In terms of image quality and sharpness, who is better, 35mm F/1.8g or 50mm F/1.8g?

I have a Nikon D5000. Making sure who is better of the two.

In terms of image quality and sharpness, they are pretty much equals.

Due to the different focal lengths they are used for very different purposes though. The 35mm lens is a generic walkaround lens and good for streetlife and group shots. The 50mm one is mostly used for portraiture.So… Just buying one and not the other because it may be said to be a tiny bit sharper would not be a good idea, because it simply might not be the right lens for what you wish to do with it then anymore,

Personally, i own both (well, the older D version of the 50mm/1.8) and use the 50mm lens a lot more than the 35mm one. Like, five times as much.

One thing you should remember is that a 35mm or 50mm lens isn't a 35mm or 50mm lens on your D5000 due to its 1.5x "crop factor".

On a 35mm film camera or full-frame DSLR a 50mm lens is considered a "normal lens" since its angle of view approximates that of the human eye. Additionally, on a 35mm film camera or full-frame DSLR a focal length of between 85mm to 105mm is considered an ideal portrait focal length. With the 1.5x "crop factor" the 50mm lens on your D5000 will have the angle of view of a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera or full-frame DSLR which makes it a good choice for portraits. Obviously, the 50mm lens on your camera isn't going to be very useful in a small room if you need to take a picture of a group of people.

The 35mm lens on your D5000 will have the angle of view of a 52.5mm lens on a 35mm film camera or full-frame DSLR. So on your camera the 35mm lens is considered a "normal" lens. Use it to photograph a scene close to how you saw it with your own eyes.

Lets make it simple. The shorter the focal length or less glass the less light fall off thus a sharper image. A 35mm is shorter than a 50mm,

The common denominator here is the f stop or the depth of field and this requires accurate selective focusing specially at maximum aperture opening at f1.8

I'm still debating on these two lenses my self, after reading up and watching 9234+ videos everyone seems to be saying the same thing about the two lenses. There both brilliantly sharp, having a FX lens with a DX body is an awesome idea not only is it because it becomes a 75mm but, when you attach a FX lens on your DX body the only part that the sensor uses is the middle, which is the 50mm's sweet spot. However in the end it comes down to you and your needs, You shoot portraits? Get the 50mm. You shoot street or events? Get the 35mm.

Slrgear.com tested these two lenses for sharpness, CA, distortion, etc…

http://www.slrgear.com/...32/cat/all

http://www.slrgear.com/...43/cat/all

In terms of sharpness, the 35mm is much better at very wide apertures than the 50mm, but isn't quite as tack sharp at apertures above f5.6

both are about the same with CA control

Theoretically, the less curvature in the glass the better the quality and edge to edge sharpness, so on that basis the nod would go to the 50mm. But there are a lot of variables that come into play.

You don't specify brand or model of the lenses you are comparing, so that is a variable that renders only the theoretical optical quality relevant to your question.

RE: focal length-although you have the multiplier effect by virtue of the size of the image sensor and that does indeed alter the focal length, a 50mm lens benefitting from the multiplier effect does not gain the perspective offered by traditional portrait lenses and equipment of similar focal lengths. In other words, focal length numbers alone do not define 'good' portrait lens choices. A 50mm lens with a 1.5 multiplier is shooting at 75mm, but this is not the same thing as using a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. It is the orientation of the optical elements inside the lens that matters. I wish people would stop perpetuating fallacies about the multiplier effect.