35mm vs 50mm
- Thread starter teeteng
- Start date
Wow it's a bit overkill just for taking pics of your daughter. 
Anyway are you using crop sensor or FF? Which camera?
Anyway are you using crop sensor or FF? Which camera?
@ alwaysjerriky - Why would it be overkill? I'd argue that when it comes to photographing kids, it's even more so that you need a wider aperture, fast focusing lens. For one thing, you have less control of the environment. For another, kids tend to move around alot.
@TS - on APSC 50mm will become a short tele of around 85mm, which is wonderful for portraits. However, it also means you have to stand quite a bit away from your daughter to get a full body portrait. Not sure how convenient that will be for you.
50mm in both FF and APSC equivalent terms is neither long nor wide. Some background compression but not too much. It has a wide enough view without much corner distortion.
If on FF, the 35 will be more versatile since it's easier to do environment portraits without having to stand further. People say it's usually only a 2 step backwards for a 50mm to get a 35mm view. In practice with kids though, it's not always an option. And 35 is a bit wide so depending on your composition, there might be some distorted body parts.
As for the lenses, both are very good although the 35 1.4 is getting on in years. It's forever rumored to be replaced soon. I have the 50 1.2 but have only tried the 35 1.4. I think the 35 focuses faster but I find I like the 'look' of the files better with the 50 1.2. Both are equally big and chunky. The 50 is weathersealed, the 35 isn't. Both are built like tanks.
I'm sure other CSers will chime in with the Sigma 35 1.4 soon but I've never considered that one and not because it's a third party lens.
As for me, I started on the 50mm but I'm now using 35mm more as I find it more versatile. When my kids were younger I used the 50mm more though
@TS - on APSC 50mm will become a short tele of around 85mm, which is wonderful for portraits. However, it also means you have to stand quite a bit away from your daughter to get a full body portrait. Not sure how convenient that will be for you.
50mm in both FF and APSC equivalent terms is neither long nor wide. Some background compression but not too much. It has a wide enough view without much corner distortion.
If on FF, the 35 will be more versatile since it's easier to do environment portraits without having to stand further. People say it's usually only a 2 step backwards for a 50mm to get a 35mm view. In practice with kids though, it's not always an option. And 35 is a bit wide so depending on your composition, there might be some distorted body parts.
As for the lenses, both are very good although the 35 1.4 is getting on in years. It's forever rumored to be replaced soon. I have the 50 1.2 but have only tried the 35 1.4. I think the 35 focuses faster but I find I like the 'look' of the files better with the 50 1.2. Both are equally big and chunky. The 50 is weathersealed, the 35 isn't. Both are built like tanks.
I'm sure other CSers will chime in with the Sigma 35 1.4 soon but I've never considered that one and not because it's a third party lens.
As for me, I started on the 50mm but I'm now using 35mm more as I find it more versatile. When my kids were younger I used the 50mm more though
Last edited:
I'd definitely pick a 35mm focal length any day, on FF or APS-C. 35mm is just wide enough to capture action up close (i.e. at a dinner table, home spaces) or outdoors (i.e. travel, school, family trips, etc). 50mm gives better bokeh but FOV slightly tight vs. 35mm.
I'd skip both lens listed though: 50L gives lovely IQ & bokeh but AF is very slow... you might miss alot of your 'daughter in action', while 35L is a dated lens that gives less value than...
Sigma 35mm! This costs only $1k, IQ and bokeh is excellent, AF speed and accuracy is remarkable. In short, get this instead!
I agree with MechaEd and Spawnx with respect to the choice of the 35mm over the 50mm lens. This would be even more applicable if the camera you're using is APS-C.
Of the two excellent 35 mm lenses available from Canon and Sigma, it is really a matter of preference and budget. The Canon is proven with over several years of market availability. The Sigma is the new kid on the block with less than a year of availability. However the IQ of the Sigma is at least as good as the Canon equivalent and is priced attractively lower.
Of the two excellent 35 mm lenses available from Canon and Sigma, it is really a matter of preference and budget. The Canon is proven with over several years of market availability. The Sigma is the new kid on the block with less than a year of availability. However the IQ of the Sigma is at least as good as the Canon equivalent and is priced attractively lower.
Between the two, I would chose the 35mm over 50mm. With kids running around you have more *space* to work with the 35mm than the 50mm. 50mm could appear too tight to use in a small room.
Ryan
Ryan
don't mind if i hitch a question here as well as i've similar dilemma.
if you've 17-40mm, wouldn't the 35mm be a little redundant eventhough the 35mm is 1.4...
if you've 17-40mm, wouldn't the 35mm be a little redundant eventhough the 35mm is 1.4...
