wide angle prime for 5DII, 35L or Sigma

Hi,

I just sold my 100-400L and have the very intention to fund a wide angle prime lens. the gear list i have is in my sig below. I have been reading and following closely on all the 35L or 24L or other comparision from the other posts in this forum. As i mainly do wedding and portrait of people + a few gigs, i strongly believe that 35L suits me more. Then i read about the Sigma lenses... I am torn... confused.... I agree that i have a bit of the "L" bug in me. On the other hand, with the price of a 35L, i can get 2-3 of the Sigma lens. I pick 35L over the 24L becos of lesser distortion. I know if i get the 35 f/2, i will still yield to get the 35L in the future, so why later and not now...

Any tips, suggestion? I like to hear from wedding photographers and alike.

Thank you for hearing me out.
Scott

I used a 35 f2 my first year. It was a very sharp lens with the build quality and AF of a 50 f1.8 and the ugliest bokeh I have ever seen. As long as you are shooting against plain backgrounds that shouldn't be an issue. But put some foliage in the background and prepare to cut your eyes on the jagged display.

If you are looking for a bargain, the 28 f1.8 is a forgotten gem. Sharp, with much better bokeh.

The 35 f1.4 has no equal in that range.

Jamie,

thanks for sharing on the 35 f2. I had a 50 1.8 and recently replaced that with the 50 1.4. and totally understand how the 50 1.8 AF is like.

i have a look at the 28 1.8. cheers. Scott

I have the 28mm f1.8 and I really like it. It has the build of the 85 f1.8, and is a solid little lens. Im still looking to go 35mm f1.4 when I can - I think the focal length will fit me better.

As I have said in numerous threads before, the 35L is by far my favorite and most used lens. Like Jaime said, the 35L really has no equal in this focal length... especially since you are shooting full frame.

I'll toss out a few comments/thoughts.

First is that, though Canon does categorize the 35 to be WA, I've never personally considered anything above 28mm to be a WA. A 35 really isn't very wide. Of course, put it on your crop camera and it's even less so.

I'm not familiar with the Sigma lenses that you're looking at, but I can tell you that I not long ago sold the only Sigma lens I had, the 10-20. A great little lens . . . but it's color and contrast were noticably different than the rest of my Canon L lenses. It made it very difficult for me to give the images shot through that lens a look that was truly consistent with all the others I shot that day.

Let me ask the obvious question; what is the problem that you're trying to solve for? You have the 24-105 which is slow but has IS and you can couple it with the high ISO capabilities of the 5D2. So is it that you NEED speed? Or you're just moving to primes? Or you truly just want to be wider? If the later, why wouldn't you look at the 14mm (which I've been giving some thought to). Or the 16-35?

Peacefield wrote in post #11904339
I'll toss out a few comments/thoughts.

First is that, though Canon does categorize the 35 to be WA, I've never personally considered anything above 28mm to be a WA. A 35 really isn't very wide. Of course, put it on your crop camera and it's even less so.

I hate to be picky, but Canon does classify the 35 as a wide angle

That being said, I have heard enough problems with sigma and focusing issues that I am turned off of them. I hear amazing things about the Canon 35, and plan to rent it for a wedding before i buy. Why don't you rent it?

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11905491
I hate to be picky, but Canon does classify the 35 as a wide angle

I think that is what Robert said...he just doesn't personally think of the 35L as a WA.

Admittedly, though I am a major 35L advocate...occasionall​y I would like something a bit wider...hence my recent consideration of unloading my 17-40 for a 24L

I love my 35. I love it just as much when I put it on a crop and turn it into a fast and sharp 50.

But I do have the 16-35 because 35 isn't really that wide if you want to get beautiful sweeping environmental shots of the couple. 24 only barely is, IMO. You really need to get down into the "teens" before it really starts to become dramatic and fun.

helloagain36 wrote in post #11906373
I think that is what Robert said...he just doesn't personally think of the 35L as a WA.

Admittedly, though I am a major 35L advocate...occasionall​y I would like something a bit wider...hence my recent consideration of unloading my 17-40 for a 24L

I guess I just cant read today.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11906485
I guess I just cant read today.

Happens to the best of us

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11906485
I guess I just cant read today.

Just today?

I'm another 35L lover. It makes the most simple shots pop. 24L on a crop but 35L on FF. I don't like distortion and this fits perfect to the 5dii. The colors are what really surprised me. They're so vibrant out of the box I don't need to adjust in post. Check out the shots below all done with the 35L with the short time I've had it. It does it all and has the lowest MFD of my lenses so it doubles as my wanna be closeup lens.

http://www.flickr.com …y/sets/72157626​129662024/

Thanks RedTie, Peacefield, helloagain, nicksan and ni$mo350.

Personally, i dont classified 35L wide enuff but as ni$mo350 said, i try not to have any distortion on people portrait. I think i will love the low MFD in the 35L. mo350 -> I had a look at your link and the photos are great!

Currently, if i need the wide angle coverage... i know it is not the best but my Tokina 11-16 2.8 is still "usable" at 16mm with some vignette on my 5D2. My intention is to use fast prime in "wide" angle and 70-200II in that tele-range.

BTW, i have been following this forum closely for quite some time and i am a big fan in all of your work. Good jobs guys... and thanks for the words of advice.

Scott

Hold our for 35L II?
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=562714