What to pair with a 35mm?

Framing. I can't tell you how many tops of heads I've cut off because I can't back up anymore.

It sounds like all you really used for the last couple years was your 50mm. But now you're replacing the 50mm lens with a 35mm so you can get closer to your subjects.

I'd say use the 35mm for a while but don't sell the 50mm yet. If you find yourself needing something longer then 35mm then put the 50mm on and see if thats long enough. If it isn't then you know to get something longer. If you're using the 35mm and find it to long then you'll know you need to get something shorter.

You might find that a 35 & 50 are all you really need. If that is the case and you still want to spend some cash then you can always get the 50mm f1.4

Talking to the OP: given your stated requirements and subsequent responses to other posts, may I suggest something wider? Canon has a number of lenses in the 20-28mm range, with or without IS. Most are in the $500-600 price range. Perhaps you could return the 35mm/2 for one of these.

Later, you might want a telephoto zoom as your kids get older and play more outside. But you can make that decision later.

gremlin75 wrote in post #16464949
It sounds like all you really used for the last couple years was your 50mm. But now you're replacing the 50mm lens with a 35mm so you can get closer to your subjects.

Nope, it's so she can frame them using the available space; see above.

i love how i've been helping her this entire thread trying to eek out what exactly the issue is that she's trying to solve. I mention that crop cameras effectively make lenses longer to help her realize she needs a wider lens, and all these people hop on my case and start going into technical crap that is irrelevant to the OP's needs.

then people start acting like I'm some internet *******?

70-300L here. 35/1.4 indoors, 70-300 outdoors. Also have a 85/1.4 but consider it less indispensable than the other two.

xarqi wrote in post #16464992
Nope, it's so she can frame them using the available space; see above.

Ah, missed her post above mine.

Looking at her flickr account it seems like the "available space" is a good mix of indoor and outdoor. So I guess at this point KareBear, I'm not entirely clear on what you need.

35 should take care of the home framing issues. If your problem is bokeh/isolation, then your solution is a L or non L prime in the 85-135 range. Do your due deligence, each has its pros and cons, and figure out your real budget. The 100 2.8 macro L lens was my gateway L lens, and is the only one with IS, which I am guessing, might be a big pro for you.

Alright, I'll try to be a little more clear on what I was asking. if you pay close attention to my first post I state that I am interested in what would be considered a "normal" focal length to pair with a 35mm lens.

I also state that I haven't even recieved it yet and it should be here tomorrow, so as of yet I have no issue with it. I don't want to send it back or exchange it because I'm pretty certain that I'm going to like it, but if I end up not liking it I'll look into those options.

I'm really not in any pickles or have a current specific need, and I have no immediate need for another new lens. I don't have an issue that needs solving. I mainly do not want to be limited to having only one lens (it's nice to have a back up or just more than one option) and wondered what others might have in their bag along with a 35mm focal length.

My 50mm and 18-55mm are slready sold. Keeping them is not an option. I wanted to replace them and that is what I'm doing.

Moral of the story. I'd like to have two lenses that I can use.
Wondered what others are using along with something like a 35mm, the $$ amount I specified is what I can spend -right now- but as I also stated in the first post, I can put aside more if I wait and spend it on a better than $600 lens because I don't need one -immediately-.

I want to thank everyone again for all the input, because I really do appreciate it!

KareBear wrote in post #16465246
I am interested in what would be considered a "normal" focal length to pair with a 35mm lens.

OK - here we have to dissect what you mean by "normal". I'm not trying to be pedantic here, it's a genuine area of confusion for me at least.

A "normal" lens is one within a certain range of focal lengths approximately equal to the diagonal length of the sensor (or film). For APS-C (your format), that's about 30 mm, making the 35 you are getting a "normal" lens in that sense.

On the other hand, you may be asking what would a person normally chose to pair with an APS-C body given that they already had a 35 mm.

xarqi wrote in post #16465296
On the other hand, you may be asking what would a person normally chose to pair with an APS-C body given that they already had a 35 mm.

This!

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be difficult I guess I just wasn't sure how to put across what I was curious about.

Ok, let me try with adding in the bit about focal length. Basically. I just wondered what lens you (general you) might have to go along with a 35mm.

I.E. You have a 35mm and _______ in your camera bag.

