Gallardo wrote in post #16937587
I made a mistake, i tried a Sigma 35 and had no intention to switch my 35L but now I am tempted. It is better or equal in every way.
The 50 art also seems amazing and the only reason I bought the 35L was that I had hard time finding a 50 with no issues. (Focus shift etc)
So now I need some input. (I don't what as much gear as possible.)
The obvious is to switch to 35 art but 50 is a sweat fl. Portrait and cars is what I mostly do.
Would it be redundant to keep 35L buy 50 art and keep my 85 1,8 (amazing copy)
or go with only 50 + 85?
or maybe sell 35 + 85 just fly solo with the 50.
Heya,IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nEUqF5 IMG_3361
Only you can figure that out. I would opt to keep the 35mm over the 50mm focal length in almost any situation. But that's just my preference. I'd rather be slightly wide, even in portraits, and especially in environmental stuff, cars, etc, so that I can be closer and do more interesting perspectives without having to move much. 35mm does that.
You have a 35L. You want to swap to a 35 ART? Fair enough. Yes, it's better in every way. But is the swap worth it to you? It may be a near even swap, so that's no loss. Why not? Do what you think here.
As for the 50 ART. That's totally up to you, if you need that focal length. You say it's pretty sweet as a focal length, but is it? Are you routinely shooting at 50mm? Is it sweeter than 35mm or 85mm? I do a lot of portraits and environmental stuff, and 35mm and 85mm are my go-to options no matter the camera. They're just easy to use focal lengths, wide enough to get closer, so you can work in limited space, but still do what they should do. You can also find people rolling 50mm and 135mm. It's all about what you want, and what lenses you want. I like 35 at F2 and 85 at F1.4, so that's my go-to. If 50mm is your go-to, then the ART makes plenty of good sense. I have 3 50mm lenses and I really just don't care for them nearly as much as the 35mm focal length. You just have to try things and see what really works for you, to be your sweet focal length.
If you're just getting lenses to get lenses, then get all the ARTs, they're that good. Better than L's. But if you're looking to only have lenses that you actively use, keep it simple. I don't see a need for 35, 50 and 85. I definitely wouldn't just have 50 and 85. I'd rather have slightly wide and telephoto. Normal view portraits are not nearly as interesting to me, perspective wise. But it depends on your work and style.
85mm can absolutely destroy backgrounds. You don't need 135 for that. I can murder backgrounds with my 85mm:
, on Flickr
But my 85mm can't do up close, in house, low light portraits as easily, where 35mm really makes it easier. And at that close proximity, I can't really use F1.4 on a moving target with eyes, as there's just too thin a depth of field that close at F1.4, so I use F2 there. But it keeps context, when further away from the subject, and isolates well, but keeps context which to me is important and the purpose of using 35mm, besides the proximity and perspective options it gives.
35mm:IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nPK1ob IMG_4608
, on Flickr
|HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR|
, on Flickr