35mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.2 for night street photography?

Hi,

Can't make up my mind! (like so many others in other threads )

I am thinking of either buying the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 or the Canon 50mm 1.2 for low-light street photography, (and any low-light general stuff in general). Will not be using flash. I've tried some slower lenses and they just don't stop action well enough, so I figure I should go with a bigger aperture.

I generally prefer wider for such scenarios, but getting a bit closer with the 50mm sometimes is useful too.

I already have a 50mm 1.4, and while the aperture is great, it is really unsharp @ 1.4, enough so that I don't think I can use it wide-open for anything critical. It might be good enough for artsy looking shots, but anything needing good texture like face shots just won't come out well it seems to me. I guess if the 50mm 1.2 @ 1.2 is just as bad then it would be eliminated as well.

I know that Sigma is supposed to be record-breaking in the sharpness department. I was just about to pull the trigger on it, but I thought I would just see what others thought first...

Any thoughts?

Out of those two options I probably would go for the Sigma 35 first, wide open it's much sharper than the Canon 50 1.2L. It's also cheaper

Still love my 50 1.2L though, but in different way. It's perhaps better in pure portraits and snapshots.

I went for the S35 because I'm too poor to get the 50 1.2 (plus I didn't want it since I don't use 50mm primes that often). The S35 does great at night both in one shot and in servo:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/8​602484331/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/8​603588306/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/8​602488251/

^^^ nice!

Sirrith wrote in post #15814962
I went for the S35 because I'm too poor to get the 50 1.2 (plus I didn't want it since I don't use 50mm primes that often). The S35 does great at night both in one shot and in servo:

Minibuses by noobographer, on Flickr


Miss India by noobographer, on Flickr


Shopping in the rain by noobographer, on Flickr

hi sirrith, those are excellent (i especially like the first one)! i noticed that you are taking these in the rain, and actually that was my other knock against the sigma. weather sealing is rather important to me, but i also heard the canon 35 1.4 isn't sealed either, so i suppose apples to apples sigma is no worse in that regard.

but how did it do in the rain? or did you have some kind of wrap on it to keep out the water?

Xyclopx wrote in post #15815729
hi sirrith, those are excellent (i especially like the first one)! i noticed that you are taking these in the rain, and actually that was my other knock against the sigma. weather sealing is rather important to me, but i also heard the canon 35 1.4 isn't sealed either, so i suppose apples to apples sigma is no worse in that regard.

but how did it do in the rain? or did you have some kind of wrap on it to keep out the water?

there was a user that used large ziplock bag over the camera, with opening and gaffers tape to hold in place. Looked like a stupidly easy way of weatherproofing gear.

there was also a kickstarter project on "Dust Donut", which added weather sealing at the mount of a lens.... probably better than nothing.

My vote would be 35 if you are wanting more environmental; 50 if you want more portraiture.

The minibus shot is great. To me the 50L is a great portrait lens but not a great all around lens. Looks like 35 would be better for you.

For environmental or architectural my votes goes to the 35L. But for candid people shots I prefer something longer. I mainly use my 70-200 or 85. The only reason I use the 85 is because I don't have a 135.

L.J.G. wrote in post #15816815
For environmental or architectural my votes goes to the 35L. But for candid people shots I prefer something longer. I mainly use my 70-200 or 85. The only reason I use the 85 is because I don't have a 135.

you can get candid shots pointing the 70-200 at people? that thing looks like a bazooka if you're walking towards it.

Xyclopx wrote in post #15817004
you can get candid shots pointing the 70-200 at people? that thing looks like a bazooka if you're walking towards it.

It gives you enough length to be well away from them. You are out of their immediate field of awareness and even if they do look up and see you you're far enough away from them that they don't usually think it is them you are taking a shot of.

Just a thought but since you have a 50 why not go with a 24? they make a great combo. If your going with only 1 I would go 35.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15817078
Just a thought but since you have a 50 why not go with a 24? they make a great combo. If your going with only 1 I would go 35.

hi,

what i am packing for the trip right now (the lens in question would be extra) is:

16-35
24-105
70-300
flash

i usually use the 24-105 because the IS is quite helpful and that extra zoom comes in very handy. my 24-105 seems really sharp in the middle (corners kinda suck), so it makes great pics. the lens for this thread is really just to augment the 24-105 for night time shots when i need more than the f4 to stop action.

i do see the 24 ii has great reviews. it just seems like 35mm is the preferred length of "street photography." i understand that there is no set length for this stuff, but i figure if so many of the greats used this focal length, it would work for me?

it does seem like a 35 1.4 would be redundant with the 16-35 2.8. but... that extra stop or so could make the difference in a good and a great shot when people are moving around at night?

35 is certainly more practical. If your shooting people it will probably be a better choice than the 24. I briefly considered selling both my 24/50 for the Sigma 35 but I just love these 2 together.

Jam.radonc wrote in post #15815722
^^^ nice!

Thanks

Xyclopx wrote in post #15815729
hi sirrith, those are excellent (i especially like the first one)! i noticed that you are taking these in the rain, and actually that was my other knock against the sigma. weather sealing is rather important to me, but i also heard the canon 35 1.4 isn't sealed either, so i suppose apples to apples sigma is no worse in that regard.

but how did it do in the rain? or did you have some kind of wrap on it to keep out the water?

Thanks, yes I do wish it had weather sealing, but the Canon isn't sealed either so its a tie there. Only the Nikon 35/1.4 has sealing I believe.

I actually just used my umbrella to keep both myself and the gear dry, it did get a little bit wet but nothing bad happened.