[johnyates]

Isn't the only difference between the 35 and 50 going to be more background?

It's more about working distance. Indoors, the size of the room you are in will be a limitation as to what you can shoot. IE with the 50, you could do maybe head and shoulders, but with the 35mm a half length. If you're shooting kids indoors, you'll be more successful with the 35mm.

[TER-OR]

The 24-35mm range is "normal" view - closest to what your eye sees in its focus range (not peripheral). On a full-frame 35mm camera, that was 50mm. So on an APS-C camera the 50 becomes a bit "tight" in its field of view. Good for portraits, but not so good for multiple people fairly close. This is why people are suggesting the 35mm lens, which is not expensive so that's another plus.

I was taking pictures at an event last week, and with 4 people (not hugging close) I had to be back around 10-12 feet to fit them into my 28mm lens field. With a 50mm I'd have to be back 20 feet. I think this gives you an idea of what you'll see. There are some online field of view comparisons which are interesting to see.

[Kozlok]

As others have said, the lens focal length determines how far away you have to be from your subject to get what you want in. My experience indoors with a 50, your back will be against the far wall, and the view will be too "zoomed in". Outside, a 50 is usually fine. But as far as "more background", it's not really like that. At 50mm, the background will seem closer, whereas with the 35, the background will be more distant looking. Here are a few shots I took at 35 and 50, moving my body so that the main subject was more or less the same. As you can see, sometimes it matters more than others:

[AldaCZ]

I love the bird on the second photo Is K30 really that loud?)

[Another dyemention]

I guess I should've stated that I prefer shoulder up shots over waste up. And I found my house to be just big enough to get both with the 50. Although by baby's bedroom was a bit tight. But when it comes down to it, I chose the 50 specifically for its ability to do face shots compared to the 35. Not that I couldn't get the same with the 35.
And as far as saying there's more background, I just meant because the 35 is wider you can see more of the background. Like in your shots above. And while it won't always matter, I prefer much less background than what I'd get with a 35. If I could, I would choose the 85 over the 50 just for that fact. However I doubt I could swing that in my house.

---------- Post added 04-26-14 at 04:29 AM ----------

And while the 35 probably won't make that much of a difference when doing close ups (regarding background) it's the outdoor shots that will. I.e. When my kid is running around and I am actually taking full body pictures. Since I'll be much farther, I'll have much more background in the pic.

[tuggie76]

Isn't the only difference between the 35 and 50 going to be more background? I might not be saying it correctly but that's how I see it. I could be missing something but I prefer less background and more focus on the subject. I guess I could crop the pic but I don't see an advantage to one over the other. And as far as the kit lens, I don't feel if ever use it below 35 ish anyhow. And if I'm getting a 35 or 50, I feel it'd be redundant. I rather dislike wide angle pictures so I don't feel I'd get much use out of the kit. Plus I can get the k30 body for 439 compared to closer to 600 with the kit.

---------- Post added 04-24-14 at 09:57 AM ----------

Again, I'm new and don't have much experience other than a short time with my brothers d3200. Though I have been reading and reading and researching photography is general for months now. I've also looked at hundreds of pictures and determined what I like about each one and found out what lenses and settings were used. This is how I put together a rig in my mind at least. But I could be completely wrong about all of it. Until I get out and start shooting, just having some knowledge isn't going to be much real world help.

The big difference I see, is that when shooting in a confined space, maybe your living room, the 50 is too close and you can't get all you might want to see in the photo, unless you have a long living room!

Tuggie76

[Tsuken]

K-30 is really excellent. I got mine last October, and haven't gone a day since without using it. I think it's fabulous in almost every respect (I'd just like to be able to assign ISO to the rear control dial in manual mode...).

As for focal length, I'm going to break with the 35mm supporters and recommend 28mm. My 2.8/28 is hands down my favourite of any of my lenses. 50mm is great too; get old manual lenses, and then you can buy both.

[TER-OR]

Don't immediately discount a zoom like the 16-45, it's a great indoors and gathering lens. IQ is quite good, too. It's pretty inexpensive and can help you decide what prime would be more to your liking.

Also remember with these sensors you have a lot of cropping ability. The images are big, so you can adjust your FOV later, in processing. It's always better to get a shot you can use than miss the perfect shot with non-ideal gear.

[Tsuken]

Also remember with these sensors you have a lot of cropping ability. The images are big, so you can adjust your FOV later, in processing. It's always better to get a shot you can use than miss the perfect shot with non-ideal gear.

Totally. There really is enough detail to crop fairly "assertively" and still end up with a good image.

[tuggie76]

Don't immediately discount a zoom like the 16-45, it's a great indoors and gathering lens. IQ is quite good, too. It's pretty inexpensive and can help you decide what prime would be more to your liking.

Also remember with these sensors you have a lot of cropping ability. The images are big, so you can adjust your FOV later, in processing. It's always better to get a shot you can use than miss the perfect shot with non-ideal gear.

Yes, but in confined spaces you need wider not longer, in my front room I have to stand at the opposite end to get a full length picture and it's almost impossible to get a group shot.

Tuggie76

[TER-OR]

Yes, but in confined spaces you need wider not longer, in my front room I have to stand at the opposite end to get a full length picture and it's almost impossible to get a group shot.

Tuggie76

That's why the 50mm isn't suitable for a lot of indoors activity, and the 35 might even be too tight sometimes. this is where some short zooms really prove their worth.

Yes, the 16mm end of the DA16-45 zoom is pretty wide, you'll have to check it out. By the time you get mid-range on that lens - around 28mm - it's good for isolating individuals. For the price, I maintain the 16-45 is worth considering - certainly it's quite flexible.

Wider than the 16mm of the 16-45 and you're into specialty lens territory. I have a 10-17 which isn't super-fishy at 17mm, but much wider than the 16mm. I suppose I'll have to do some comparison shots this spring once the gardens are blooming... I don't have a 10-20 or 12-24 to compare it with, though.

[Lokusart]

the K-30 is great value. I had a problem with mine but after the warranty repair it has been a good camera, it hasn't let me down since then