Some of our readers, especially those who are just getting into photography, frequently ask me if they should choose the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G or Nikon 50mm f/1.4G to be used for low-light photography. I decided to run a quick comparison between the two, along with some other technical information to hopefully make it easier for our readers to select the right lens in this Nikon 35mm f/1.8 vs Nikon 50mm f/1.4 comparison.
Nikon 35mm f1.8G (left) and Nikon 50mm f1.4G (right)
Here is a quick summary of differences between the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50mm f/1.4G:
- DX vs DX/FX – the first major difference I want to point out between the two, is the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is a DX-only lens, which means that it will only properly work on DX sensor cameras like Nikon D3100/D5000/D90/D300s/D7000. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G, on the other hand, works well on both DX and FX sensor cameras such as Nikon D700/D3s/D3x.
- Focal length – the second obvious difference is the focal length. The Nikon 35mm f/1.8G has an equivalent field of view of 52.5mm on a DX sensor, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G has an equivalent field of view of 75mm. Interestingly, both lenses fall into the “normal” or “standard” lens category, depending on the type of sensor they are mounted on. For example, on a DX sensor, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is a “normal” lens, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is also “normal” on a full-frame sensor. However, if the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is mounted on a DX sensor, it becomes a telephoto lens, since its field of view narrows to 75mm. If this sounds confusing to you, read my article on “Equivalent Focal Length and Field of View“.
- Maximum Aperture – the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G has a maximum aperture of f/1.8, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G has a maximum aperture of f/1.4. Both lenses are very fast, but the 50mm can pass through slightly more light than the 35mm lens.
- Minimum Aperture – the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G has a minimum aperture of f/22, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G has a minimum aperture of f/16. Note that the large minimum aperture of the 35mm lens is not very useful on a DX camera, since photographing at such small apertures will significantly degrade image quality due to diffraction.
- Closer focusing – the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G allows close focusing to just one foot, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is at 1.5 feet.
- Filter size – the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G has a 52mm filter thread, while the 50mm has a 58mm thread for filters.
- Weight – the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is about 80 grams lighter than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G (200 grams vs 280 grams).
- Compactness – as you can see from the above image, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is smaller than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G.
- Price – the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is the second cheapest prime lens after 50mm f/1.8D that retails for around $200 at B&H, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is more than twice as expensive, retailing for $435 at B&H.
Many are probably interested in seeing how both compare against each other in terms of sharpness and bokeh. Let’s take a look at the sharpness comparison first.
Sharpness Comparison
I performed the below tests on a DX body (Nikon D90), because it would have been unfair to compare both on different sensors. To get to the same field of view on both lenses, I had to move the 50mm slightly away from the test target. The shooting conditions were exactly the same for both lenses. Let’s take a look at how both compare in terms of sharpness when shot at f/1.8 in the center (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G, Right: Nikon 50mm f/1.4G):
The Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is an incredibly sharp lens wide open. As you can see, it performs better wide open than the 50mm f/1.4G stopped down to f/1.8. Let’s see what happens at f/2.8:
Although both look very similar, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G still has a slight edge over the 50mm f/1.4G. What about f/4.0:
Now both look about the same.
I won’t bother showing samples from smaller apertures, because both lenses perform very similarly. Plus, there are very few situations where you would use very small apertures on portrait lenses…
Let’s see how well these lenses perform in the corners at f/1.8 (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G, Right: Nikon 50mm f/1.4G):
Don’t pay much attention to corner performance – it is typically unimportant for portrait lenses, since you would rarely place your subjects in the corners. These are provided simply as a reference, to get an idea of how the lenses compare against each other in the corners. As you can see, both perform about the same, with no notable difference between the two. Let’s see what happens at f/4.0:
When stopped down, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G clearly takes the lead – it is certainly sharper and has much less chromatic aberration.
The above is nothing new – Nikon’s published MTF for the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G clearly shows that it is supposed to be sharper than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G when shot at the maximum aperture.
