35mm and 50mm?

I've got the 35mm Art from Sigma and have heard all the amazing reviews of their 50mm 1.4 Art.

Is having a 35 + 50 "worth it", though? They are so similar in focal length that it sometimes doesn't really seem worth it to have both

Anyone own both focal lengths? How do you manage?

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #17412508
I've got the 35mm Art from Sigma and have heard all the amazing reviews of their 50mm 1.4 Art.

Is having a 35 + 50 "worth it", though? They are so similar in focal length that it sometimes doesn't really seem worth it to have both

Anyone own both focal lengths? How do you manage?

I rented both new sigmas last spring with the intention of deciding which to buy. It was an easy decision, I want both.

Ended up with the 35 first because I am in a small space right now and work some events where wider is better so I don't have to back up too far for candid pics.r

I don't have Sigma Art lenses, but I've got a 35 IS and a 50 1.4. The 35 gets used more, but I like having both.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17412570
I don't have Sigma Art lenses, but I've got a 35 IS and a 50 1.4. The 35 gets used more, but I like having both.

In what situations do you find yourself putting away in the 35 in favor of the 50?

I really like the 35 on full frame. I mostly use the 50 on apsc.

A lot of people prefer one over the other, yet others rock both. I prefer 35mm on FF. I don't know what you might intend to shoot with the 50mm, but if it's portrait you might consider a longer prime like an 85mm.

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #17412508
I've got the 35mm Art from Sigma and have heard all the amazing reviews of their 50mm 1.4 Art.

Is having a 35 + 50 "worth it", though? They are so similar in focal length that it sometimes doesn't really seem worth it to have both

Anyone own both focal lengths? How do you manage?

They are not similar focal lengths.

One is a normal field of view (what you see; on full frame).
The other is wide field of view (full frame).

I use 50mm when I want to see what I see, for quick framing or general "I don't know what's coming."

I use 35mm when I want to be very close and still keep a wide frame, or when I want to have a wider frame to include more context.

Very best,

Yes, different perspective, especially noticeable on full frame.
The 35 is more environmental, while 50 tends to give more priority to the subject.
If I had to choose just one lens, I would definitely go for a fast 35 as on full frame it is the best compromise (use the aperture to balance between environment and subject).

^^ Agreed, although they may seem very close in FL they are very different beasts. I believe you will find use for both if you do decide to pull the trigger.

They are somewhat different tools offering a different perspective. I sometimes throw on a manual Nikon 35mm and like the change from 50mm, which is on my camera most of the time. I've been disappointed to find that 24mm is often much too wide for my tastes.

If I were going to add a "serious" 35mm to my kit I'd look at the Sigma to have the different rendering characteristics compared to the 50L. The different look is part of the fun of having a different lens.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17412657
One is a normal field of view (what you see; on full frame)

People say this, but I don't understand. Can you please explain? I have a 35mm on a crop (very close to 50mm on FF) and it's MUCH tighter than my eyes' field of view. Am I misunderstanding something?

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17414205
People say this, but I don't understand. Can you please explain? I have a 35mm on a crop (very close to 50mm on FF) and it's MUCH tighter than my eyes' field of view. Am I misunderstanding something?

Heya,

That's because 35mm on APS-C (1.6x) is on the telephoto side of "normal" field of view (and only gently so). It will not be "much" tighter than what you see when you look without the view finder. A wee bit tighter, sure. But not dramatically so. You make it sound like you're looking through an 85mm.

50mm on full frame is wider field of view (very close to normal what you see) than 35mm on APS-C. 30mm on APS-C is very close.

This is why I noted from a full frame for reference of what I was saying.

On APS-C, 50mm has a field of view more similar to that of 85mm on full frame, and 35mm has a field of view more similar to a 55~60mm does on full frame. The 35mm on APS-C isn't wide at all. But on full frame, it's wide.

Very best,

"Normal" view in the sense that it's a very normal perspective, rather than field of view. How close or far away things look, and how big or small they appear, is similar to your normal perception, which has a wider field of view because you have two eyes.

The TS/OP would not care about APS-C, he has a 5D3

You have already the 35mm, IMHO a 85mm will complete very well the 35mm FL, but you have also the 100mm, which fit well with the 50mm IMO ...
So, i will let you with more questions

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17414242
The TS/OP would not care about APS-C, he has a 5D3

You have already the 35mm, IMHO a 85mm will complete very well the 35mm FL, but you have also the 100mm, which fit well with the 50mm IMO ...
So, i will let you with more questions

You noticed the gear but not the name likely belonging to a SHE?