35 vs 50

[sambisu]

I am about to pull the trigger on a big upgrade. Moving from my T2i to a 5DIII. I already own a 70-200 2.8 IS II and plan on purchasing one additional lens with the 5DIII. I have no interest in the available kit lenses as I would like something faster. I do a pretty wide variety of shooting (landscapes, portraits, travel, etc). Right now I am debating between a 35 1.4 (either Canon L series or Sigma Art) or 50 1.4 (Sigma Art). We are expecting our first child in about 6 weeks, so a lot of my photography in the near future will probably be baby pictures. I could maybe stretch the budget for a 24-70 2.8L II, but I am still leaning towards the primes.

[DavidWare]

I'd go with the 24-70 simply because of the versatility.

[HDNitehawk]

As primes go I would choose the 35 mm 1.4L for what you describe.
it is wide enough for landscapes, for portraits it is great for capturing person at location type shots. Use it at f2.0 or wider it can produce really cool separation.
50mm results are more plain IMO as the FOV is close to what the human eye sees.
Of the two focal lengths I prefer 35mm.

The 24-70 II is as good as it gets when it comes to Canon wide zooms.
The IQ of the 35mm and the Zoom are about the same at 35mm.
The zoom has more distortion and vignetting but if you are using LR5 you just select lens correction when you process and it magically disappears.
So the only reason to buy the prime, and for me this is an important one, is the magic the 35mm 1.4L can create at f/1.8 to f/2.0.
At f/14 the IQ is not so good. When picking the prime the IQ wide open is the most important.
Low light for me is only a minor consideration as the zoom is super sharp wide open. You only gain a bit over a stop of light, before someone jumps on the math of the statement I do not consider the IQ of the prime usable at 1.4.

[iND]

Tough question but again depends on what you are going to use it for.
24-70 2.8 is my primary working lens for weddings.
if you already have the 70-200 this give you a complete range for 2.8.
I would start with these two lenses.

Now with that said the 24 1.4 gives you so much more as your first prime. It is great in low light and I can shoot indoors with no flash with ease.
Dealing with natural light and no flash will set these photos apart from the rest, not to say the bokeh at 1.4 is amazing.
This is not a portrait lens it is too wide, but it is indoor and outdoor low light fantastic.
I would not start with 35 or 50 for my first prime unless you are tight on budget. (if you are tight on budget then you may need to go to the 50 1.4 and bypass the 24 for now)

[sambisu]

Do you think the 35 + 70-200 combo would be too limiting? I really love the look of photos I've seen from 1.4 primes vs 2.8 zooms, but maybe the zoom versatility is worth sacrificing that 1.4 look.

[iND]

The 24 1.4 and the 35 1.4 are close to the same price.
If you are shooting crop definitely get the 24, full frame I still choose the 24 for the extra field of view.
To be honest since I bought the 24 I don't think I took the 35 or the 50 out.
I do use an 85 for portraits. (here the 1.2 is king but the 1.8 is very affordable)
The 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are both really nice fast primes and autofocus very quickly (the 85 1.2 is very slow)
I just dont find the 50 or the 85 are wide enough, definitely not for landscape

[Kayaker72]

I currently own the 50A, 35A, and 24-70 II. Honestly, I am reaching for the 24-70 II far more than the others. The issue gets to be that the thin DoF of less than f/2.8 is great for those special shots, but also limiting for everyday shots. I had to learn this after trying to shoot f1.4 to f/2 for a couple of events and missing a lot of shots.

Another way to put this, if I had to limit myself to two lenses on the 5DIII, it would be the 70-200 II and 24-70 II.

Where I find myself using the 50A is when I don't use a flash and indoor low light events, or when I want the very shallow DoF. Then, I just shoot a lot so I have a couple of keepers.

For what it is worth, the 24-105 is a great lens. I had been tempted to go with it and primes. It's a great value in a kit or purchased used. Another option would be to get it and a prime.

Good luck.

[Kayaker72]

I should also note, specifically on comparing primes, look at what you shoot. For example, some of my favorite shots by others have been taken with a 35 mm prime. But whenever I looked at my shooting patterns on my zooms, I'd have clusters from 24-28 mm, 50-55 mm, and 70-135 mm (FF equiv going back to my days with the EFS 15-85). But a good deal came up with the 35A when I had some cash. So I bought it and, I still just don't "see" things in that focal length. I prefer framing at other lengths. But that is me. I know others doing great work with 35 mm.

So look to see what you like to shoot.

[Jonathan Huyer]

I'd put in a vote for the 50 mm prime, which would be great for baby pictures on a full-frame camera. A 35 mm lens is a bit wide for portraits, and would not allow you to blur out the background as easily.

[sambisu]

The 50 is what I thought I had decided on initially. But my concern with that is that I won't really have anything for landscapes until I can buy another lens. That's why I was thinking the 35 would be a good compromise.