One thing you have to remember though, is that you should not only look at sharpness tests when choosing between lenses. Charts are not always 100% reliable due to their plain, 2D nature – a separate test with 3D objects would certainly help (going forward, I will be doing an additional “3D test” while reviewing lenses). There are plenty of other optical characteristics that need to be evaluated, such as vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion, etc., which I will write about in upcoming lens reviews of the 35mm and 50mm lenses.
Bokeh Comparison
Another very important lens characteristic that you need to evaluate in a portrait lens is bokeh – the quality of out of focus areas in a picture. Lola and I both really love the way the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G renders bokeh – it is not top of the class like Nikon 85mm f/1.4G, but still very good for portraits. I have played with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G quite a bit and found its bokeh to be pleasing to look at. Not as good as the 50mm, but still not bad at all. Take a look at the below photo of our son Ozzy, taken at f/2.0:
The background looks nice to me, I would say similar to the way 50mm f/1.8D renders it. When compared to the 50mm f/1.4G lens, the Nikon 35mm has 7 diaphragm blades, versus 9 on the 50mm f/1.4G. Those diaphragm blades do affect the shape of highlight circles and hence might appear a little less circular on the 35mm f/1.8G. Another thing to keep in mind is subject distance. Since the 35mm f/1.8G is a shorter lens, you would have to get much closer to your subject to get comparable bokeh.
Recommendations
So, which one of these lenses do I recommend? If you use a full-frame camera or primarily shoot portraits and need to get one of the best portrait lenses for under $500, I would certainly recommend the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G. For everything else, including day-to-day photography, I would say the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is a better choice for DX cameras. Not only due to its focal length, but also its comparably good performance in terms of sharpness and bokeh. When it comes to focal lengths, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is perfect on a full-frame FX camera, it certainly feels a little “too long” on a DX camera. Its narrower field of view on cropped sensors is quite limiting in terms of what you can fit into the frame, whereas the 35mm feels just perfect. We have used the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G for food, portrait and even landscape photography and I really liked working with this focal length. Take a look at this shot that I captured early in the morning in a state park:
I’m glad I used the 35mm f/1.8G lens for this shot, since a 50mm would have been too long to capture enough of the sky.
Last, but not least, is the price difference. I believe the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is a great value, given that it only costs $200, more than twice less than the 50mm f/1.4G. Why didn’t I compare the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G with the older and cheaper Nikon 50mm f/1.8D? Because the latter does not autofocus on cheaper Nikon bodies like D5000.
Food Photography with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G
A note to technical gurus and pros: I know that comparing lenses like I have done above is not fare due to many reasons such as different optics/focal lengths and etc. I only did it to make it easier for beginners to choose the right lens for their needs. The above information is only provided for DX sensors – it is impossible to compare both lenses on FX, since the 35mm f/1.8G only works at half the resolution on a full-frame body and is really not designed to be used on FX.
About Nasim Mansurov
I just bought my first dslr camera which is a Nikon D5100 and do not know anything about the difference btw all the lenses until i came across your website. I just want to say thank you so much for having such a informative site. You explain to a point where it is so easy to understand and not like other sites where it is so technical to a point where I am just turned off and confused.
that settles it i was having a constant struggle picking 1 from the other thanks Mr Mansurov
hello -
I have a D5100 with a Nikon 18-200mm VR along with the Nikon 35mm f1.8. I’m basically shooting photos of my kids running around outside….few landscapes and our vacations. Do you think I should invests in getting the 50mm f1.4 next?
Thank you in advance.
No.
That 18-200 is a 27-300 with crop factor, covers a huge range and does excellent outdoors and very well in some indoor situations with a flash.
The 35mm for you is actually a 52.5mm with crop factor, f1.8 is fast and an excellent prime lens in many situations.
The 50mm is a 75mm with crop factor and gains little more for light.
I would invest in a SB700 flash, which will enhance your indoor shots greatly.
Nasim,
This is just the PERFECT amount and quality of analysis that a beginner needs. Just bought a D7000 and was jumping between these two lenses. Big help.
It will be different for others, but for me, the deciding statement was that 50mm would be too long for certain shots on a DX.
Thanks again!
