topic sigma 35mm or 50mm Art? in EF & RF Lenses

sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

iphonemaster93 — Mon, 16 May 2016 21:45:16 GMT

Hi all,

I've been silent for almost an entire year. Thanks to ebiggs for recommending me the sigma 35mm, it's still my go to lens for sharp photos (though I did make some in camera adjustments as well in terms of picture style). Just recently, a lot of photographers just coincidentally happened to get the sigma lens as well. Another person got the 35mm, one got an 18-35mm for his nikon, but the best photographer out of all of us got the 50mm on the 6d. For the same price as the 35mm, is there any real difference between the 35mm and the 50mm other than the having more bokeh with the 50mm? I know it gives more of a blur as you're standing further away from the subject with the 50 but is that really the only difference? Is there a benefit of having both lenses? Or does it just depend on the situatoin you want to put yourself in? Thanks! P.S. Only reason why I'm asking is because I watched Digital Rev's review on the 50mm and that's how I came to that conclusion.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

Waddizzle — Mon, 16 May 2016 23:16:18 GMT

"For the same price as the 35mm, is there any real difference between the 35mm and the 50mm other than the having more bokeh with the 50mm?"

The biggest difference is focal length, which are actually pretty close. I have neither, so I will not comment on IQ.

Unless, you wish to collect a set of primes, I don't see much advantage in having both the 35 and 50, but not unless you're shooting video. Quickly switching through series of incremental focal lengths is a popular techinique to zoom in/out on a subject.

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

I like to use the online Depth-Of-Field table at the above link. Use it to compare DOF between 35mm and 50mm.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

iphonemaster93 — Mon, 16 May 2016 23:41:16 GMT

yeah i got the 35mm mainly because when i go to car events and shoot photos, less people will get into my shot. Whereas if I use a 50, I'm not getting any shots with no people haha

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

ScottyP — Mon, 16 May 2016 23:59:03 GMT

I have had the 35 Art for 3 years and I absolutely love it. It is my walk around lens. Works so well in low light, and keeps a fair amount of DOF even wide open because it is fairly short.

I do do not think, however, I would likely buy both a 50 and a 35. They are just so close, and my wallet objects.

I have an 85, which makes sense with a 35, though I seldom use it because my beloved 70-200 does 85 really well. I should maybe sell it.

I also have a 100, but that is because it is a macro.

If you don't already have a good 70-200, You might consider spending a bit more and getting one of them instead of the 50.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 17 May 2016 04:08:49 GMT

I definitely have the 70-200 II as a lens on my bucket list. I'm deciding whether I should purchase a 24-70, 85, or 70-200. The 70-200 is a little heavy for me and I don't really shoot portraits (if I do, it's currently with my 35 and not with my 24-105). if I get the 70-200, it'll be for long range automotive shots (24-70 for close up) and the 85 for longer range portrait shots and MAYBE automotive.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

Waddizzle — Tue, 17 May 2016 10:15:25 GMT

@iphonemaster93 wrote:
I definitely have the 70-200 II as a lens on my bucket list. I'm deciding whether I should purchase a 24-70, 85, or 70-200. The 70-200 is a little heavy for me and I don't really shoot portraits (if I do, it's currently with my 35 and not with my 24-105). if I get the 70-200, it'll be for long range automotive shots (24-70 for close up) and the 85 for longer range portrait shots and MAYBE automotive.

What camera body are you using? Having both a 35 and a 50 makes more sense on an APS-C body than a FF.

As to those lenses you lised, if you using a FF body, the 70-200 is a very versatile zoom for outdoor use, but maybe a little long on an APS-C body. The 85 would be good on a FF, for doing classic portraits. A 50mm would be good for portraits on an APS-C body. The 24-70 is an excellent, versatile zoom range on a FF body, but my choice for an APS-C body would be one of the 16-35s, or the 17-40mm lenses.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 17 May 2016 13:11:23 GMT

Hey, I am glad you like the lens. The Sigma 'Art' 35mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens. Maybe the best there is. The 50mm f1.4 Art is in the same class. May be the best there is. I mean in the World. I have had both. I also had the Sigma Art 85mm f1.4. My comments is from practical hands on experience. Not from reading somebody else's review or making up c--p because you have no clue.

Now this is me but I sold the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 in favor of the Canon ef 50mm f1.2L and ef 85mm f1.2L. IMHO, there is no better lenses on the planet. There is nothing like f1.2. No matter what anybody says.

