35mm prime lens or 50mm prime lens?

[ProbirPune]

I have a Nikon 5100 which is APSC and crop factor is 1.5. I have read that 35mm cameras consider 50mm lens to be the "normal" lens. So, would a 35mm lens be the normal lens for my Nikon 5100 to compensate the crop factor or am I misunderstanding the subject?

[xpatUSA]

I have a Nikon 5100 which is APSC and crop factor is 1.5. I have read that 35mm cameras consider 50mm lens to be the "normal" lens. So, would a 35mm lens be the normal lens for my Nikon 5100 to compensate the crop factor or am I misunderstanding the subject?

namaste-ji,

"Normal" is not one exact focal length for a given sensor format. More of a range, really. WikiPedia has it as approximately equal to the sensor diagonal - about 43mm for a full frame sensor. So, for your camera, "normal" is 43/1.5 = more like 28mm.

But that is not cast in stone - if your shooting tends to landscapes you might consider 24mm - if more to buildings and such, 35mm would be about right. Otherwise, if it were me, I'd plump for 28mm.

[Manfred M]

Your assumption is correct; the D5100 has a sensor which is 23.6mm x 15.7 mm, so the diagonal is a touch over 28mm (just confirming Ted's math). Nikon markets the f/1.8 35mm G series lens as the "standard" lens for its crop frame DX models, just as the 50mm lens is the standard lens for the full-frame sensor.

There has been a long running argument in the photographic community as to the definition of a "normal" lens. The 50mm is historically considered the normal lens, as this is what the first 35mm film cameras, the Leica I shipped with. It more or less reproduced an image that a person would see (with one eye closed).

[pnodrog]

Normal is not the same as preferred. It will totally depend on the sort of photographs you wish to take and very little (nothing really) to do with what would be considered normal. When the Olympus OM1 (35mm film) camera came out I never purchased a normal 50mm lens for it but opted for a 75-150mm zoom lens because I was mainly taking photographs of my children. Now days I would probably opt for a 24 or 28mm lens for architecture and landscapes. Normal may not be a bad starting point but very few of my photographs have been taken at 50 or 55mm (full frame).

[ProbirPune]

Thank you very much for your helpful advice. It would seem that I should consider buying a Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Prime Lens rather than 50mm prime lens

[ProbirPune]

I visited http://manfredm.prosite.com and saw your pictures of India - places and people. Well! I am not sure if I'll come to even 10% of that level, but it can be my benchmark. By the way, I know nothing of post processing, but do you use software on your photographs before putting them up on the web site? I am not intending to license software like Adobe. I have read about 'gimp' freeware. Should one spend time in learning such tools?

[ajohnw]

Historically the standard lens was defined by the diagonal of the format and usually a bit larger eg 50 or 55mm on 35mm cameras. There have been some under 50mm at times but mostly on fixed lens cameras. It's also used to differentiate between wide angle and telephoto - hence standard and is supposed to give the same field of view as the distinct region of the human eye - that is why it splits wide angle and telephoto.

I don't know what lenses you have or camera but feel you would be better off starting with a typical "normal range" zoom that covers say 28 to 100mm or so in full frame terms for a while so that you get a feel for what primes you actually need first.

John
-

[Dave Humphries]

~ By the way, I know nothing of post processing, but do you use software on your photographs before putting them up on the web site? ~ I have read about 'gimp' freeware.

Should one spend time in learning such tools?

Oh yes, Probir - and welcome to the CiC forums.

Once the shutter has clicked, that's the first half of the process - post processing is where much improvement can be made to almost any image captured.

In days of old (i.e. shooting with film), this was when a negative was developed and then a print was produced. Many of the things the best photographers did with film to print processing can be replicated with digital post processing, plus a whole lot more.

There is much to learn in digital photography and post processing, but don't be overwhelmed, just take it slowly and concentrate on one aspect at a time, get that sorted, then extend your skills further by tackling a new aspect.

Good luck, Dave

[inkista]

I still think 50mm counts as normal on a crop in terms of magnification (not FoV). [see: this response in the "I seem to have 70mm eyes" thread.]

[xpatUSA]

I still think 50mm counts as normal on a crop in terms of magnification (not FoV). [see: this response in the "I seem to have 70mm eyes" thread.]

An interest point of view, Kathy (literally ).

Doesn't work quite so well for my old eyes looking through a x1.3 viewfinder magnifier on my 1.7 crop camera, though

[rpcrowe]

I am a photographer who leans to longer focal lengths. However, I would be quite constrained with a 50mm on a crop camera. I have a 50mm f/1.8 Mk1 and occasionally use it on my Canon 7D but, I tend to like a zoom lens for general shooting.

However, if I were making the choice between the 50mm and 35mm focal lengths for a crop camera, I would be inclined to choose the 35mm.

OTOH: I got rid of my Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 because I was not keen on the image quality of that lens. I use the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as my main, go-to lens for my crop camera. That lens is a dandy and the focal range matches quite well with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens as a two-lens kit...

[tao2]

For a number of years, 35mm focal length was regarded as "normal". If Mr. Leitz had been less of a miser then he would have bought Mr. Barnack a "proper" normal lens - between 42-44mm, instead of fobbing him off with an old 50mm which was lying in the workshop. Then we'd all be using proper, "normal" lenses...