– D
Hi,
I have the Nikon D3000 with the Kit lens (18mm to 55mm ). If i am thinking of adding two lenses, one wide angle (35mm f1.8) for candid, travel and landscape photos and one telephoto (70 to 300mm) for sports and wildlife. Cost is a consideration.
What do you think about my choices?
Regards,
Amit Shewale
Hi,
I have D5100 with 18-55mm kit lens and 70-300mm for my outdoor. I’m planning to do whole body portrait photgraphy in a 25sq room, which lens would you suggest between 35mm/1.8G and 50mm/1.8G would be good in this kind of situation?
I’m also looking for a lens that can do bokeh.
I recently got my 50mm 1.8g and love this lens. Both the 35 and 50 will give you bokeh since they both open to 1.8. Not sure if you will have room to shoot full body portrait with the 50 in a 25sq room or not. With the 50 on a DX frame you have the best part of the lens hitting the sensor and it is very sharp. When you open it up the background is creamy and to us kit lens shooters this a whole new world. Also it is so much faster than the kits and other zooms – I rarely need to use my SB600 anymore. Now I just want to buy the 35mm 1.8g and wish there was a 18 or wider prime in the same price range (wishfull thinking I guess). I like shooting the 50 wide open sometimes but mostly go to f2-3 for most shots.
Hi,
First off thanks for the nice informative write up. Seems a lot of us are crawling the web looking for the one answer.
This may be over kill but just walking around with the lens on one focal length or the other just didn’t help my decision. I first took all the pictures I have ever taken with my two kit lenses 18-55VR and 55-200VR and extracted the Exif data from each and threw those values into a table (programs will probably make this easier but I actually enjoy doing it the long way). I then set anything from 30-40mm to 35 and 45-55mm to 50. Everything else got tossed into 18 or 200 depending on the side they fell. One thing I found out is I very rarely use anything over 60 or so on my 55-200. Another thing is between 35 and 50 range I’m shooting close to 50/50 :) . There were a lot of wide angle shots in the bunch but no where close to the 35 and 50 range.
After looking at my shots I think the 50 1.8g will do nicely. I’ll always have the 18-55 for wide landscapes and group shots and as I’ve learned the 55-200 is really a rare need for me.
-edit
When I said every picture I should have said every picture on the hard drive. Most bad shots get killed on the camera before they ever hit the hard drive. I also copied each group to its respective folder to review before making a decision. I also have a pretty good mix of macro, travel, day to day, candid, portrait, and landscapes.
Thanks for the excellent article that explains in lay man’s terms the differnces in these two lenses. I’ve been pondering for a while which to go for and now you have made up my mind.
Thanks again
Thanks for the helpful review. It was exactly what I was looking for!
Thanks for this review. It really helped alot in defining clear differences and in terms of what a laymen like me understand between the two lenses. Being mostly taking pics while I travel, I wanted something I can get wide as well while shooting portraits on portrait days :) … Thanks, I will soon buy 35mm to shoot my son’s first b’day :)
“more than twice less” lol, verbal jujistu. how about “less than half”.
Dear Nasim,
I just bought the new D600 and because of the lack (for now) of enough FX glass I out the 35mm/1.8 (DX) on it. To my surprise it nearly filled the whole field of view with only the very far corners being blackened out. A problem one could easily resolve in post-processing with a little cropping.
From your point of view, stands there anything between using that lens on a FX camera if one doesn’t mind the tiny black corners?
Thanks!
Thank you so much – I found your article very informative!
Thank you for the nice and usable piece of information. It is very difficult to understand the photography for a beginners like me if it is explained in all those scientific terms. I’m glad that you explain it in such an easy and simple language. Thank you for reviewing 35mm f/1.8 as i was planning to buy it for my Nikon D7000. It’s not too costly as well as serves the purpose.
What should i do to make sky more blue in landscape photography. I do not have a Circular Polarizer Filter?
Hi Nasim,
Based on your review I have purchased Nikon 35mm f1.8G. And to be fair, it has not disappointed me. Works great, but it does hunt for focus in dim environments, sometimes. Otherwise, am very happy with the outcome.
Thanks..
