Just what use is a 35mm f2.8 lens?

Ok sooooo recent events lead me to believe that Sigma's 150mm OS macro is not going to hit the market any time soon and unless anyone has heard anything else I'm going to write this release off till well after the situation in Japan gets a chance to improve. (ps if anyone has heard anything about its release I'd be really glad to heard about it - thus far it was set for the March release but - its never appeared).


So me, being me, I've been nosing around and mulling over the idea of getting the Tokina 35mm f2.8 macro lens - a lens possibly more rare than the MPE in the number of users that there appear to be around the place.
The thing is its 35mm and - well - I do wildlife and bugs and the odd landscape all with a 1.6 crop camera body with no set mind to invest in a fullframe any time. So what will I use a 35mm for save for macro shots with reduced background blur? What would you use such a lens for - and have you heard anything about the Tokina 35mm macro lens?

I'm not 100% sure of its performance against other 35mm offerings save that its got a smaller aperture than many (being f2.8 instead of f1.4 or f1.8); but I've not yet come across anything definitive that compares the quality of the lenses against each other. On the one hand I am considering it for the macro; but on the other I don't want a 35mm that is considered grossly under-performing against the others.

How can you go from 150mm to 35mm? Apples and oranges. Perspective is all wrong for many subjects with WA macro. Fun sometimes, but odd. Yes, I have had the Sigma 150 OS on pre-order for over 2 months.

35mm on an APS-C body is still a 'normal' lens! Equivalent FOV to use of a 56mm -- and SLRs in the 135 format had 50-58mm FL as 'normal' lenses (often defined by what max aperture a person wanted to buy as their 'normal lens' speed. And a normal lens is a very useful FL to have.

Your inventory list seems to indicate a big gap in your FL coverage, between 16mm and 65mm. A massive gap from 'very wide' to 'short tele', using traditional terminology (135 format FOV equiv. of a gap from 26-104mm)

Gasrocks - I jumped from 150 to 70mm so I guess its just like going from 70mm to half as much again

Wilt - I do have a kit lens (18-55mm) that came with my 400D, but I generally don't list it as I've never really enjoyed using that lens. The 24-105mm is a lens I've my eyes on to fix the gap that you have spotted in my setup and its mostly a gap I've let form because its not a range that I get to make use of that much outside of happy family snaps (and they really are snaps).
So yes I can see an appeal to having a good "normal" prime lens in the bag.

But many good WA lenses have a small MFD. I have 2 35s, a 28, a 24 and a 21 that get close. Why buy a macro lens for that?

Probably because it has macro in the title and I've a lack of appreciation for the magnification/min focusing distance of the remainder of the 35mm (and similar lenses) market. I fully admit the area under around 300mm is a grey one for me concerning regular lenses

I would love to have such a 35mm. I doubt it would be good for birds though hah.

It would be fun for macro shots with a different perspective. But yeah outside that, it's probably a good lens but spec-wise doesn't bring heaps to the table. Still, it's not exactly expensive either.

35mm macro versus the usual "Tele macro" (like the 100mm and up) is quite a different ballgame. I have to disagree with gasrocks that perspective is all wrong though. Just take a look in the lens sample archive and it's flickr group.
It's a great lens and really, really fun as a walkaround to capture all sorts of nature details and flowers. Shows a bit of context.
For flowers I prefer it to my 100mm - also because it's much more handholdable in the shadows.

Ironically I just put mine for sale due to moving to FF, but in the Netherlands, so no plug for it here

Its interesting that with all the well deserved fanfare and praise that the Tokina 12-24mm and 11-16mm lenses received, you would think there would be more discussion and reviews on this 35mm 2.8 macro lens. I considered it a while back, but ended up with the Canon 35mm f2. I've had some nice super close up shots using that lens with an extension tube.

This thread is regarding macro photography right?

My take on this is the 35mm macro will give you more depth of field than the 150mm sigma, so it would be good for static subjects that would require a lot of DOF like flowers. The drawback is you're going to have to get in very close, and so would scare away insects if that's what you're into.

Get the 150mm if you need some working distance.
Get the 35mm if you need DOF and don't mind close working distance.

Yasko wrote in post #12146326
This thread is regarding macro photography right?...
Get the 150mm if you need some working distance.
Get the 35mm if you need DOF and don't mind close working distance.

This is a very key point, about working distance. If you shoot flowers it might not matter, but if you shoot insects they might not stick around with your lens so close!

Get both - if you're really into macro photography, it's a completely different lens. Compare it to doing headshots with a 85mm - 135mm and doing full body with a 35mm - 50mm. Both is taking shots of people, but in a much different style.

Yasko wrote in post #12146326
This thread is regarding macro photography right

Kinda, though whilst the macro aspect is important its more the lenses value and use outside of macro that really has me curious - mostly because I already have a decent idea of what it will do in macro. It's just that if I go for it I'd like it to carry worth outside of the macro usage.

Wilt wrote in post #12146902

Yasko wrote in post #12146326
Get the 150mm if you need some working distance.
Get the 35mm if you need DOF and don't mind close working distance.

This is a very key point, about working distance. If you shoot flowers it might not matter, but if you shoot insects they might not stick around with your lens so close!

Aye though I expect the depth of field gain to be very small, more noticable will be the reduced blurring on the background, which will become more busy and less blurred to some extent - which is partly what I want to play around with - the use of a background that isn't just blurred to a single mono-colour (though often with flash I can get that anyway regardless of focal length).

TweakMDS wrote in post #12147671
Get both - if you're really into macro photography, it's a completely different lens. Compare it to doing headshots with a 85mm - 135mm and doing full body with a 35mm - 50mm. Both is taking shots of people, but in a much different style.

Aye I'd love to get both though the 35mm is only just sneaking in because the 150mm OS has snuck out (though I notice B&H are listing it for an April release now - I've no idea if that is based on any fact they have or if its just them moving the release date so it does not look odd still listing the, now, passed, march release - anyone willing to give them a phonecall to find out? )


I've also got the idea of a new tripod/bag kicking around in my mind as well as possibly an external mic for the 7D (though very light research suggests I'd need a lot more budget for something worth while).

nightcat wrote in post #12146297
Its interesting that with all the well deserved fanfare and praise that the Tokina 12-24mm and 11-16mm lenses received, you would think there would be more discussion and reviews on this 35mm 2.8 macro lens. I considered it a while back, but ended up with the Canon 35mm f2. I've had some nice super close up shots using that lens with an extension tube.

I own both the Tokina 11-16 and 35mm macro.

They're both pretty new to me so I haven't had much of a chance to test them yet, but so far I've loved them both. While I wish that the 35mm was faster than just 2.8, I still find it a much more useful lens than my old nifty fifty (on a crop body).