35mm vs 50mm

I have sinned. Its sacrilege. I was disrespectful. What have I done...

Carzee wrote in post #2054510
I have sinned. Its sacrilege. I was disrespectful. What have I done...

No! You are true to your craft. Regardless of the subject, regardless of the topic, regardless of the use you are a craftsman. One true to his commitment to quality and true rendition of the blah, blah, blah, blah. There. Feel better now?

Ah, absolution. Thank you, it was for a good cause.

Feel better now. [kleenex moment]

Sniff. Sniff. That's okay, mate. That's what POTNers are for.

flipm3 wrote in post #2053039
this might sound crazy...but just throwing out the idea. should i sell the 24-70 and replace it with the 35mm?! i would have a 35 and 50 prime...plus my 70-200 and 10-20. do u guys think its worth it, to gain that speed, but lose that range a little.

all depends on what you do and shoot...i was heavily thinking about getting the 24-70L, but after i upgraded my 50 from 1.8 to 1.4, and recently got the 85mm to complement my existing sigma 30mm, i've got essentially the same range covered (a bit longer) but at arguably a cheaper overall cost (two of the lenses were mint used copies) and faster at all focal lengths (and probabl sharper, too).

i do a lot of low-light photography, and while lens changes aren't as convenient as twisting a zoom ring, i think i made the right decision for me.

narlus wrote in post #2054677
all depends on what you do and shoot...i was heavily thinking about getting the 24-70L, but after i upgraded my 50 from 1.8 to 1.4, and recently got the 85mm to complement my existing sigma 30mm, i've got essentially the same range covered (a bit longer) but at arguably a cheaper overall cost (two of the lenses were mint used copies) and faster at all focal lengths (and probabl sharper, too).

i do a lot of low-light photography, and while lens changes aren't as convenient as twisting a zoom ring, i think i made the right decision for me.

usually when i shoot with the 24-70 its just a walk around lens and i just shoot indoor events. im trying to debate if that zoom is really necessary for me. i love this lens to death, but when i see what these primes can do...im torn. unfortunately for what i want...it wont be cheaper. i really want to pick up the 35 and 85 to make up for the zoom i lost...provided i get rid of 24-70. the 70-200 will stay cause that lens is just awesome!

The Sigma 30 and Canon 85 f/1.8 are on my list of lenses to get, but I'd never think of replacing my 28-75 with them in all instances. I'd see using them at low light venues when f/2.8 just won't do. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to give up the convenience of a fast zoom.

I use my 50mm f/1.4 most of the time on my 5D. It's just superb. I was shooting for a mag the other day and needed a bit wider so plopped on my 24mm f/2.8. Hmm, just not good enough but fired off a bunch of shots to look at later. I then put on the 35mm f/2 and this was a bit better but even on the small LCD screed I could see that the 50mm had a big optical difference.

Anyway, I loaded the images up on the computer and I pretty much made my mind up right away that I must dump the 35 and 24 and save for the 35 f/1.4. If it's only as good as my copy of the 50 f/1.4 I'll be happy though I'm hoping for more!

A few people have commented that my 50mm is a good copy and a lot of my shots takem at f/1.4-1.8 are sharper than theirs at 2.8 or higher. I don't know about that but for me the 50 f/1.4 has a 3D quality and roundness that I love. I am almost thinking of selling my Sigma 15-30 (a very good copy), 24, 35 and 100 macro to help fund it. Maybe I have average 24 and 35's and an exceptional 50 so the difference seems much greater.

I'm very unimpressed with the 35 f/2.

echo wrote in post #2054842
I use my 50mm f/1.4 most of the time on my 5D. It's just superb. I was shooting for a mag the other day and needed a bit wider so plopped on my 24mm f/2.8. Hmm, just not good enough but fired off a bunch of shots to look at later. I then put on the 35mm f/2 and this was a bit better but even on the small LCD screed I could see that the 50mm had a big optical difference.

Anyway, I loaded the images up on the computer and I pretty much made my mind up right away that I must dump the 35 and 24 and save for the 35 f/1.4. If it's only as good as my copy of the 50 f/1.4 I'll be happy though I'm hoping for more!

A few people have commented that my 50mm is a good copy and a lot of my shots takem at f/1.4-1.8 are sharper than theirs at 2.8 or higher. I don't know about that but for me the 50 f/1.4 has a 3D quality and roundness that I love. I am almost thinking of selling my Sigma 15-30 (a very good copy), 24, 35 and 100 macro to help fund it. Maybe I have average 24 and 35's and an exceptional 50 so the difference seems much greater.

I'm very unimpressed with the 35 f/2.

yea i seriously love my 50mm...i just love the pop it gives. thats why im hoping that a 35 will be the same and even more, haha...

flipm3 wrote in post #2049806
is it worth spending a ton more for the 1.4L? or does the 2.0 suffice? price difference is soo huge..i cant decide if its worth it or not

Hi Flipm3,

I dont have the 35 2.0 or shoot with a 1.6 crop (just so you know where i'm coming from) but thought you might like to have a look at the photodo reviews of the 1.4L and the 2.0

Canon 35mm 1.4L scores 4.0/5

and the

Canon 35mm 2.0 scores 3.9/5

Looking at it, theres probably not much between them on a 1.6x crop body other than the speed, build quality and bokeh/blades. If you have a shop near you it may be worth asking to try both of them and see what you think.

Hope that helps

BearSummer

BearSummer wrote in post #2056670
Hi Flipm3,

I dont have the 35 2.0 or shoot with a 1.6 crop (just so you know where i'm coming from) but thought you might like to have a look at the photodo reviews of the 1.4L and the 2.0

Canon 35mm 1.4L scores 4.0/5

and the

Canon 35mm 2.0 scores 3.9/5

Looking at it, theres probably not much between them on a 1.6x crop body other than the speed, build quality and bokeh/blades. If you have a shop near you it may be worth asking to try both of them and see what you think.

Hope that helps

BearSummer

Hi Flipm3 & BearSummer:

Here is PhotoDo's review of the Sigma 30MM f/1.4

http://www.photodo.com​/topic_20.html

I couldn't find a score but the review was extremely posivite and the reviewer did state at the end of the review that "he didn't want to give this lens back"

well...with the 35 2.0 vs 1.4...im pretty much set on the 1.4L just a matter of when i can get it. will the fall rebates have the primes on their? 35L and 85L...50L?

echo wrote in post #2054842
...I then put on the 35mm f/2 and this was a bit better but even on the small LCD screed I could see that the 50mm had a big optical difference.

Then you didn't look hard enough - the 35mm is sharper than the 50mm.

The 50mm f/1.4 wins on bokeh, though - having more blades than the 35mm.

Here's a 1:1 crop -one end of the 3:2 frame, 35L, iso640, EOS 30D, handheld grab.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

runninmann wrote in post #2048945
Or maybe the Sigma 30-f/1.4?

I agree. I have the Sigma 30MM f/1.4 and I am totally happy with it. And, if you shop at www.sigma4less.com you will find a great price for it...$369.95.

See the link:
http://www.sigma4less.​com …1.4&Submit.x=0&​Submit.y=0