Ha, same here.
On my 6D, I use the 50 f/1.4 lens, and on my 70D, I use the 35 f/2 IS. It's difficult to photograph my daughter when I am too close to her, so 35 mm on FF (or equivalent) is out of the question. Furthermore, I do not like to crowd my photos with too much distracting background. (35 mm on FF is great for reporters because they need to include the environment to tell their story.) 85 mm is too long as my flat is not that big.
I just had a blast with my 50 f/1.4 on FF in the park yesterday.
That's where the short DOF for FF comes in. f/1.4 to f/2 on FF has a paper thin DOF, allowing you to isolate the subject and blur out the distracting foreground and background.
Shoot daughter...?
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=973974
He uses 35 on a crop, which is about 50.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=973974
He uses 35 on a crop, which is about 50.
Actually, for the $$ you pay for either a Canon 50L or 35L... you could buy the Sigma 35mm f1.4 AND 50mm f1.4 together! So that might solve the dilemma of only choosing one focal length
Gun for both the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 lah!
hi TS,
i currently use a 1.3 crop camera and though have no experience with the 35L, have shot kids in action with my 24L and 50L. I think it really depends on action indoors or outdoors. but if it was me, to choose a one size fits all, i would take the 24L, though like some has said, there is a really unique look to a 50L photo.
two sample photos below and hope it helps.
cheers!
50L wide open
Uploaded with ImageShack.com
24L wide open
Uploaded with ImageShack.com
i currently use a 1.3 crop camera and though have no experience with the 35L, have shot kids in action with my 24L and 50L. I think it really depends on action indoors or outdoors. but if it was me, to choose a one size fits all, i would take the 24L, though like some has said, there is a really unique look to a 50L photo.
two sample photos below and hope it helps.
cheers!
50L wide open
Uploaded with ImageShack.com24L wide open
Uploaded with ImageShack.comThanks for pointing out the thread. The photos clearly illustrate what I am saying about the usefulness of narrow DOF.
Exposure wise:
Speed can be achieved not only with bigger aperture (for higher shutter), pumping up ISO helps too to a certain limit.
Many people has forgotten about the "limit" of a big aperture like f1.2, which means very narrow DOF at close distance. With f2/f4, i will "compromise" by staying not so close to subject for relatively slower shutter speed.
Lastly for exposure, you also need to consider the ambient lighting, whether you want it outdoor, or dim indoor or studio.
Perspective wise:
Sport photographer use 200 to 600mm.
My own working range is also versatile from 20mm/f2.8 to 90mm/f2.8 for FF-dslr, when i take moving subject.
Curiosity:
How it come to mind that you need f1.2/f1.4 in the first place? If i could i would rather work on lighting first.
Speed can be achieved not only with bigger aperture (for higher shutter), pumping up ISO helps too to a certain limit.
Many people has forgotten about the "limit" of a big aperture like f1.2, which means very narrow DOF at close distance. With f2/f4, i will "compromise" by staying not so close to subject for relatively slower shutter speed.
Lastly for exposure, you also need to consider the ambient lighting, whether you want it outdoor, or dim indoor or studio.
Perspective wise:
Sport photographer use 200 to 600mm.
My own working range is also versatile from 20mm/f2.8 to 90mm/f2.8 for FF-dslr, when i take moving subject.
Curiosity:
How it come to mind that you need f1.2/f1.4 in the first place? If i could i would rather work on lighting first.
50mm on crop sensor is like 80mm. Great for portraits. But beware of image distortion though. Start with the nifty fifty, ie, the 50mm f1.8.
Oh and most photographers think the f1.2 isnt worth the price as compared to the f1.4 of the 50mm.. Its just wayyy too expensive when the f1.4 only costs like 400+ on the second hand market?
Oh and most photographers think the f1.2 isnt worth the price as compared to the f1.4 of the 50mm.. Its just wayyy too expensive
when the f1.4 only costs like 400+ on the second hand market?
Last edited:
50mm on crop sensor is like 80mm. Great for portraits. But beware of image distortion though. Start with the nifty fifty, ie, the 50mm f1.8.
Oh and most photographers think the f1.2 isnt worth the price as compared to the f1.4 of the 50mm.. Its just wayyy too expensive
Absolutely not true, the 50L f1.2 is worth every penny... great IQ and awesome bokeh. The 50 f1.4... is kind of worthless with its erratic USM motor, lol!
Similar threads