[mrinmoyvk]

Thank you very much for your helpful advice. It would seem that I should consider buying a Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Prime Lens rather than 50mm prime lens

There is nothing like "Normal" unless you consider only math.
Think what what you are interested in and then buy the lens which is so called normal for that kind of shooting.
If you like shooting landscapes and general random portraits, I would suggest to stick to 18-55 or 18-105.
If you are into street photography, then go for 35mm or even smaller.
If you are interested mainly in portraits then 50mm is good and 85 mm even better
If you like to travel and take shots from landscapes to portraits to birds and animals, get a 18-200 or (18-105 and 70-300)

"Normal" more specifically depends on what you are shooting not which sensor you have.

[GeoBonsai]

The Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G lens is an outstanding, inexpensive lens for DX-format cameras. On DX-format cameras, the 35mm lens is considered a "normal" to slightly longer than normal lens. It "sees" about the same angle of view as a "normal" eye sees. When buying lenses for the Nikon D5100, just remember the camera itself doesn't have an auto-focus motor built in. The auto-focus functionality is supplied by the lens, specifically look for "AF-S" (Auto-Focus, Silent-wave motor) type of lenses if you want auto focus.

As you stated, the APS-C (23.2 x 15.4 mm) sensor found on most newer Nikon DX-format cameras produces a 1.5x crop factor in 35mm equivalents. So, for example, on APS-C cameras, lenses "see" the following angles of view:
12mm lens * 1.5 = 18.0mm angle of view
18mm lens * 1.5 = 27.0mm angle of view
35mm lens * 1.5 = 52.5mm angle of view
50mm lens * 1.5 = 70.0mm angle of view

However, if you've never shot with a full-frame digital camera (or 35mm film camera) and never intend to do so, crop factors don't mean that much in the broad scheme of things. The equivalents are in relation to traditional 35mm-film SLR days.

Here are two sample images made with Nikon D3300 > Nikon 35mm lens:

Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve located in Antioch, California.
::


Lake Chabot located in Castro Valley, California.

[Manfred M]

However, if you've never shot with a full-frame digital camera (or 35mm film camera) and never intend to do so, crop factors don't mean that much in the broad scheme of things. The equivalents are in relation to traditional 35mm-film SLR days.

Definitely not true, depending on the type of photography you do. Birders and macro shooters tend to prefer the crop factor cameras. Birders do so for the effective magnification that crop factors give them and macro shooters will take that roughly 1-stop gain in DoF.

The flip side for full-frame shooters is the narrow DoF (and larger viewfinder); this tends to include landscape shooters. Video shooters will prefer the narrower DoF as well; Cosina, through its Voigtländer has developed an excellent reputation amongst mFT video shooters for its large aperture lenses that allow the users to shot with full-frame like DoF. Generally full frame also displays better low noise characteristics, resolution and better colour depth than the crop frame cameras.

Just as an aside; I shoot full-frame, APS-C crop frame and mFT so am quite familiar as to the advantages and disadvantages of the three formats.

[tao2]

Hi Manfred,

Ah think what Geri said, is, in fact, true...

Quote Originally Posted by GeoBonsai View Post
However, if you've never shot with a full-frame digital camera (or 35mm film camera) and never intend to do so, crop factors don't mean that much in the broad scheme of things. The equivalents are in relation to traditional 35mm-film SLR days.

Crop factors are irrelevant tae folk who've never used film cameras and couldn't care less about that fact. What they see in the viewfinder of a crop camera is their experience of photography. It's immaterial tae those users what the full-frame equivalent is...

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred,

Ah think what Geri said, is, in fact, true...



Crop factors are irrelevant tae folk who've never used film cameras and couldn't care less about that fact. What they see in the viewfinder of a crop camera is their experience of photography. It's immaterial tae those users what the full-frame equivalent is...

Let's agree to disagree on that one because the preamble in Geri's statement is so loaded. It's a bit like saying, "I'll never need to drive a car because and have no intention of doing so, as I can always take the bus". Circumstances can change and taking a narrow frame of reference has its own risks. It's far more important to consider the options and then make an informed decision based on knowledge, rather than a lack of knowledge.

I started off shooting a crop factor (although I had shot film for decades prior, and still do on occasion) and had no intention of moving to full-frame. I got frustrated by some of the "features" that came with the smaller format, and ended up going full frame just to get around them. I keep toying with the idea of picking up a view camera just to play around in that format.

On the flip side, I know someone who is quite a good photographer, who pretty well ditched his full frame camera and pretty well exclusively shoots with his iPhone now. I understand his reasoning (to a point).

[dubaiphil]

If I was shooting on DX and wanting a prime, I'd look down the lines of the 20-35mm focal lengths at f1.8 to avoid the heavier and more expensive f1.4 glass

There's a great 20 f1.8 out now, a 28 f1.8 and a 35 f1.8 - any of these would be more useful to start than a 50 f1.8

[xpatUSA]

If I was shooting on DX and wanting a prime, I'd look down the lines of the 20-35mm focal lengths at f1.8 to avoid the heavier and more expensive f1.4 glass

In that other world of shooting on DC, I'm pleased to say that my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM is both cheap and light

[ProbirPune]

I have the 18-55 kit lens and now I have purchased Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G lens Autofocus to play around