Looking to add a "consumer grade" non-L prime: Which one?

I only have 1 prime - the 50mm 1.8. It's generally fine, but I find it struggles with AF (both speed and accuracy) in low light, which is starting to bother me. Also I wish it was a tad sharper wide open. Generally, I'm looking for something that will give me better AF performance and slightly better IQ (not just sharpness but color rendering, microcontrast, etc.)

I primarily shoot people, for events/parties and such. I shoot mostly in a candid style rather than posed portraits. Probably 70% indoors, 30% outdoors. For budgetary/ practical reasons, I'm looking to just get one prime lens, and the following are what I'm considering, with my thoughts on each:

35mm f/2 IS : Definitely best IQ of the bunch I'm considering, cost fits in my budget. But 35mm is not usually a FL I like for my style of shooting people, I prefer it more as a general walkaround lens. But I might be able to make this work.

50mm 1.4 : 50mm is my preferred FL for the type of shooting I do. It's like a goldilocks FL, just right for basically everything. That being said I already have the 1.8, not sure if the 1.4 would be a huge improvement, and I don't have the budget for 1.2 or the new Sigma, and the older Sigma puts me off due to the reported inconsistencies with focusing.

85m 1.8: Would give me a slightly different FL and perspective to work with, great lens. But I probably won't use it as much, generally wouldn't be a "one-lens" solution that the 35mm or 50mm could be for my shooting.

Would love to gather opinions and thoughts on this issue.

You might take a look at the Sigma 50 1.4 Art, but it might be above your price range (you never really say what it is...).

The 35 F/2 IS is an amazing lens, but if it's not the focal length you're looking for, you'll be disappointed through no fault of the lens.

the 85mm 1.8 is the perfect consumer candid lens =)

It will allow you to step back a bit and actually capture candid moments. 35mm would put you way too close.

Plus, the 85mm is pretty nice wide open.

I support the 35 f/2 IS also. It'll look like a 56 through your SL1 viewfinder in the same way your 50 f/1.8 looks like an 80 on the SL1.

So, by getting it, you'd sort of have primes of 35, 50, 56 and 80 between the two bodies.

My guess is that you might eventually dump the 50 f/1.8 altogether.

I thought I would find the 35 to be too wide for full frame and too boring on the SL1 but after a week I found I was wrong. And both of these cameras keep asking to please offer them the 35 f/2 IS.

If you want something wider, then go with either of the other relatively new two IS Canons: 24 or 28.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17023186
I only have 1 prime - the 50mm 1.8. It's generally fine, but I find it struggles with AF (both speed and accuracy) in low light, which is starting to bother me. Also I wish it was a tad sharper wide open. Generally, I'm looking for something that will give me better AF performance and slightly better IQ (not just sharpness but color rendering, microcontrast, etc.)

I primarily shoot people, for events/parties and such. I shoot mostly in a candid style rather than posed portraits. Probably 70% indoors, 30% outdoors. For budgetary/ practical reasons, I'm looking to just get one prime lens, and the following are what I'm considering, with my thoughts on each:

35mm f/2 IS : Definitely best IQ of the bunch I'm considering, cost fits in my budget. But 35mm is not usually a FL I like for my style of shooting people, I prefer it more as a general walkaround lens. But I might be able to make this work.

50mm 1.4 : 50mm is my preferred FL for the type of shooting I do. It's like a goldilocks FL, just right for basically everything. That being said I already have the 1.8, not sure if the 1.4 would be a huge improvement, and I don't have the budget for 1.2 or the new Sigma, and the older Sigma puts me off due to the reported inconsistencies with focusing.

85m 1.8: Would give me a slightly different FL and perspective to work with, great lens. But I probably won't use it as much, generally wouldn't be a "one-lens" solution that the 35mm or 50mm could be for my shooting.

Would love to gather opinions and thoughts on this issue.

Unless you're in large venues, as much as I like my 85, that's probably not the best choice for 70% indoors.

Also, since you have the 6D, I imagine you shoot most of your low light stuff with it and not the SL1 due to its high ISO capabilities.

If 50 is your preferred FL, I think you should look at either the Canon 50-f/1.4 or the "older" Sigma. Most of what I remember reading about it wasn't really "inconsistencies with focusing," but inconsistent quality copy-to-copy. If you find one that doesn't have focusing issues or that you focus adjust, that might be just what you're looking for at $400.

I like the 100 f/2 a bit more than the 85 1.8 on full frame. I wouldn't own both, but had the 85 1.8 and sold it when I got the 100 2. Basically, it is the same lens, though. A bit more reach, a bit less purple fringing. The 100 also shines for indoor sports on a crop, if you're shooting from the stands.

35/100

everyone shooting needs to try a 35 prime once in their life.

always nice to have a REALLY good portrait lens to destroy the background as well. If you enjoy candids, the 100F2 hits the spot, but it's an entry drug to the 135L, which is just a jaw dropper.

Another thought,
You could get the 85 and the 40mm pancake for the price of the 35.

