So, my poor little 35mm lens was looking a little despondent after I had finished extolling the virtues of my 50mm. The 35mm just sat on the shelf looking at me, forlorn and with a glint of sorrow in its glass. Had I forgotten how much I liked using it? Did I not have dozens of favourite images from around the world taken with it? Indeed I did, and thus I took it upon myself to ensure due credit was given to this gem. Well, that plus another request from a reader to talk about using it.
Most of the images I have taken with it have been on APS-C sized sensors, which give an equivalent field of view of approximately 52mm. Again, this is more about my impressions from using the lens and an encouragement to others to use it too. The 35mm and the 50mm have pretty much been the only primes I have used on my DSLRs. There are now a few 35mms available for the Nikon mount (both DX and FX), but years ago I chose the 35mm F/2 AF-D for its future compatibility with full frame sensors, and also for its very fast and close focusing abilities. All the images here were taken with the Nikkor 35mm F/2 AF-D on APS-C sensors.
As I said in my article on the 50mm, I haven’t used my DSLR gear much in the last year, but prior to that I had enjoyed shooting with my 35mm on countless occasions. As much as I like the 50mm, the 35mm was often my go-to prime for most of my photography.
One of the main reasons I like the 35mm, aside from all the versatility it has in common with the 50mm, is that on APS-C sensors the field of view seems just right to me for so many scenes. I realise many people will say that this is because it offers a similar field of view to normal human vision (52mm equivalent), but photographers have preferences for a variety of focal lengths, from wide to telephoto; 35mm on APS-C worked for me.
Like the 50mm, it’s a light and compact lens. But with a shorter field of view on APS-C than the 50mm it is more effective at placing the subject in its environment. It also means I didn’t have to step so far back to capture a scene.
The 35mm AF-D is pretty sharp wide open at F/2 and has some decent bokeh when close enough to the subject.
It was a favourite of mine for shooting long exposures at night, as the narrow aperture gave me some appealing star effects from light sources (you’ll notice many of the images here are night/dusk scenes).
When embarking on photo challenges, I would often use this prime for all my shots, especially shooting in the street. It is quite liberating not to be encumbered by a bag of different lenses nor inhibited by anxiety about choosing the right focal length. Compositional skill can only benefit in this way, and when out shooting I would often feel glad for myself witnessing other photographers with a huge backpack full of enormous lenses and a cumbersome tripod. Just a 35mm lens was enough to get me into the scene and capture its essence.
35mm is a great choice for candid street photography, and although I haven’t used it much for that purpose, I have tried to capture scenic street views.
As good as the 50mm is on APS-C for portraits, the 35mm holds its own too, and I didn’t have to stand (or sit) so far back from my subject to take the shot. I could also place the subject in more of their surroundings.
Finally, the fast aperture let me capture scenes at night hand-held when using a tripod was neither allowed nor practical.
Well, my guilt over momentarily neglecting my dear old 35mm has been somewhat purged. Even more so if my images can demonstrate not only the merit of this focal length but also that you really don’t need much gear to return some decent images. Using just one focal length, either as a prime lens or fixed on a camera, can be both liberating and rewarding. And at the risk of reinforcing a point I have made before (but is worth repeating), it will inevitably improve your photography. Thank you.
(This last photo was taken by my friend Petar – alas I can’t shoot a camera and shoot pool simultaneously.)
Hello… Thanks for your comments… Do you mind tell me what do you think about 30mm or 35mm. I would like to photograph for street photos and portrait … Which one is better? Or both are equal?
I’m going to use on Canon t2i
Gracias
Hello Jorge,
I think most exponents of street photography would choose a focal length between 30mm and 50mm on an APS-C camera such as the t2i (equivalent to 52-75mm). That would capture a decent amount of scene without disconnecting the viewer from any interesting elements.
Personally, I have used everything from 35mm to a telephoto lens, the benefits of the latter I wrote about here:
photographylife.com/stree…photo-lens
A longer focal length is probably better for portraits and subject isolation, whereas a wider focal length (in the 35mm range) would place your subject within its environment and offer more context.
Hope this helps :)
Just bought Samyang 35mm f1.4 manual lens for my Sony A77. After reading this article, i am unable to restrain myself to go out their on the streets of Chennai do some street photography. Your article has indeed helped me in gaining the confidence in 35mm focal length. Thank you.
Visited this in search of finding whether my choice of a 35mm as prime lens on my APS-C camera is correct.Am more than convinced on seeing all these stunning images.All the comments too are very interesting and educative.Am all appreciative of Alpha Whiskey and all gentlemen responded here.
Thank you Somupadma. I’m pleased the article was helpful to you. :)
Hello,
Just came across this blog, only a year late :P
I have a Sony a6000 (which has an APS-C sensor) and I am planning to buy a 35mm f1.8, but am worried that it will crop out a lot of the real scene in front of me. Do you find this happens a bit? Do you find you have to step back a lot for what your photos?
