35mm and 50mm?

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #17414319
You noticed the gear but not the name likely belonging to a SHE?

Ho my bad, i feel so bad now
Sorry about that
Thanks to wake me up

have you tried setting your 24-105mm at the different lengths? there's a decent difference between the two...i have both, the majority of the time i'm using aps-c...for when i'm indoors i look towards the 35mm on my crop sensor...wider would be a bit too much for my liking

As others have stated for fast primes 35mm and 85mm complement each other in providing a noticeable difference between them on FF.

While I enjoy the 35mm lens, the 40mm pancake is my go to single carry lens.
I wanted something wider in a prime some the 24L is perfect.
And I wanted a wide range in a minimal set of lens.
I already had the 50mm 1.4 lens and the 100 macro was a perfect fit for my trio.
To each their own.

People worry about focal lengths and having coverage for all the different ranges- don't worry about whether you have coverage in a certain range, or if your focal lengths are too close together- if you are going to use it, get it.

I have both a 35mm and 50mm and use both depending on what I want the final outcome of the picture to be. I like the 35mm for when I want to include more of the environment in the scene. Heck, I have 3 different 50mm lenses- use the tool you want for the image you want to create.

If you're not really drawn to the 50mm focal length and are accustomed to using the 35 as your 'standard' lens, then I suspect the 50 Art will be a very heavy ball and chain. It really is a big lump of glass, and if you're not enthusiastic about it, you'll probably not want it in your bag or as your 'lens for the day'. Have you thought about the 50L instead of the 50A? It's smaller and lighter, and a very different animal indeed - not quite as clinically sharp as the Sigma, and has idiosyncrasies that drive many people up the wall, but once you get the hang of it, it provides quality and artistic options that really set it apart from most other lenses, the 50A included. The focal length is still 50mm, but if you appreciate it's very unique character you might be inclined to carry it along with the 35. Just a thought.

rebelsimon wrote in post #17414240
"Normal" view in the sense that it's a very normal perspective, rather than field of view. How close or far away things look, and how big or small they appear, is similar to your normal perception, which has a wider field of view because you have two eyes.

Ah-ha, thanks! That makes more sense - I was puzzled because I was saying 35mm on crop is only slightly narrower than 50mm on FF, but 35mm on crop isn't nearly as wide as my vision. Being about distortion makes more sense.

I have always worked with 35L and upgraded to the Sigma 35 Art 1y ago.
When the 50 Art was out I was curious about this focal length as I had always 85mm portrait lenses
The reviews were superb in comparison with the old 50L.

I expected to sell my 35 Art as I had the 50 Art now (thought this would be too close).
So I thought I would buy a mainstream 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 back like in past, but I couldn't part of this superb glass.
It's sharp, punchy, great colours, bokeh, ideal for halfbody & fashionshoots.

So I definitely prefer 35 Art + 50 Art together in favour of having 24-70 2.8 (even the II) or 24-105 f4 zooms.
If I really need a zoom I use the 70-200 2.8L II.

While not directly related to this thread, here is a link to another great thread I follow.

It has a lot of members posting what and why they chose and change the gear they had.
It is a good read and may have you questioning your own gear.
I hope it helps you come to a conclusion.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1295241

aldownie wrote in post #17414878
If you're not really drawn to the 50mm focal length and are accustomed to using the 35 as your 'standard' lens, then I suspect the 50 Art will be a very heavy ball and chain. It really is a big lump of glass, and if you're not enthusiastic about it, you'll probably not want it in your bag or as your 'lens for the day'. Have you thought about the 50L instead of the 50A? It's smaller and lighter, and a very different animal indeed - not quite as clinically sharp as the Sigma, and has idiosyncrasies that drive many people up the wall, but once you get the hang of it, it provides quality and artistic options that really set it apart from most other lenses, the 50A included. The focal length is still 50mm, but if you appreciate it's very unique character you might be inclined to carry it along with the 35. Just a thought.

While the 50L is lighter and wide open potentially has more consistently accurate AF, it is a much more expensive experiment to see if you like the 50mm focal length. IMO, better to suggest the Canon 50/1.4 or older Sigma 50/1.4 if you don't want to suggest the 50A.

Also if you are seeking to try the f1.2 FOF, I suggest getting the Nikon f1.2 lens and adapter off of Ebay.
It would be manual focus only. And the Canon 50 f1.4 is an obvious choice aside from the $1,000 options.
It would provide the same aperture as the 50L, while the Sigma Art is f1.4 if that is of extreme importance.

rebelsimon wrote in post #17414240
"Normal" view in the sense that it's a very normal perspective, rather than field of view. How close or far away things look, and how big or small they appear, is similar to your normal perception, which has a wider field of view because you have two eyes.

Thank you for putting this in this perspective (no pun intended) for me. I wondered about that as well, as 50mm (FF) is way narrower than my field of view with my eyes.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17415334
Ah-ha, thanks! That makes more sense - I was puzzled because I was saying 35mm on crop is only slightly narrower than 50mm on FF, but 35mm on crop isn't nearly as wide as my vision. Being about distortion makes more sense.

Don't confuse distortion with perspective!

FWIW, I'm selling my 50mm f1.4 and opting to keep my prime kit as the 35 IS, 85mm f1.8, 135L combo (and 100mm macro, but that's a bit of a special purpose). I'm having a ton of doubt and hesitation in letting go of that 50mm, because it does things that my 35 or 85 certainly could not do...but it's not different enough from the other two for me warrant keeping it. Plus I could use the $300 after buying the 135L.

smythie wrote in post #17415606
While the 50L is lighter and wide open potentially has more consistently accurate AF, it is a much more expensive experiment to see if you like the 50mm focal length. IMO, better to suggest the Canon 50/1.4 or older Sigma 50/1.4 if you don't want to suggest the 50A.

Forgive me, but you missed the point - the Canon 50/1.4 is good enough, but it's nothing very special and I wouldn't recommend it over the Sigma 50A which is better at all the same things. The 50L on the other hand, is better at *different* things - it feels like a completely different type of lens, and it produces very different images, and therefore is likely to be a better complement to a 35mm than an 'ordinary' 50mm lens, for a user who has concerns about the two focal lengths being a bit similar.

aldownie wrote in post #17416303
Forgive me, but you missed the point - the Canon 50/1.4 is good enough, but it's nothing very special and I wouldn't recommend it over the Sigma 50A which is better at all the same things. The 50L on the other hand, is better at *different* things - it feels like a completely different type of lens, and it produces very different images

Totally agree.
BTW: Nice reviews on your blog.

I also enjoyed the reading of aldownie's review of 35L vs 35IS.