Hi Nasim,
Great work! I have always referred to your site for my continuous learning in photography… This review between the 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm/f1.4 is a great help… I am planning to buy my first prime lens… and my choice was between a 35mm or a 50mm… I will use it on a D5100… I am now decided to get the 35mm…
Thanks and keep up the good work!
I purchased the Nikon D3000 last year and have loved it but wanted a new lens from the start because the one that comes with it was bad in low lighting. Now I’m looking for a new one and I’m looking between the DX nikkor 35mm f/1.8G and the nikkor 50mm f/1.8G. I take mostly pictures of people and events, so I’m okay with not having zoom, I just wanted a lower aperture so the lighting would be better inside/in low lights. Any chance you could help in my decision? Thank you so much, it’s awesome how much you’re willing to help people with your knowledge!
Nasim,
Thom Hogan just posted (on 9 Jan 2013) a blog entry for those users moving up from DX to FX (http://www.bythom.com/dxtofx.htm). In the third paragraph of his post, he states that you could use the 35mm f/1.8 lens on the D800, so long as you select the 5:4 aspect ratio for framing, instead of the 3:2 default ratio. When you get around to doing your more comprehensive test of the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, could you also test the lens on the D800 at 5:4 and on the D4 at the 1.2x crop factor as well?? Thanks!
FYI: I currently have both D800 and D4 bodies and (in additon to my gold ring zooms) two fast primes: the 85mm f/1.8D and the 50mm f/1.8D. I’ll be upgrading these two primes to the new AF-S f/1.8G versions, and I’m thinking about expanding my prime collection to include the 35mm f/1.8G. I like the small size and light weight of these lenses for cultural travel photography in low light settings and for portraiture. Of course, I can always rent a 35mm f/1.8G lens and test it myself, but you’ve got more software and equipment to do a proper job. ;o)
Just did some Googling on the intertubes and found this old post from 2009:
http://deadsailorproductions.blogspot.com/2009/05/coming-soon.html
It would appear that using a 5:4 crop factor would nicely avoid the corner vignetting, more or less completely….
Just to report my experience with the 35mm f1.8..
I wanted a fast lens, mainly to be able to shoot in available light and being able to control DOF in close distances. Every review of this lens is/was stellar and everyone is praising it.
I wasted 200€. Basically it’s too wide to do any kind of portrait, unless your subject is very comfortable in front of a camera and you don’t want candids. At the same time it’s too long for general use. It is good if you want a full body portrait – of which I don’t get the point unless your subject is a glamour model. It ideally would be good to take more than one person at the same time in, and this is were my mistake was made, because with such a shallow dof you aren’t able to get more than one person in focus unless you step down – but if you step down, heck, use the 18-55 and enjoy the flexibility!
Pro: It’s surely a lens which is able to convey emotions to the photographer.
Cons: That emotion it conveys are frustration and delusion :(
Mxk:
Thanks for your input. It was extremely helpful. I’l likely pass on the 35mm f/1.8 lens, unless I hear other reviews to the contrary. Thanks!
Well 35mm is 35mm, if you find it too short for portraits or too long for general use then you need a different focal length, it’s not a fault of the lens!
The 35mm is designed as a ‘normal’ lens to give similar angle on DX as the 50mm does on FX so that’s what you get, and you get it at a very good price! So personally I would definitely recommend it if you’re a DX shooter.
It’s a fault of the lens as in: it costs almost the same as some f2.8 17-50 zooms, with which you don’t have these problems, while offering very little more (a barely usable f1.8 – f2.8 range).
The fixed aperture Nikkor zoom lens sells for over 1,500€! Over 6 times the price of the 35mm…
Of course a zoom lens always has the advantage of versatility but if it is versatility you’re after you wouldn’t be looking at buying a prime. If you want the best of both worlds then you’ve got to be prepared to pay top prices!
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 : 100€ more than the nikkor 35mm f1.8, comparable sharpness, if not sharper.
The problem is that most people are saying “everyone should have a 35mm f1.8 omg they are so great for everything”. Reading around it seems like this is something for everyone (untrue), awesome for low light (untrue, you are likely better serviced by a sb400), good for waist portraits (untrue, you have to get too close and you’ll distract the subject).
