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.