Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX (Page 2): ...

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

wilsondl2 wrote:

Hey The perspective view of a 35mm lens on a crop frame camera is about the same as a 50mm lens on a full frame. It would be the same as a 52 1/2 on a Nikon with 1.5 crop factor. If you go to 2 1/4" sq medium format camera an 80 mm lens give about the same prospective and if you want to go to a 4'"x5" camera a 150mm will give about the same. This is the area of view most people see. Of course some quartebaacks have a wider view and can see more of the field. - Dave

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

wilsondl2 wrote:

Hey The perspective view of a 35mm lens on a crop frame camera is about the same as a 50mm lens on a full frame. It would be the same as a 52 1/2 on a Nikon with 1.5 crop factor. If you go to 2 1/4" sq medium format camera an 80 mm lens give about the same prospective and if you want to go to a 4'"x5" camera a 150mm will give about the same. This is the area of view most people see. Of course some quartebaacks have a wider view and can see more of the field. - Dave

Hi Dave,

I see that the OP has ordered his lens so we can high jack the thread without fear of reprisal, I think. There is a difference between "field of view" and "perspective". A 35mm lens will give exactly the same perspective (the size relationship between objects in a picture) no matter what size sensor you put behind the lens if you stand in the same position to take the picture. The field of view will, of course, get larger as you increase the size of the sensor. You can think of it as a picture of a person in the foreground with a tree in the background of a picture. If you print the picture large, that is like using a large sensor. If you keep trimming off parts of the sides and top and bottom of the picture with a paper cutter, that is like using a smaller and smaller sensor. The field of view keeps changing as you crop, but the middle of the picture showing the person and the tree remain exactly the same. So, if you take a head and shoulder portrait with a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, then grab your crop frame camera with a 35mm lens you will get approximately the same sized head in that the two shots will fill about the same amount of the frame, but the picture taken with the crop frame sensor and the 35mm lens will have a decidedly bigger nose than you will get with the 50mm lens on the full frame camera, if you stand in the same place. Maybe others will chime in with a better explanation than I have given.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

CurreyPhoto wrote:

Hi Dave, br br I see that the OP has ordered his ... (show quote)

Sorry - I ment field of view. For your information I have forgot more about photography than most on this forum will ever know. Thats the problem I forgot stuff. Thanks for the correction. - Dave

eloi11 Loc: Glasgow, Scotland

sodapop wrote:

Hi all. Would a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens be a good recommendation for a Nikon 3000? (I know, entry level camera, but works for now for me). Or, is there a better recommendation for this class of lenses? Your suggestions are always greatly valued.

Thanks

soda

Fantastic prime lens, very inexpensive and pin sharp. You won't regret this purchase.

Frank47 Loc: West coast Florida

eloi11 wrote:

Fantastic prime lens, very inexpensive and pin sharp. You won't regret this purchase.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

MtnMan Loc: ID

sodapop wrote:

Hi all. Would a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens be a good recommendation for a Nikon 3000? (I know, entry level camera, but works for now for me). Or, is there a better recommendation for this class of lenses? Your suggestions are always greatly valued.

Thanks

soda

While the 35mm f1.8 is a fabulous lens the standard kit lens (18-55mm VR) is much more versatile. I think you can pick them up in new condition for about $50-100.

Frank47 Loc: West coast Florida

MtnMan wrote:

While the 35mm f1.8 is a fabulous lens the standard kit lens (18-55mm VR) is much more versatile. I think you can pick them up in new condition for about $50-100.

Absolutely. . . . . if considering only the zoom range. But, at 1.8 there is night time "speed" that can make a difference. After dark, I'll take the f1.8 and use my "foot zoom" and post-processing because the range of 18-55mm isn't long enough to make a difference to me. If you are talking 18-200mm at f3.5 or even the 18-105mm then I agree that the zoom can really impact your shooting.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Frank47 wrote:

Absolutely. . . . . if considering only the zoom range. But, at 1.8 there is night time "speed" that can make a difference. After dark, I'll take the f1.8 and use my "foot zoom" and post-processing because the range of 18-55mm isn't long enough to make a difference to me. If you are talking 18-200mm at f3.5 or even the 18-105mm then I agree that the zoom can really impact your shooting.

The other thing is that the 18-55 is a VR lens.

Even though I like the 35mm I found myself rarely using the 35mm f1.8 and most of the time using the 18-55. I found the 18-55 most useful on travel that doesn't involve wildlife.

Even though I still have both I now rarely use either...but I still might take one or the other on a trip to keep the travel weight down. My current fav is a 28-300. It provides super versatility on my D800 but it leads to a pretty weighty and large size package. If I did take it on a trip involving an airplane I'd probably leave all else home. Oh, I did that a few months ago on a trip to Florida (mistakenly leaving my even more weighty Sig 150-500 home).

MtnMan Loc: ID

CurreyPhoto wrote:

Hi Dave, br br There is a difference between &quo... (show quote)

Hmmm. I thought they'd be the same.

I'll play around with it. I easily can do so because I still have the 18-55 and can put it on both settings. I have a D800 which I can use in either FX or DX mode. When you use it in DX mode your viewfinder picture doesn't change...but it shows a box for the DX area. The screen shows only the DX area when in DX mode and full area when in FX mode. So maybe I can see what you describe. I'll look for a willing nose.