm FX.

Yes, I suppose there will never be an end to that debate. I see a possible collection of lenses in my future should I see that D7200 come home with me from the store.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Good tip. I am not looking for barrel distortion that is significant. I like macro stuff, so the 40 macro sounds like a good idea, too. Thanks.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Thanks. Actually, I'm not trying to limit myself, rather I'm looking into a prime lens for those times when I will want to just walk around with it and not be needing a zoom. Just an extra lens, so to speak. I'll always have a zoom.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

That's one of the reasons for looking for such a lens.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You're correct. You need to consider that the D7200 is a DX camera and adjust the focal length accordingly. On it, a 50mm lens is short telephoto (makes for a nice portrait focal length).

50mm on FX/full frame is considered a "normal" or "standard" focal length. And on a 1.5X DX crop sensor a 35mm focal length lens is about the closest that would serve similar purpose.

Actually the human eye has somewhat wider angle of view than the typical normal/standard lens. However part of the eye's additional angle of view is peripheral or secondary vision that we're less conscious of. Plus at typical shooting distance a normal/standard lens renders perspective relationships most similar to what our eyes see.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Oops, seems my question was answered before I asked it!! I responded above from an email notification before I read all the responses that have come in. Sorry to have been redundant.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Modern fast primes are 1930s technology?? Wow! I guess shallow DoF with good bokeh, and shooting in low light, are just not things your style of photography requires. But I assure you that many people want them.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

The 5O is better for general photography. The 35 will make people and faces look slightly fatter.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I'm beginning to think that rather than have an actual "prime," I'd be better off with the short zoom, like the 18-55.