sigma 50 1.4 or 35 1.4 canon

I am need of a new lens.
I am looking for something I can get nice and close to things with (rings, babies) yet will produce some sweet bokeh with familes where I dont have to step back a ton. I have bought the 100mm macro and could'nt master it so sold it, and I have the 70-200 2.8 and 85 1.8 which is nice for portraits but I need more. There is a big difference in price and want to make sure it's worth it.
im asking about the sigma 50mm b/c i have tried it and for once it is better than the canon.

thanks for your help.

I'm not going to comment on the lenses mentioned as I've only owned one of them but you should invest in a few extension tubes. If you're not serious about macro, they make a good addition to your favorite lens to improve the close focus distance when you have things that aren't moving much (newborns, rings, etc). I use a 12mm tube on the 85/1.8 for situations like that and it works great. I also had the 100 macro and traded it.

TheHoff wrote in post #9101428
I'm not going to comment on the lenses mentioned as I've only owned one of them but you should invest in a few extension tubes. If you're not serious about macro, they make a good addition to your favorite lens to improve the close focus distance when you have things that aren't moving much (newborns, rings, etc). I use a 12mm tube on the 85/1.8 for situations like that and it works great. I also had the 100 macro and traded it.

Good suggestion Alex.

On a crop body I like a 35L.Even on a FF the 35L would work well for baby photos when your upclose. Bokeh is pleasing but the rock solid focus and colours is almost a given.

The Sig 50mm is a love/hated lens amongst photographers. It does however seem to be a dreamy bokeh machine if you get a good copy.

got any images using the 12mm tube on 85.18?

Sure...

that must really allow you to get in close.. the 85 you really have to step back. thanks for samples.

Now which to choose for bokeh, I know both sigma 50 and 35 are both sharp but cant choose.

Different lenses for different jobs.

35L beats the 50mm hands down, but is 3 times the price.

The telephoto of the 50mm will give a better representation of the client though, 35mm can still be a bit wide depending on how close you are.

You don't say what camera you use.

From reading your experiences I bet your camera is crop-frame

That would make the 50/1.4 give a "portrait" angle-of-view, and the 35/1.4 a "normal" angle-of-view. The 50/1.4 will get you closer to portrait subjects than your 80/1.8. The 35/1.4 gets closer, distorts most if too close, but on crop-camera this is like a "nifty-fifty" angle-of-view, as the saying goes "everyone should have a 'nifty-fifty'."

Sorry I use the 40D, and not sure i will upgrade to 5D soon or not.

35L

My first copy of Sigma 50mm was soft at 1.4 - 2.2, second copy purchased just recently seems very good and sharp, and I was so happy that finally I got a good copy, but when I took pictures on thanksgiving, some pictures were sharp and clear and some were slightly out of focus. So this copy is going back too. I guess I am done with Sigma, I am also thinking about 35L on a corp camera. 50mm was good for portrait, but there were times, when I could use slightly wide lense. So I think I will invest in 35L .

sam300 wrote in post #9102753
My first copy of Sigma 50mm was soft at 1.4 - 2.2, second copy purchased just recently seems very good and sharp, and I was so happy that finally I got a good copy, but when I took pictures on thanksgiving, some pictures were sharp and clear and some were slightly out of focus. So this copy is going back too. I guess I am done with Sigma, I am also thinking about 35L on a corp camera. 50mm was good for portrait, but there were times, when I could use slightly wide lense. So I think I will invest in 35L .

seems more often then not......

Yeah, the sigma 50 1.4 I just bought is going back as well. The focus is too unreliable to be of any use. It will shift from front to back focus if you repeatedly take a picture of the same subject. There's no point in having a lens like this when you cant trust it.

I think I will save up for the 35L, the images from that seem to have a unique quality to them, mostly from the wider angle and contrast.

I had a Sigma 50 and it was beautiful out of the box, deadly sharp, fast focusing. Not all of them suck out of the box (well, some do). I don't know how well it would work with tubes though, never tried that. The 35L is highly regarded. Have you considered the 24-70? It does have pretty decent macro capabilities in its own right. Best of luck!

I own both. I use the 50 more on a full frame, b/c it suits my shooting better.
351.4 focuses closer, is sharper in center wide open, and focuses more assertively. The 50 has a bit of more nervous focus at times. its good at 1.4, great from 1.6-2. I like the color, contrast and bokeh on the sigma better. also for baby pictures you will have to get very close with 35, which will cause a lot of distortion.