Yet another lens decision thread...

Hey all, I am looking to pick up a general walk around lens that will be as flexible as possible, but also be as compact and light as possible.

My current most immediate focus is on capturing my kids ages 22 months and nearly 6 years old. So moving around a lot, never sitting still, basic nightmare. Also, would like to start shooting some other creative shots (landscape, long exposure, etc), and bringing my camera along and actually using it on trips.

I presently own the 50 1.8, and 85 1.8.

I had thought I'd come to a final decision on buying a used 24-70 F4 IS but am waiting on my T5i and 18-135 lens to sell to help fund this. Wife is being strict with funds.

So this gave me time to think, which isn't necessarily a good thing, and I am a beginning to wonder if this is the right choice. I've decided to migrate to full frame, so sold my sigma 18-35 1.8 to fund a purchase of a used 6D and now selling my crop as mentioned above for a new lens.

My main concern is, will the 24-70 F4 be "ok" indoors with less than optimal light, and buggers running all over the place (I'm thinking I will miss exposure quite a bit or have a lot of noisy images). I'm planning at some point to replace my manual Yongnuo flash with a eTTL flash of some form from Godox, so I suppose this may save me a bit while shooting indoors and bouncing off the ceiling etc. But if I'm out and about would be trying to keep things as light and compact as possible, so less likely to have flash.

To this end, I have ruled out the 2.8 versions of the 24-70. They are all too big and heavy for my consideration, I am trying to be realistic on what I will carry around vs leave home. Well that and the wife won't let me spend $1600+ CDN on a used lens.

In the same range as the 24-70 F4 is the 35mm F2 IS. I have been liking what I see from the lens samples I've seen so far, and am wondering if the pros outweigh the cons here. Before anyone suggests, no I can't afford a new or used 1.4 L plus it would be mitigating the compact and light moniker. And similarly, the Sigma 1.4 would be more expensive, for little to no gain, particularly on focus speed, and especially on size/weight again.


The Pros as I see them at least are:

Better Low light performance vs zoom flexibility. I am wondering how much I will miss out from not having the higher focal range, or can images be sufficiently cropped to approximate this? My thoughts here are that I can always crop an image, or have a less than optimal composition but still have a shot that's a keeper, but if I can't get the image exposed at all, then there is no image to keep. Given much of my photography is indoors and not the best lighting, I am thinking this is probably the biggest point in favour of the 35mm. Sure I could use the 50 1.8, but I don't see the image quality of being close to the 35. Plus IS, and wider range to make sure they stay in the frame.

The other pro is that I get even lighter and more compact. Think the 35 F2 IS is half the weight of the 24-70 F4.


As for the cons:

Obviously lose out on flexibility with the higher end focal range, but more importantly the lower end. I can't crop something that isn't in the frame, but is 24-35mm going to be that big of a pain point? On landscape I can see this, but closer up indoors how many feet would I really need to back up that far?

No macro mode. I had been intrigued with trying this out. I see these cool water droplet shots and I thought about seeing what I could come up with, but it seems it's better done with macro lenses. I realize this is a hybrid macro, but it might save me from having to buy another lens down the road to scratch that itch.

Very minor would be build, ie. no weather sealing etc, but then I'd probably be more at risk bumping into something with the zoom extended before weather, which is not much of a risk with a smaller prime.


My thoughts are down the road I will probably want something wider, so may save up for the 16-35 F4, and then something longer, which would either be the 70-200 F4 hopefully with IS, or the 70-300 IS II. But could travel pretty light with the 35, and 85 and just get one of those quick lens changer thingies I see Peak Design sells. For the odd time I want more range or to take a better portrait.

Anyway, I realize I probably could have just said 24-70 F4 or 35 F2 IS but want to at least provide some background on my usage and thoughts. Can a 35mm be a good all-purpose walk around lens over a compact zoom? Or is this something I would come to regret?

Didn't intend to write this much, but I really appreciate any comments or suggestions you'd have. Or even just sharing past experiences with similar focal lengths. I really don't want to own a ton of lenses and carry around a big kit everywhere. I am just a dad with a camera, trying to find ways to keep going with this, and hope to have this lead maybe to something more than just being an enthusiast down the road.

Thanks!

so you want a cheap lens that does everything well?

Lol, I suppose you could read it as such, but I thought I outlined where I see the trade-offs between the lenses. I guess this boils down to asking for some more experienced than I, which is probably most everyone here, if they feel they would feel more limited by sacrificing flexibility in focal range to gain low light performance.

I outlined my usage and am simply hoping some others have gone through this similar process and could share their thoughts. I don't have a big budget for lenses at this time clearly, so am trying to make as best a decision I can based on whatever info I can find.

"Sure I could use the 50 1.8, but I don't see the image quality of being close to the 35"

Which 50 1.8? Any version of 50 1.8 will have very similar image quality as 35 f2 IS.
A MK1 or II 50 1.8 are not known for accurate AF. More accurately, inconsistent AF.
A 50 1.8 STM has improved AF.