I did look in Lightroom at where I take most of my pictures. Not surprisingly, mostly at 17 and 55 (27 and 88 for FF). Although I did have a decent number of shots around 19-22 (near 35 FF) that I really liked.

[sambisu]

Supposed I could keep shooting landscapes with the T2i + 17-55

[HDNitehawk]

Do you think the 35 + 70-200 combo would be too limiting? I really love the look of photos I've seen from 1.4 primes vs 2.8 zooms, but maybe the zoom versatility is worth sacrificing that 1.4 look.


That was my primary set up back when the IQ quality of the zooms didn't match the primes.
With 24-70 f2.8 L II you are not sacrificing any IQ.

I wouldn't go to a 24 mm prime, compared to the Zoom, you would gain even less. Not enough Bokeh to matter. The 35mm f1.4 gives you just the right amount of Bokeh to create an interesting 3D look.

The 35mm is a specialty tool, do you want a specialty tool or versatility. That is the question.

When I first bought my 24-70 II my step daughter asked me to take some pics of their family. She was in her second trimester with her second child. At the end of the shoot I changed to the 35 mm. A few shots later I had the best pictures of the day, pics that couldn't be created with the zoom.

Personally I would buy a Zeis 35mm 1.4 with a FF if I were rebuilding my kit from scratch. Next I would buy a t5i with a kit lens to document the kids growing up. When I look at family pics Bokeh and creative photography do not come to mind, times, people and events do. Just me, ymmv.

[sambisu]

Thanks for all the insight. Gonna have to think on this lens choice for another day or so. Right now I'm thinking I could keep shooting with the T2i and 17-55 2.8 in place of a 24-70 2.8 for the 5DIII. So i guess I'm still stuck on the 35 vs 50 debate.

[peety3]

A couple of thoughts: although not worth millions, you could at least sell your 18-55 and 55-250. If you're going to sell the T2i as well, the 17-55 could/should be sold as you'd have nothing to use it.

Also, I cannot imagine having a 5D3 with a 70-200, but no walk-around or wide-angle zoom. Look at the 16-35/4IS for a while, or consider the 24-70/2.8II as soon as you sell off the EF-S gear. Although not exactly the same scenario, when I bought my 70-200 in 2007, I tried doing things with just that, and OMG did I get a lot of exercise running 20 yards back to make the shot work. In your case, having 27mm EFL now and going to 35mm would be enough of a shock that I can't imaging going to 50mm as your widest lens - that 16-35 is sounding really good to me right now.

[sambisu]

I was actually planning on keeping the T2i as my backup/time-lapse camera. Didn't seem worthwhile just trying to sell the kit lenses. But I may reconsider this to get some extra money for an additional lens.

16-35 is definitely on my short list for the 5DIII. I borrowed a 10-22 earlier this year and loved shooting with that on the Rebel.

[HDNitehawk]

Not sure what your budget is but since you are talking close to 5K if you get a 24-70 II and a 5D III, have you considered the 6D at all?


Great lens and a 6D or a 5DII is better than a so-so lens and a 5D III IMO. I am still shooting a 5D II for FF and I have a 1D IV. A
used 5D II would get you where you want to go, you could buy it and the 24-70 II for not much more than what the 5D III will cost you.

[sambisu]

I did consider the 6D, but decided for a number of reasons that the 5DIII would be worth the extra cost for me.

If I sold my T2i and associated gear, I could probably get enough to buy a 16-35 f/4 IS. If I paired that with the Sigma 50A and 70-200 seems like I'd have pretty good coverage as well as some nice creative options with the 50.

[Kayaker72]

If I paired that with the Sigma 50A and 70-200 seems like I'd have pretty good coverage as well as some nice creative options with the 50.

I've considered this exact kit. Great glass, everything is 77 mm filters, but I don't have the 16-35 mm f/4 IS. If you were clustered at 17 mm and 55 mm on your T2i, you would now have those focal lengths +/- covered. Fast glass would also be covered, except for the wide angle. For extra reach, at some point at the 2xTC.

Do you have a good flash?

[sambisu]

I just have one 430EX-II. I have a light stand, umbrella and extra long ETTL cord. It's not much for lighting, but I've done some cool shoots with it. My lighting wish list would be 3 600EX-RTs plus additional stands and modifiers. I think that would make a nice versatile and mobile light setup.

[sambisu]

Ended up getting the Sigma 50 Art. Just came yesterday along with my new 5D3. Definitely feels like a big upgrade from the T2i. My favorite thing so far...the viewfinder feels HUGE compared to my Rebel. How did I ever compose images in that thing? And along with the 1.4 lens it's so bright too.

I got the sigma dock along with the lens, but I did some focus testing and it seems to be dead on already.

[Kayaker72]

Congrats. That is some great equipment you just picked up.

[Jonathan Huyer]

Excellent --- great choices. Yes once you've used high quality cameras and lenses there's no going back. Post some shots when you get a chance!