Considering 35/2

[DocFrankenstein]

Seeing that my 18-55 is a EFSPOS ;) and the 50mm prime spends a lot of time on the body, I am considering getting the 35mm prime.

How is the bokeh there? Is it as bad as 50/1.8?

Or should I go for 17-40 from the beginning? Because after the 35mm I'm gonna want the 15mm prime I think. :? And 24mm... :?

Help. Confused. As usual :lol:

[timmyquest]

Is it as bad as 50/1.8

Bad bokeh on the 50?

You've got some high standards :shock:

http://www.questphotos.com/october2004/bluekitty.jpg

[nosquare2003]

Timmy, he prefers the 50/1.4

I have the 35/2 btw. Doc, I don't know how to reply but the DOF for 50@1.8 is much shallow compared to 35@2...

[timmyquest]

Timmy, he prefers the 50/1.4

Well, i cant blame him there.

[cmM]

I too am thinking about this lens. I need a fast wide angle prime. I read a review on the 35 f/2 and it seems like a pretty nice lens. The diaphragm is pretty much the same design as the 50 f/1.8 (5 blades), so the bokeh should be comparable. Of course, focal length changes it a little bit, but oh well.

Given its price, I cannot justify the 35 f/1.4L which is about 7 times the price :P .

[davidwegs]

I have had the 35/2 for about a year. I find the shots are acceptable but not for DPF reasons or Bokeh.

It gets sharp shots all the time and focus speed is not too shabby either. The Bokeh is a subjective thing, I like what I get, but I don't own the 50/1.8. I am comparing to the 50/1.4 which is great.

[DocFrankenstein]

Timmy, he prefers the 50/1.4

I have the 35/2 btw. Doc, I don't know how to reply but the DOF for 50@1.8 is much shallow compared to 35@2...
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't wanna sound like a lens snob.

I am not looking for extremely shallow DOF. I understand that a slower wider lens should have a "deeper" DOF.

My concern with 50mm 1.8 is that there are sometimes sharp artifacts in the background of the image. It can be very distractive sometimes.

I'll post some pics in a bit. Or maybe my 50mm was defective. I dunno.

[roanjohn]

I owned a 35 f2 once............a sharp lens, but the bokeh is not as creamy as my 50 f1.8.............so I returned it.

For beautiful bokeh.........theres only one way to go...........to L street.

Ro1

[DocFrankenstein]

How do the primes hold their value? I can't afford L primes yet. :(

[DocFrankenstein]

I owned a 35 f2 once............a sharp lens, but the bokeh is not as creamy as my 50 f1.8.............so I returned it.

For beautiful bokeh.........theres only one way to go...........to L street.

Ro1
Oh god... and I don't like the bokeh 50/1.8 produces. :?

Given its price, I cannot justify the 35 f/1.4L which is about 7 times the price Razz
What about 5 times? :) 220$ vs 1190$

I might go the L way after all. Cause now I feel like I'm missing out on the 50/1.4 with my Mk1. It's pathological. :(

[nosquare2003]

Why do you need a 35mm lens? For a beautiful bokeh? 35/2 is not good for separation of subject from the background. I don't even think of 35/1.4L for (merely) this reason...

I really don't understand.

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't wanna separate the subject from the background. If I wanted to do that, my 70-200 would do that way better than any 35 mm out there.

It's just I find myself shooting at parties and such... mostly with the 50mm prime. 18-55 doesn't cut it anymore. But I usually find the 50mm to be too narrow on the rebel.

So I am thinking of either 17-40 or a 35mm prime. What I know for sure is that I'll love the 35mm L

For some reason my fotopic account won't put up the pics I want to post.

But I have a couple of samples with 50mm prime where the DOF is extremely narrow, but the background consists of either doubling objects or sharp bokeh... really distracting, cause the eye focuses on that.

I don't want this happening with the 35mm prime... cause I won't be satisfied with it.

Don't get me wrong... I like the nifty fifty, but I'll probably change it to 1.4 in a few years, because I feel it hurts my imagies cometimes.

Pathological...

[nosquare2003]

I agree with davidwegs that bokeh is a subjective thing. I have no problem with the 35/2 and 50/1.8.

Personally, I will also use a wider angle in party photos -- look funny and less formal looking...