50 1.8 STM and 85 1.8 match your main use, kids indoors. The IS of the 35 f2 will not be much use for kids indoors.
Without flash you will need fast enough shutter speed to prevent moving kid motion blur. Even if kids are relatively still and you use 1/60 sec exposure, that's fairly easy to keep camera still enough.

elpietro wrote in post #18907890
Lol, I suppose you could read it as such, but I thought I outlined where I see the trade-offs between the lenses. I guess this boils down to asking for some more experienced than I, which is probably most everyone here, if they feel they would feel more limited by sacrificing flexibility in focal range to gain low light performance.

I outlined my usage and am simply hoping some others have gone through this similar process and could share their thoughts. I don't have a big budget for lenses at this time clearly, so am trying to make as best a decision I can based on whatever info I can find.

maybe get a flash for the kids and take it from there.

I think that with your 50mm and 85mm lenses, a 35mm prime does make sense.

You mentioned and dismissed the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art because of cost but its only slightly more expensive than the Canon 35mm f/2. I think the Sigma is sharper and is obviously faster. It is a fairly heavy lens though. I've got a 24-105L which used to be my walk round lens but increasingly its my Sigma 35 Art which stays on the camera now, especially for street photography.

For fast-moving kids, you need zoom. Unless they're happy to pose, you're going to need speed in every way, including framing. I would also suggest something longish if you plan to capture them behaving naturally. The closer you are, the more aware they are of the camera and so less likely to forget you're there.

You start out with wanting a general walk around, but then pivot (almost immediately) to a focus that is centric around filling a need for indoors in poor light. I currently own the 24-70, and had owned the 35 with both being in my bag together for a while. The 24-70 will fit the bill for a general walk around. I use it in this capacity for vacations, trips, landscape, closer proximity aircraft photos, and just general stuff. The 35 was a stellar performer, but I just did not use it.

Have you considered the how the framing and focal length equivalents change going from crop to full frame? For instance, the 24-70 will "feel" wider on the wide end vs your 18-X lenses you had, not to far off on the long end of the 18-35, and definitely much shorter compared to the 18-135. Can you crop for equivalent framing? Maybe, depending on use, but not ideally. For me, the answer of if the 35 is right, depends on how you used the 18-35 you had. Had you been shooting more wide or long? If you were parked in the 18-24mm range on your Sigma 18-35, a 35 could be a good add for your indoor shooting. If you were more on the long end of that lens, you may find the 35 is too wide for your style.

The 6D is known for excellent and clean higher ISO, and indoors and although you will probably need a somewhat higher ISO with it and a 24-70 vs your crop body and the 18-35, if your exposure is good, the files should still be very useable and clean up well in post. A flash with this lens will help, although now we are talking about non-candid type pics. The 6D center point is known to be excellent, better than your crop body in low light, so if that is where you are, AF performance is probably not much of a concern.

Really it's a matter of what compromise are you willing to accept. If you want a general walk around with good flexibility, but willing to make some sacrifices (higher ISO, less bokeh, etc) indoors the 24-70 will do nicely. If you want that wide prime for lower light the 35 is a solid performer, but you give up the flexibility the zoom offers.

Hi thank you all for the replies, they are really helping get me back on track with the decision.

Choderboy I have the 50mm 1.8 AF II, so not the STM version. I was under the impression that the 35 F/2 IS was much better for image quality based on reviews, construction-wise, etc. But perhaps the difference may not be as big as I am thinking.

Ed Rader I think your suggestion may be a good one. It may be that I miss a few moments trying to turn everything on to get setup vs a quick candid, but at the same time it will get me more accustom to shooting with flash.

Vendee, it did to me as well, in that I thought for travel I could just go with the 35 and 85 where they are very portable, but am questioning how often I will want to be switching lenses, and the others have made great points about the flexibility of the zoom with kids.

Spencer and CT1Co2 I think you guys may have finally reminded me why I was going with the 24-70 in the first place. And yes, I did speak of a general walk around and then pivot to indoor kids shots. Mainly because I was so used to my T5i with the 18-35 being pretty much all I used, so I guess I got used to one lens. I was hoping a 35mm could be that length that works well for vacation/walk-around but also deliver the lowlight performance

It's a mixed bag on what focal range I used with the sigma though. Many of my shots were family portraits from a tripod which I would have had it set to 35 for all the time (so 56mm ff equivalent). But I agree that if I only had the 35, sure I could reposition myself, but sometimes I just need to be able to shoot incognito, else my kids will pick up on it and probably not give me the shot I want. Plus as I think, even if the lighting is bad, how often will I get them to be still for me to shoot at F/2 and keep them well focused. Planned portraits will be virtually exclusive with the 85 1.8 now unless it's a big group which is rare.


I think of course, the best answer would have been to get both, but I have to be picky with my purchases and while I could probably use a 50mm as a walk around, general purpose, it felt a bit limiting which is why I looked to the 24-70 and let some doubt creep in. So it looks like I may end up with the F/4 trinity when it's all said and done. Next lens would probably be the 70-200 for giving me that ability to isolate better, especially outdoors.

But after this lens I think I will just work on learning to best use it in as many situations as possible, with special focus on flash photography. Thanks!