KareBear,

what makes this so complicated to answer is that you have a lens bought which makes recommending other lenses somewhat awkward. this is because your 35mm f2 is smack in the middle of the range for a lot of lenses people would recommend. It's also not significantly faster that the f2.8 zooms.

so, for example, i have recommended the 17-55 2.8. this lens is sharp and offers 35mm at f2.8 with IS. so, this lens really overlaps your 35mm, and makes it so your prime doesn't offer significant advantages.

from your previous posts, you said that 50mm was too long for your framing, which is why you bought a 35mm.

also, you want it to be Canon brand lens.

there are many zooms left but most highly regarded are the 17-55, 15-85, or 10-22. the 15-85 isn't really that fast, so indoor shots may be a problem. the 10-22 is really wide, maybe too wide.

the other option are primes. there are 24mm and 20mm primes that aren't too expensive, but neither are faster than 2.8.

you also stated you take pictures of kids, as kids are very mobile, i feel swapping multiple primes might not be ideal.

i'm having a hard time seeing why a nice 2.8 is zoom lens isn't ideal for your situation.

Oh, no! Don't get me wrong Jerobean, the 17-55 is definitely ideal! I would love to have it! I'm sorry if I gave the impression I didn't. I just don't want it to be the ONLY lens that I have if I did have it. I probably should have just put out the extra and bought that. but since I was so fond of my 50mm vs my 18-55mm, I'm in the mindset that I would like the fixed length better than a zoom.

So would it just be stupid to have both the 35mm and the 17-55mm? Or any other zoom for that matter?

KareBear wrote in post #16465355
Oh, no! Don't get me wrong Jerobean, the 17-55 is definitely ideal! I would love to have it! I'm sorry if I gave the impression I didn't. I just don't want it to be the ONLY lens that I have if I did have it. I probably should have just put out the extra and bought that. but since I was so fond of my 50mm vs my 18-55mm, I'm in the mindset that I would like the fixed length better than a zoom.

So would it just be stupid to have both the 35mm and the 17-55mm? Or any other zoom for that matter?

it's not stupid, it's just not ideal. and given that you have limited resources for which to accomplish you goals, it's somewhat important to be really efficient with the money.

if you had the 17-55 (i'm not saying you HAVE to get this lens btw, just for example) you would be shooting, and the ONLY reason you would switch to the 35mm is because you wanted more light since it's f2 vs f2.8. this is 1 f-stop, or twice as much light, which correlates to 3 clicks on your shutter speed. (for example, you could shoot 35mm f2 at 1/125th second for proper exposure, where at 2.8 it would require 1/60th shutter speed for proper exposure)

it would be easier to justify the money on a prime and zoom if they were further apart on fstops. for example, i have a 24-105 f4 and I'm buying fast primes to use in lower light indoor shooting. i just picked up 85 1.8 and will be getting a 35 1.4. these lenses are SO much faster than my zoom, that I can easily justify buying them even though their range is covered by my zoom. I can get shots with a 1.4 and 1.8 that i would never get at 4.

1 stop of light can make a difference, but going back to the limited resources point, it might not be a big enough difference to justify having both.

I hope this is helpful, sorry if it's confusing at all.

OK - combining that with:

KareBear wrote in post #16462619
My main subjects are my kids. (ages 6 years, 21 months and 4 months.) i rarely shoot anything else, except for maybe my dog (a border collie) and the rare adult, or inanimate object. I'm not particular on whether it's a zoom or a prime [...]

Oh and I'm shooting with a T3i body.

... and I end up where I started!

xarqi wrote in post #16462782
I'm thinking a Canon 70-200/4L. Probably not the IS version as it's likely to be too pricey, and if you are wanting to freeze kid/dog action, your shutter speed will likely arrest camera movement too. If f/4 is too slow, and your 35/2 too wide, you may need to think about adding a flash, like a 430 EX or a Yongnuo equivalent for less dosh.

I guess I could add that if the 70-200/4L (non-IS) does fall outside your price range, you could consider the new EF-S 55-250 IS STM.

If it's one new lens you want, and you have a 35 mm, I still reckon that for your purposes a longer zoom would suit you better than anything shorter. If I had to pick a companion prime, I'd be looking at the 85/1.8, the 100/2, or, just maybe, the 100/2.8 macro (the older, non-L, non-IS one).