Heya,

I'd probably give up both my 85mm lenses, if I could only keep 85mm or 35mm. I can do more with 35mm.

That said, candids at 35mm on a full frame are more like environmental shots, with context, story telling. If you're shooting full body shots in the environment with context, the 35mm is the way to go. If you're doing portraits or shoulders and up, then longer will do that job without getting in people's faces.

Go manual?

Samyang 85mm F1.4
Samyang 35mm F1.4

Get both

Very best,

To the guy who said "You'll probably get rid of the 1.8.

The 1.8 was the first lens I bought after I went digital. I had no lens as I had switched from a Nikon 35mm. And I now have a several lens, three zooms (two Ls) and three primes but the 1.8 is still in my bag as the only 50mm prime. As has been said, almost any decent lens exceeds the abilities of most photographers and I'm pretty sure that the 1.8 exceeds mine!

hrblaine wrote in post #17023598
To the guy who said "You'll probably get rid of the 1.8.

The 1.8 was the first lens I bought after I went digital. I had no lens as I had switched from a Nikon 35mm. And I now have a several lens, three zooms (two Ls) and three primes but the 1.8 is still in my bag as the only 50mm prime. As has been said, almost any decent lens exceeds the abilities of most photographers and I'm pretty sure that the 1.8 exceeds mine!

I loved the 50 f/1.8. Eventually sold it to buy the 50 f/1.4 and I have an excellent copy.

I recently rented the 35 f/2 IS to see what all the excitement was about. Then I bought it. Have not used the 50 f/1.4 since. That was my point above. Nothing against either of the 50 mm lenses. They are both great.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17023361
Another thought,
You could get the 85 and the 40mm pancake for the price of the 35.

I like this suggestion Another vote for a 40/85 combo to make things affordable... or swap out the 85 with the 100/2 for a bit more gap (from the 40) and more reach.

If your care more about image quality than preferred focal length (test with the lenses that you named)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

35mm @ f/2 vs 50mm @ f/2 = 35mm winner
35mm @f/2.8 vs 50mm @ f/2.8 = similar with a slight advantage to the 35mm in the corner
35mm @ f/4 vs 50mm @ f/4 = duce

Over all winner = 35mm
===============

Now the winner from the previous test with vs the 85mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

35mm @ f/2 vs 85mm @ f/2 = 35mm winner
35mm @ f/2.8 vs 85mm @ f/2.8 = 35mm winner
35mm @ f/4 vs 85mm @ f/4 = 35mm winner in the corner

Over all winner = 35mm
===============

I do not have this 35mm f/2, but it surprised me with it's IQ already wide open given these tests, and what is the difference between your favorite focal length (50mm) and 35mm ? one step forward ?
(and you will have a second prime with a different Focal length )

MalVeauX wrote in post #17023447
Go manual?

Samyang 85mm F1.4
Samyang 35mm F1.4

Get both

Very best,

This

Or; I'd get the original Sigma 50mm. Your body has MFA, it's not going to be any less consistent than your 50/1.8 from what I've read and it's IQ is fantastic.

That, or as someone else suggested, get the 40mm or the old 35/2 (a fantastic lens, only sold mine because I didn't care for the FL) and an 85/1.8.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17023186
I only have 1 prime - the 50mm 1.8. It's generally fine, but I find it struggles with AF (both speed and accuracy) in low light, which is starting to bother me. Also I wish it was a tad sharper wide open. Generally, I'm looking for something that will give me better AF performance and slightly better IQ (not just sharpness but color rendering, microcontrast, etc.)

I primarily shoot people, for events/parties and such. I shoot mostly in a candid style rather than posed portraits. Probably 70% indoors, 30% outdoors. For budgetary/ practical reasons, I'm looking to just get one prime lens, and the following are what I'm considering, with my thoughts on each:

35mm f/2 IS : Definitely best IQ of the bunch I'm considering, cost fits in my budget. But 35mm is not usually a FL I like for my style of shooting people, I prefer it more as a general walkaround lens. But I might be able to make this work.

50mm 1.4 : 50mm is my preferred FL for the type of shooting I do. It's like a goldilocks FL, just right for basically everything. That being said I already have the 1.8, not sure if the 1.4 would be a huge improvement, and I don't have the budget for 1.2 or the new Sigma, and the older Sigma puts me off due to the reported inconsistencies with focusing.

85m 1.8: Would give me a slightly different FL and perspective to work with, great lens. But I probably won't use it as much, generally wouldn't be a "one-lens" solution that the 35mm or 50mm could be for my shooting.

Would love to gather opinions and thoughts on this issue.

To me this sentence is the most important. I tried really hard to like 35 mm FL (I got the 35f2 IS, 35f1.4, EOS M + 22mm, X100). I never got used to it and systematically sold the lens after a short while. The lens could be the best lens in the world, if you do not like the FL it will just be wrong.

If you like 50 mm, that is what you should get. The 50 f/1.4 is not perfect but this is a very good lens on FF (although a bit soft wide open).