I have a Nikon d500 with a 35mm and a 85mm 1.8. My family is

Are you a prime shooter? A prime shooter knows how to make things work, and what things won't work at the end of the day.

Pick up a 16-85 VR if you're a fuccboi.

Sounds like a solid kit to me. It might be nice to have a wider angle than 35 for some situations, but I think you'll be fine.

>>3039544
Still learning what I am. I do prefer primes though.

>>3039547

This. 85mm will give you some very nice portraits and 35mm is wide enough for general shots, like street/candid shots

>>3039542
>canikon d500
>not a Sony a6500

You fucked up.

>>3039567

Go make better use of your spring break, kiddo.

>>3039564
>35mm is wide enough
But he is using a 1.5 crop. I'd say 35mm equivalent field of view would be better (~20mm on 1.5x crop).

>>3039572

Unless he's using the DX version.

But if he is using FX lens, then yeah that may not be the most convenient. But the crop would make it what, around 50mm? Still not too bad.

If 35 is FX rent a wider lens and a long tele. Get them cool swamp landscapes and some wildlife shots. Of you find you love them, but them. If not, don't.
Also, practice some panorama technique before you go to wow your grandma.

>>3039567
I actually returned my a6500 to get the d500. No regrets. Admittedly, the video was MUCH better on the Sony.

>>3039601

35mm is 35mm my man

>>3039586
Crop factor is due to the smaller sensor not the lens. Whether you use a DX or FX lens, a 35mm will have the same POV on a crop body (equiv to 50mm on a full-frame/35mm sensor)

>>3039606
Yeah I was looking at the 17-55mm 2.8 that way I could get wider shots and have a bit of zoom that way I'm not having to switch lenses constantly. I'm wondering if investing in lighting would be more beneficial for better photos rather than more glass?

>>3039606

Really? Then what the fuck is the point of making DX-only lenses if the crop factor is still there?

I mean, I knew it was from the sensor but I thought maybe the DX lenses had some shit in them that allowed them to show the true focal length of the lens if it was a DX lens on a DX camera.

>>3039619
They are a lot cheaper. DX is made for crop bodies. FX is made for full frame. FX has potential for a larger field of view on a full frame body, but on a crop body, it'll look the same as a DX lens.

>>3039619
Dx lenses are dx lenses due to the tiny image circle they project, which doesn't cover full frame. That's the only difference.

Sensors are falling in price, crop is a false economy, camera sales are plungeing 20% a year mainly losing from the bottom end, give it 5 years and crop will barely exist.

D500 was a bad buy unless it's a specialist tool for you and you have $$$ lenses.

>>3039542
I've shot dx for a while now and I think you should invest in something a little wider. It could just be me, but a 35 f1.8 is the first lens I got and for social events I always regretted not having something wider. You could get a for a sigma 17-50 for pretty cheap now, but I also recommend the 18-35 f1.8 if you can afford it

>>3039711
Idk I really enjoy my d500

>>3040676
Grab the Rokinon 16mm f/2 (used a little under, new a little over $300) and you will fucking love it outdoors.

>>3039630
>>3039711

Right on. Thanks for info.

Seriously.

18-55 VR II

Not even trolling. If you're on DX there is literally no excuse to not have one they cost nothing and weigh nothing and deliver professional-quality images. The IQ is off the damn charts I actually traded in my 35 1.8 for one and ended up getting a 35/2 for FX. No ragrets

>>3040728
sugar rockwell

>>3039602

I am all for dslrs....but a d500 over an a6500?

Are you nuts? The a6500 has a better sensor AND ibis, not to mention all the lenses are OSS.

You dun fucked up.

>>3039542

Louisianian here.

Where ya headed? New Orleans I guess?

Anyway, between just those two lenses, I'd take the 35mm. Quite a bit more flexible.

If you are looking for something new? A kit lens. Having a zoom lens while on vacation just makes it so you have one less thing to worry about. And as long as the lens isn't terrible and your shots are actually interesting, most people will be unable to tell the difference from a prime.

Why are people even mentioning the d500. He asked a simple question and saying, "wow shoulda bought a sony", doesn't contribute. I dunno it just seems silly to bring it up.

Anyways. OP when I'm going anywhere new I try to prepare for what environment I think I'll be shooting on, or look up pictures ahead of time. Example, if I'm just wandering during the day and it's bright outside, I'll bring the 18-55mm kit lens. It's got IS and is decently sharp in good light. Usually if it's darker or for street stuff I stick with the 35mm prime since I want to be ready to lots of lighting conditions and you can get almost the same framing as the doom except at its widest point. I mean the 35 and 85mm are both solid choices for lots of occasions so I wouldn't worry about it. Just use what you have to get results you want. If you really feel restricted by your lack of a lens then maybe considering getting a new one. I also shoot on a crop body and others are right, if you want wide angle the 35mm won't really fill that role.

>>3040957
Sorry I meant mentioning Sony, not the d500

>>3039586
>>3039601
holy shit you need to leave this board immediately

>>3039542

go wider or just use the kit zoom. 35mm on crop can still be a pain when you're in a restaurant with your folks and want to snap away.

>>3040892

Not trolling I bought a 75-300 Nikkor AF because of his review on it.

>>3039542
Value now
Used Nikon D500 = 1500 usd
Used 35mm 1.8g = 150 usd
Used 85mm 1.8g = 350 usd

10 years later.
Used Nikon D500 value = 400 usd
Used 35mm 1.8g = 150 usd
Used 85mm 1.8g = 350 usd


Lol, you invested heavily on the body instead of the lenses.