I totally agree the product is a good product if you want a prime. The problem is that most opinions everywhere is saying you want one (and this in particular). My warning to every amateur like me starting out is : think twice (thrice, better), you probably don’t want it even if people in the forums say otherwise.
Thank you. I was thinking of buying this 35/1.8 lens as everyone praised it but now I won’t buy. I shoot with only 18-55 kit lens and for low lights, I either give long exposure or just jack up the ISO. With another lens of same focal length (as 18-55 already covers 35) I’ll be always in a dilemma which one to use and I’ll miss shots because of that. Best to shoot with a single lens and use it to its full extent than wasting money on multiple lenses and become confused.
Hi Mxk
In the old days (1974), the best portrait lens on Nikon 35 mm format was a Nikkor 105 mm f2.5, Many people like me using an F2 body were buying the 135 mm f2.8, because it was cheaper, and was keeping you farther away from your subject. At that time long lenses were considered to compress portraits (eyes, nose,ears). It was considered that the perfect portrait lens should be around 85 mm (57 mm on a DX today). Many photographers today use 200,300,400 mm lens for portrait !!!!!!. If we were using a 50 mm lens (35 mm DX format today) such as the nikkor 50 f1.4 for headshot, it was unflattering accentuating the size of the nose of the subject (fisheye effect) while compressing the width of the head, this is why we took head shoulder and waist shots only. The Nikon 35 mm f1.8G (DX) lens is excellent to take pics in general. It is the lens that should be on your DX camera most of the time, because it mimics the way your eyes see the world . The 50 mm f1.8G (DX) is an excellent portrait lens because it is the equivalent of a 75 mm lens close to the 85 mm that was considered the best for 35 mm film camera. In the old days zoom lenses were so expensive that only sponsored professionnals could afford to buy them, plus the fact that the quality was not that great compared to prime lenses.
PS: I still have my F2 and the the Nikkor 50 f1.4, and the 135 f2.8 primes
If 35 mm is how eyes see the world, then you can just set 35 mm in 18-55 zoom lens and see the world in that way! Why buy another lens for that??
I bought the 35mm 1.8g . I really wanted a “affordable” prime. I have not used it more than a few times. I also have the 16-85 and the 70-300. I use the 16-85 for 80%+ of my shots.
I wish I would have saved the $220 and put it towards the Tokina 11-16 2.8 that I want. It was a lot of fun to play around with the 35mm when I first got it. But my type of shooting does not lend itself to a fixed focal length where I have to move around to get the shot. My style is more.. find the perfect angle and vantage point for the subject you are shooting then zoom in or out to frame properly. I really think it comes down to that.. how do you shoot. I love shooting nature shots, and nature does not always allow the movement that a prime requires.
From a purely fun standpoint.. playing around with the incredible DOF on the 35mm prime is fun.. but for me it never goes past playing around.
If I did portrait work, the 35mm would be much more useful.
my $0.02
-Dave
This lens … the Nikon AF-S 35mm F/1.8 DX is a superb lens for portrait and other shots requiring bokeh. I bought one the other day and so far I cannot complain. Great investment.
HI Jeff
Your eyes know very well to see the world around you, and they can easily pinpoint any optical errors such as distorsion, color fringing, lack of contrast , etc. seen through the eye of a camera. If you want to have a level of quality approaching your eyes you have to buy very fine optics at that focal point. Just ask yourself why NIkon sells that kit lens 18-55 mm f3.5-5.6 G for 169$cdn and at the same time they offer the 17-55 f2.8 DX IF-ED for 1329$ cdn. I personnally prefer to invest 229$ cdn in the prime that you are referring to in your comment. If you are happy with your kit lens and never print at a large size, do as you please.
Have a nice day
Sorry Jeff, my mistake my last message was for Dave.
What do you think of the, now available, Nikon 50mm f/1.8G?
It also cost around 200$, and does auto focus on entry level bodies.
Thanks so much for the article. I have been trying to decide between these two lenses for a few months. This definitely sets me in the right direction.