Sigma 35 or 85 on FF

I'm looking to pick up a fast prime for outdoor portraits and some low light indoor work. Pretty much narrowed it down to these two.

Is there an overall preference for one over the other or is it simply personal preference? I've shot both and can see some pros and cons. This would be for Nikon, so no need to suggest anything they don't have.

For portraits, at least traditional portraiture, the 35 is a bit wide for a full frame camera. The working distance tends to induce perspective distortion. I'm sure someone behind me will post how the 35 is great and will link to shots of some skinny young model as proof. The 35 is fine for full body or environmental portraiture but you can get some unflattering results if you use it for traditional portrait work.

huntersdad wrote in post #16735976
personal preference

This.

The FoVs are so different that I don't understand why you would ask someone else.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16736019
The 35 is fine for full body or environmental portraiture but you can get some unflattering results if you use it for traditional portrait work.

This is what you need to understand about the 35.

As far as an 85 goes, it's a longer and more flattering focal length. Outdoors, you can step back far enough to take in some of the background.

You're basically asking, however, whether you should eat your yogurt with a fork or a spoon. One's not as well suited as the other, but can work nonetheless.

If you have to rent, borrow or steal a zoom that covers both 35 and 85. Use it. Only you know what looks good to you.

I have both, and they serve different purposes....

For outdoor portrait, go 85mm. Indoor low light? 35mm....

You could always get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 and save yourself some money. Both the two wide angle f/1.8 Nikon primes (28mm and 35mm) are about $600, so I'd go for the Sigma in that case.

What lenses do you have already?

Bought both Sigmas today, so issue solved.