Why use 35mm focal length? / What do you use 35mm lenses for?

I'm extremely tempted to purchase the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4
but i've heard that 50mm is better in nearly all regards
or should i get 85mm?
I want to do some portrait work/street photography

I have a t2i, soon to be 1D mark III

Any suggestions? im looking mainly at the sigma 35mm 1.4, canon 50mm 1.4, sigma 50mm 1.4, sigma 85mm 1.4, and the canon 85mm 1.8

thanks!

There's no "better" focal length, only preferred ones. In the case of 35 vs 50, they are pretty darn close to each other, which makes it even more of a personal preference matter. I know it's nice when there's a clear cut choice, but in this case, it comes down to what works for you. Just set your 24-70 on each focal length for a couple outings, and see which one tickles your fancy.

I prefer the 35 over a 50. Wide enough for a lot of things but portraits and street photography are where I think it shines.

I just noticed you have a crop and going to a 1.3. Definitely 35, a 50 is going to be much too long for any street work or full body portraits on probably both cameras.

I am going to assume that you still have your 24-70. so here is an experiment for you to do.

Experiment:
Set your lens to 35mm, do not zoom in or out for a whole days worth of shooting, or even a weeks worth. Do the same for 50mm. After you have shot for multiple days with the different focal lengths review your past couple of days. How did you like 35mm? How did you like 50mm? look through your photos and pic your favorites, then check to see what focal length you used the most.

EDIT: Just saw you are going to a 1D MK III, i LOVE my 35 on this body, and I never go to grab my 50 unless every other focal length just isnt working for me. But when i go back and review my photos and if that 50 hits focus i remember why i keep it.

In general, yes, 50 or 85mm is a more traditional portrait lens as you get the better perspective from standing further back from your subject. Getting in too close with a shorter lens can cause the models features nearest to the camera to be out of proportion.

However, 35mm is a nice length when taking in the subjects surroundings as well, a baker working in his bakery for example. Or of course, if you WANT your model to look out of proportion for artistic reasons, say a boxer and you want to accentuate the boxing glove that is thrust towards the camera. It can also be nice in street photography, so long as you don't mind getting up close and in the face of your subjects.

Nobody here can really tell you which you should buy. It is down to what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot it. Some people love the perspective from portraits shot up close with wide angles (although 35mm on a crop is more a "standard" lens on a crop camera).

Decide what you want from the lens and that will tell you what focal length you need. Anybody else is just telling you what suits their style.

If i had to live with one prime it'd be a 35mm.

Perfect for street shooting, wide enough for landscape.
you can do portraits, full body shots, etc...

For crop, you might be better with the Sigma 30mm f1.4. it will be cheaper in any case.

The 35mm on your future 1D mark III is 27mm on your t2i. Just check if you like that focal.

i like the 35mm on my 40D...i think i'd find it too wide on a FF camera...i think the sigma 30mm f1.4 works on a 1.3X crop as well...

thinkerer wrote in post #15327640
...i've heard that 50mm is better in nearly all regards

According to Henri Cartier-Bresson?

I have only recently purchased a Canon, having shot exclusively with Leica M for years and years, so zoom and autofocus are fairly new concepts to me. When I look at my Lightroom catalog from 2012 I see that a majority of my shots were taken with a 35mm lens, followed closely by the 50. I find the 35mm focal length perfect for "environmental portraits", in that it allows me to capture more context surrounding an individual. For more "traditional" type head and shoulders portraits I favor the 50 and 90. Of course preferred focal length is extremely subjective and there are no incorrect answers.

A 50 can be a difficult focal length for street photography, especially if you are in close, as the DOF is much less than with a 28 or 35, especially if you are working in close.

When I bought my 5D Mark III last week I also purchased the Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM because I felt it came the closest to having the Leica look I am familiar with. In my brief experience I have found it an absolutely stunning lens.

Good luck

I use a 35mm lens when I want the perspective offered by a 35mm lens. Otherwise, I use a different lens.

Apart from wider regards.

It's a matter of personal preference, but I think you would be happier with a 35mm.
In my opinion it's a lot more versatile.
I used to have a crop camera and I used a 35mm prime all the time.

Now I have a 5d mk2 and the 35mm is even better
It's perfect for story-telling portraits as I can include more of the background/surrroundin​gs. I have the 85 f1.8 as well and I absolutely love that lens and focal length, but the 35mm allows me to take a step or two closer to my subject and hereby making my subject fill a larger part of the frame. In this way I can include the surroundings but the focus with still be on my subject as it can fill a large part of the frame. I hope this makes sense

StephenPatterson wrote in post #15328718
According to Henri Cartier-Bresson?

I have only recently purchased a Canon, having shot exclusively with Leica M for years and years, so zoom and autofocus are fairly new concepts to me. When I look at my Lightroom catalog from 2012 I see that a majority of my shots were taken with a 35mm lens, followed closely by the 50. I find the 35mm focal length perfect for "environmental portraits", in that it allows me to capture more context surrounding an individual. For more "traditional" type head and shoulders portraits I favor the 50 and 90. Of course preferred focal length is extremely subjective and there are no incorrect answers.

A 50 can be a difficult focal length for street photography, especially if you are in close, as the DOF is much less than with a 28 or 35, especially if you are working in close.

When I bought my 5D Mark III last week I also purchased the Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM because I felt it came the closest to having the Leica look I am familiar with. In my brief experience I have found it an absolutely stunning lens.

Good luck

I was just looking at your website. Terrific photos. The Leica look is really stunning. I just recently told a guy I had all the best canon gear, so my "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" was cured. He said, "just wait, now you'll want Leica". I just laughed...til I saw those pics

i agree with earwax69, you should add the sigma 30 1.4. to you list of possibilities. i owned it along with my 7d and it stayed on my camera about 70% of the time. it is comparable to the sigma 50 1.4 in my opinion. it is light weight and not very big compared to the new 35 1.4 and not to mention cheaper.

bob

35mm is a more comfortable length for walkaround use for me, but I went with a Sigma 50 for three reasons:

1) Cost - half of the new Sigma 35mm
2) Better bokeh - depends on the lens, but generally I find bokeh on lenses wider than 50mm to look too busy on certain backgrounds.
3) Spacing - for half body or closer portraits you have to get uncomfortably close to the subject with the 35mm and there is more distortion