35/1.8 has AF-S internal motor, with AF/MF switch, rounded aperture blades, internal focusing, all time MF focus overide during AF.. etc..
85mm is more complex, with the tele, size, etc...
Be careful. It is a matter of taste/preference with regards to primes. To me, if you can't shoot a prime wide open / widest and need to stop down much further to a smaller aperture to get a sharper image, then I'd less likely consider that prime. Then again, people's acceptance to sharpness varies. For some, center sharpness is enough - no need for extreme border/edge sharpness. Whereas, some would go for all. It depends on what you need the prime for. Portrait or landscape, etc? For the latter, many would prefer edge to edge sharpness - whereas Portraiture may not require such sharpness (as long as center is sharp, that would do). Some primes are not sharp at all, wide open, largest aperture... That doesn't mean you can't use it - it probably depends on how you use it as well.
Last edited by kriegsketten; 24th September 2010 at 03:21 PM.
DD123, mind telling me here did you go-recalibrating your Sigma 28mm f/1.8 har? Is it at Bukit Merah?
Last edited by kriegsketten; 24th September 2010 at 03:33 PM.
Ain't too clever but definitely not stupid. Hey guys, just wanna learn....
but I HAVE the 50/1.8...
To me, 50 is popular (and hence rather cheap) because it was great with film SLRs (35mm size). You get a view that approximates what most people term 'normal'.
But 50mm on a DX camera is kinda like neither here nor there. I bought it first because it was cheap, and my first taste of a prime lens. Got the 35 coz I wanted something wider yet not too expensive, then later on the 85 to photograph my gf outdoor portraits
So I tend to use 35 and 85 mainly, and hardly use my 50. But since I got it cheap, and it's sharp, no point to sell it.