35mm (on crop sensor) is really bad for headshots IMO.
Used to? now shooting what?

personal preference on the distortion imo.. there's people who shoots photo with distortion and being liked oso.. but i get the 85mm for the bokeh so CREAMEH ! so naisss~!
Yay ! good to know im not alone... btw where the other lens went? quit? >< normally how u shoot with them? use 1 for the whole day? or switch around smth like that...
i'm just a starter too   welcome!

currently my D7k i feel max iso around 800 only.. higher than that it gives noise... or sometimes maybe 1.2k... ><
yea agreed... alot to learn on prime lens

hmm.. wont very obvious meh? not peeping oso can see dao wor..
normally max i do till 2k nia.. unless no choice...

btw the lower the lighting condition.. more noise it produce rite? etc: 3.2k ISO  in low light place VS 3.2k ISO + fast shutter in bright place...

You will be sacrificing a lot of fine details with the noise reduction, especially portraits, prepare for blurred eye lashes and eye brows, not to forget the hair.

With noise, details are still going to be there.

Try to make ur picture as noise as this fella shot  , see ppl will comment ur picture is very noise or very good

u are over done bro 

Still don't understand why people getting so serious about sharpness. A tiny bit of sharpness won't do anything else to your pic unless you print it really large. Most people buy super high quality camera bodies and lenses, end up putting all the pics on facebook or flickr only.

Kenot brain.

my wife using camera + phone shoot and make this photobook , no need sharpness , no need very clear image , just need the moment , the process , the meaning at the behind , that is more than enough
If the picture is sharp , but no meaning , no the moment , how sharp also useless

zoom lens unable to do that?

dun have to try those lens.. just try 55-200 enough addy..  hahaha

speaking directly on DX format..
i believe 35 and 85 will be a good combo for DX
only lose to
a great combo of 24 and 85 

i was torn between these two last time.
24  and 35 ( budget not the f1.4 stuff  )

i prefer 24 FOV compared to 35 FOV but 24 is f2.8d while 35 is newer f1.8g.
you lose quite some light there but the FOV is quite beneficial as i tested it fixed on 35mm with 18-55kit for a week doing assignment and such. ( TAPE IT! )

but then again f2.8 aint really that good in OFF department where on this section the newer 35mm f1.8g triumph.
But this should only been restricted on same FOV on both lenses.
For better or worse the 24mm optical design, introduced no later than 1986, is approaching a quarter of a century old.
its been said that it was hard to create a good FX lenses compared to a DX lenses.

Sadly both of these lens suffer from Perspective distortion
Perspective distortion is based on distance to subject, not lens. If you do a headshot (i.e., the lens is a couple of feet from the face), then the perspective will enlarge the apparent size of the nose. If you do a more half-body / full-body shot (say, 8 or 10 feet from the subject), there will be little to no perspective distortion.

I could conclude that 35 f1.8g would be much more beneficial a best bang for buck for standard FOV lens
And it was optimize for DX.

FOV = FIELD OF VIEW
OFF = OUT OF FOCUS

if sony approved and honoured the ps3 selling yesterday... then i'll have 24/1.4g and 35/1.4g 

btw as for 24 and 35 FOV... i think it depends on individual, some prefered the 35 said that 24 width does not make it confine... some say 24 shoot d, can crop out... so better than 35...

what u mean by easy to use? ._. hmm... the 0.4 difference really so significant meh? or its the glass quality + distortion thing... so far the msot annoying part of my 35 f1.8 is the CA 
Siggy 30 f1.8 leh?

haha... 0.4 extra can snap meimei faster ?

oo, but 24 sibek expensive... @_@ price increment alot compare to 35