For example portraits, in this blog how far away did you have to be from that woman? I’m assuming though you didn’t crop the photo in post-processing.
Thanks!
Hi Shaly,
The 35mm give an equivalent field of view of around 52mm, so you will need to step back or forth in order to compose your shot accurately. I didn’t find that I had to step back a lot as I used the 35mm deliberately for its field of view. ‘That woman’ is a dear friend of mine and I didn’t have to be that far away from her at all. The 35mm provides a nice balance of not being too remote from a scene and not being too close (like the 50mm on APS-C). It’s just right for putting the viewer into the scene.
Hope this helps.
Regards.
Hi Sharif,
Thank you for your great article and pictures.
I’m using a DX camera with 2 kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200) but your article inspired me to go and get the 35 mm prime lens. I was always afraid that a fixed focal length will limit my abilities and that I will miss some photo opportunities if I don’t have my zooms with me.
I don’t know if this prime lens will really work for me but I want to see if that f/1.8 will really make any difference in practice. Currently my biggest aperture is f/3.5.
Of course I know I will not be able to get such a good pictures as you but I will try my best.
Thanks again and happy shooting in 2015!
Good post, and explains why a crop sensor still saves a ton. You can get the 35mm 1.8g dx and 50mm 1.8g both for around 200. Same range on FX, you are spending more for the 85mm. I shoot street and portrait, so 50mm and 85mm are my preferred lengths on both. When if I move to FX, I’ll have to ditch the 35mm dx and also buy the 85mm 1.8g. Not sure it’s worth it. Going to FX IMO is only worth it if you are shooting wide… Architecture/Landscape.
I’m a simple guy who loves to see wonderful photograpbs (in addition to hopefully taking them too). Alpha Whisky / Sharif your photos are awesome!!!! I like the articles you’ve written too. Please keep on sharing your works here.
Cheers, A
Thank you very much Adrian! I’ll do my best! :)
I love all the images and your perspective. I own a 50mm/1.8D and D51OO and was planning on purchasing a 35mm. Your article might just have ignited the urgency to go for it.
Great Images Alpha Whiskey!!!
Thank you Vasudeep! Definitely go for the 35mm! :)
Hi Sharif
I also like the 35mm on crop sensor. I shot all the pictures of my own wedding with it ;-)
Contrarely to some readers I love saturated colors!
Thanks for sharing your work with us!
Alis
Thanks so much Alis. I appreciate that! :)
HI Alpha Whiskey
May I ask you what is your feeling in image quality between the following lenses installed on a D7100, I would think the sigma art lenses are better than the low- cost Nikon 35 mm f1.8G DX but is the difference in quality justify the différences in prices ?
1- Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM AF “A” art FX 900$
2- Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM “A” art APS-C 500$
3- Nikon 35mm ƒ/1.8G DX 200$
4- Nikkor 35mm F/2 AF-D on APS-C
I own the Nikon 35mm F1.8G DX and the 50mm F1.8D , and I carry mostly the sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX OS HSM as highly recommanded by DXOMARK for a short zoom on this camera. I would like to add that I print to size up to 24″X36”thanks for
Luc
Hi Luc.
I haven’t used a D7100 so I couldn’t honestly speak to how good it is with any lens. I imagine it’s a perfectly good camera and sensor. I know the 35mm F/1.8 DX is a great little lens, but I bought the older 35mm F/2 because it was compatible with any future FX purchase (which I eventually made). My experience of the 35mm F/2 is that it’s very sharp and fast focusing, and also focuses very closely too. It’s also better built, being an older lens – more metal in it :)
I’ve never tried the Sigma lenses so I couldn’t advise you on those. I’ve heard the Sigma F/1.4 is very good. I suppose you could consider whether you want to buy something that will be compatible with a future FX camera should you eventually decide to buy one (although you can just as easily sell any lens now and use the sale to fund a new lens).
I think you have a great pair of primes with the 35mm F/1.8 and 50mm F/1.8D, and I’m sure the Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 is a great lens too (I used to have the older Sigma 18-50, which was really sharp, but no OS). All of these should enable you to print up to that size. Other factors such as noise, technique (e.g. use of tripod) and printer quality matter too. I’ve printed images up to A1 size from my 12MP Nokia phone (albeit in B+W) and my old 6MP DSLR with a 18-200mm zoom, and they looked fine, so I’m certain your lenses will be up to the job! A print that size is probably intended to be seen from a distance of a few feet anyway, so the pixel-level detail is only something that will bother purists who are too busy looking at pixels to be out making photos. Most people won’t press their face up against the print to examine it :)
I think you’ll be just fine, Luc. You’ve made good choices in your gear, and as a famous actor once told me, success is in the choices that we make. :)
Hope this has been some help. Wish you the best.
Warm Regards,
Sharif.
Hi Sharif
Thanks a lot for all of your comments, they are greatly appreciated
. My printer is an Epson Pro 3880 (17X22) on Epson worthy signature luster paper. and above that size I get them printed on an Epson 7900 matte paper (250).
Have a nice day
Luc