Roxie2401 wrote in post #17476473
Thanks. You are right, I should have said that the lens would most likely be for interior architecture and/or portrait/family shots.
You just described two very different focal lengths. Interior architecture? You can't do much with 50mm or 85mm or longer. And even 35mm is not wide enough generally for a lot of it. Going really wide results in really odd distortion that shows things bigger than they are (around 20mm is fine, wider and it really just gets "out of control" big looking). If you want that, by all means, go for it. But you have that in the 16-35 covered. There's no prime need for interior architecture, you already have the lens for that in the 16-35.
For portrait, you have a 50 F1.8 and the 70-200 F2.8. I'm confused how you need something more? If you want to do a group or family shot, and you want wide, you're not going to do that at F1.4 anyways, you'll want to stop down to get all their eyes in focus as they group up, so F4 is likely, and... you have a 35 F4L IS in your 16-35.
So I really don't see why prime you could add that is reasonable for what you said you want to do, as you already have it covered quite handily.
That said, I would venture to replace that 50 F1.8 II with something better made. Like a Sigma 50 ART.
If you really, really, want to go wide and fast, the Sigma 35 ART comes to mind for portraits where you've really lined them up and you know you can use F1.4 with multiple people in a group, well posed and placed to ensure all are in focus in depth of field.