Prime users: What focal length do you prefer more: 35mm or 50mm ?

JayStar86 wrote in post #11056653
A simple question I have been long curious about. For those prime addicts out there like me, what focal length do you prefer more; 35mm or 50mm on FULL FRAME.

The question is as simple as that! I have used both the 35L and a 50mm primes and find I am indecisive and have seen over time people confused about which to get as well... a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. More specifically its some variation of confusion over the 35L, 50 1.4, 50L or Sigmalux.

Vote away! And feel free to add your 2 cents.

35!

Back in the day when I had but a 35-70mm lens, I found that most of my shots were at 35mm or 70mm (often wishing I had a bit wider or a bit to a lot longer).

50mm is "THE STANDARD" simply because it is the easiest lens to produce at high quality. Even a $80 lens can produce amazing quality by f/4 and arguably f/2.8.

I voted for 50mm because I like the Sigma 30mm on my crop body. I had a 24L on my crop body and didn't like the focal length as much.

I prefer 35mm for street shooting, and my 50 for landscapes. I was told that this is very strange. In any case, if I were forced to choose, I would take the 35mm.

I love my 35L on my 5D2!

But a 24+50 combo would also be great...

DL.Photography wrote in post #11058044
Jay, you're thinking of trading away the 35L now?

I just picked up the 50 f/1.4 to pair with my 17-40 for when I want to travel light. I find the 50 to be a bit too tight indoors. The 35 indoors is just perfect though.

lol, no man not really looking to sell the 35L. I was just curious about what people prefer. Thought I would through up a poll thread.

The 50mm can be a bit to tight indoors as you say.... this is single handedly the main reason I own the 35L and not a 50mm prime. I find outdoors for general photography and environmental portrait stuff 50mm is better.

If I got an UWA zoom I might sell the 35L and get a 50mm prime instead. Who knows. The 24L/50mm prime combination seems pretty solid too. For now I think Ill be keeping my 35L because if I got a 50mm prime and sold my 35L then 50mm would be my widest lens for indoor stuff and its just not wide enough.

Definitely 35mm.

I tried a 50mm in the past and didn't like the FL that much...but, i might give it another try some day

a 16-35 f/2.8L II would be great but it won't replace the 35L. I thought about doing the 16-35L, 50L, 85L combo but the 16-35 won't do f/1.4.

btw, i just sold my 100L like u did earlier. Great lens, but wasn't getting much use lol.

JayStar86 wrote in post #11059497
lol, no man not really looking to sell the 35L. I was just curious about what people prefer. Thought I would through up a poll thread.

The 50mm can be a bit to tight indoors as you say.... this is single handedly the main reason I own the 35L and not a 50mm prime. I find outdoors for general photography and environmental portrait stuff 50mm is better.

If I got an UWA zoom I might sell the 35L and get a 50mm prime instead. Who knows. The 24L/50mm prime combination seems pretty solid too. For now I think Ill be keeping my 35L because if I got a 50mm prime and sold my 35L then 50mm would be my widest lens for indoor stuff and its just not wide enough.

DL.Photography wrote in post #11059645
a 16-35 f/2.8L II would be great but it won't replace the 35L. I thought about doing the 16-35L, 50L, 85L combo but the 16-35 won't do f/1.4.

btw, i just sold my 100L like u did earlier. Great lens, but wasn't getting much use lol.

yeah, the 100L although an awesome lens just wasn't doing it for me.

You could also consider doing 24L/50L/85L instead? I might end up doing something similar. Not sure yet though as the 35L is a great lens and so is the 135L.

I can't vote in the poll as it isn't logically consistent. Option 3) "I have both" doesn't preclude option 1) or 2).

I have two 35mm lenses and two 50 mm lenses but all things considered I prefer 35 mm.

On FF, I hated 50mm. In much cases, not so long and not so wide. The 35 seems more natural to me. And I can use it for portraits and landscape.
In addition, the 50/1.4 AF is really s***

JayStar86 wrote in post #11059497
The 24L/50mm prime combination seems pretty solid too.

The 24L/50L is a SOLID SET. Stellar performer. The 35L/85L is a great set too. Unfortunately, I am not that fortunate yet.

Marloon wrote in post #11062420
The 24L/50L is a SOLID SET. Stellar performer.

I'm interested to know (because i'd love to run this set), why this combo works so well? What kind of shooting do you do? Do you shoot any events or just personal work? Do you find it has limitations?

I'm heading to New Zealand in a week to shoot a job for a magazine - basically a 7-day mountain-bike trip with 10 guys, and i've got to document everything that happens. I'm tossing up between a 17-40/50/70-200 combo, a 24/50/70-200 combo, or a 24-70/70-200 combo. Most would argue for the last, but I just freakin' love primes!

I do hope this doesn't derail this thread too much...

TristanCardew wrote in post #11062656
I'm interested to know (because i'd love to run this set), why this combo works so well? What kind of shooting do you do? Do you shoot any events or just personal work? Do you find it has limitations?

I'm heading to New Zealand in a week to shoot a job for a magazine - basically a 7-day mountain-bike trip with 10 guys, and i've got to document everything that happens. I'm tossing up between a 17-40/50/70-200 combo, a 24/50/70-200 combo, or a 24-70/70-200 combo. Most would argue for the last, but I just freakin' love primes!

I do hope this doesn't derail this thread too much...

Of your given choices... I would take the 24/50/70-200 combination without a doubt.

35 on a FF.... or 50 on a crop.

TristanCardew wrote in post #11062656
I'm interested to know (because i'd love to run this set), why this combo works so well? What kind of shooting do you do? Do you shoot any events or just personal work? Do you find it has limitations?

24/50 (plus portrait lens, choose your poison... I mostly use the 135L) is fantastic for event work, and I think the reason it works so well is that it covers the whole range of focal length potential while simultaneously reinforcing a fixed-focal style. You can't "step back" to match the 24 FOV with a 50, just as you can't "step forward" to imitate the 50 with a 24 - with so much space between the two, the photographic approach diverges by necessity. Just imagine an enviornmental portrait done with both... the 50 allows you to focus on the subject and restrict their visible environs to a few paces to either side (allowing you to include a few objects / people that balance out or otherwise contribute to the frame), whereas the 24 forces you to include nearly everything in sight, putting significantly different demands on composition (angle of the shot for one). In this way there is no doubt in your mind which lens to choose for a given shot, no overlap "slop" (say, the 35L vs the 50L "just crop in post, or step back a bit") to muddy the creative vision. Furthermore, you could choose to frame equally with the 24 as the 50, whereby the distance to your subject (practically in their face if you want to fill the frame as you could with the 50) completely changes the perspective and style of the image. When I had the 35L and the Sigma 50, and the 24L, the three were too close in my mind, that I practically flipped a coin when I was making a shot. In a sense, with primes too closely spaced, you recreate the same creative crutch (zoom) that prime lovers tried to get away from in the first place. From my own experience, its either the 35/85 or the 24/50/100(135) split. (35/85 is great for size as long as you go with the non-L versions)