I forgot, which camera do you have? If it is a Rebel the 50mm will make the best strictly portrait lens. If it is a FF, then the 85mm is preferred. Primes are pretty specialized lenses anymore.

"I should purchase a 24-70, 85, or 70-200."

ef 24-70mm f2.8L II ? Absolutely! It is the best lens anybody can have. Bar none! It will rival any of these in IQ and be far more livable and versatile. If I could have just one lens, the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II would be it in a heartbeat. Hands down.

I put three more of my lenses on the auction block this week. Won't ever use them again. This is my bag now, the ef 16-35mm f2.8, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II and the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II. This combo goes everywhere with me and does nearly everything I do.

I keep my ef 8-15mm f4L and big Siggy 150-600mm S for the extremes. But they don't go all the time.

So where are we? If you want to and are able to put in the time to learn the fantastic ef 50mm f1.2L or ef 85mm f1.2L buy them. If not get the Sigma Art versions. Learning curve required for the Canon's but well worth the effort.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 17 May 2016 16:53:58 GMT

I have the 6D. I've taken the 70-200 before and have tried shooting panning shots on the third level and it is a PITA honestly. I ended up just using my 24-105 lol! Yeah I took my 35 to a beach with the family this past weekend and I had to get really close up to get some good blur in the background but I felt like I was giving them enough breathing space haha. Though I used to have a 7DMKII (which I sold for the 6D, can't keep both) and the 35mm would've been a good lens for it I think. I also still have my canon 50mm still (got it way before I got my sigma 35) but for it's current retail price, it's not worth selling unless I can save up enough close to a price of a lens that's on my bucket list.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 17 May 2016 17:00:32 GMT

Tbh, i don't even know if the 85 I'm talking about is the ef F1.2. I just know that there's a 85mm out there that's specifically for portraiture but I could probably only use it for portraits, since its not ideal for nature photography or automotive photography. Yeah, I have the 6D, which means either the 50 or the 85. the 24-70, maybe not as high on my list considering I still have my 24-105 which can cover the wide angle perspective. I tried shooting with my friend's 24-70 and I don't believe it was the F2.8 II because the quality honestly didn't impress me. I thought it would be tack sharp but if it wasn't for changing the picture style settings, it wouldn't have been as sharp as if I didn't change the picture style settings I think. I should have more time in the next coming months to learn more about photography, as I just recently changed my style in automotive and have been shooting more landscape/nature and portraits (from time to time). So once I save up enough, I'll be investing in another lens, and these four (now) will be what's on my mind. I'm leaning more towards the 50 than the 85 because I remember the distance I had to stand between the subject and me when I still had my 7DMKII and I feel like 85 on the 6D would be way too far for me. Only realistic fact that I am unsure of, is what the difference in aperture will do...

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

kvbarkley — Tue, 17 May 2016 17:40:10 GMT

What was the aperture on the beach? You probably needed to really crank up the shutter speed or put on a polarizer to get the aperture wide enough for background blur.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

Waddizzle — Tue, 17 May 2016 17:57:35 GMT

" I'm leaning more towards the 50 than the 85 because I remember the distance I had to stand between the subject and me when I still had my 7DMKII and I feel like 85 on the 6D would be way too far for me. Only realistic fact that I am unsure of, is what the difference in aperture will do."

Stop guessing, and be certain. Take a look at this link that I posted earlier. Instead of focal length, think angle of view.

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

What is aperture? Think of an aperture as the iris to your eye. It opens and closes to adjust the amount of light entering the to fall with certain limits...to be as near constant as possible. Think of the shutter as your eyelid, which opens to allow some light to hit the retina [image sensor] in the back of your eye.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/photography/photography.shtml

The above link is to Canon's DLC. Look for the "Canon EOS 101" link on the right side of the page. That is as good a place to start as any.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 17 May 2016 21:41:05 GMT

"i don't even know if the 85 I'm talking about is the ef F1.2. I just know that there's a 85mm out there that's specifically for portraiture ..."

If you want a f1.2 you have to buy the Canon ef 85mm f1.2L. Absolutely fabulous lens. Nothing like it. Possibly the best portrait lens ever made. However I find myself using my ef 70-200mm f2.8L quit a bit of the time now. I really hate it when people start putting limits on lenses. You can't shoot cars with that lens. Or you can't do landscapes with that one. You have to have this XZX lens for that! Nonsense.

I did a wedding a while ago and used three lenses. The ef 24-70mm f2.8L mostly. The ef 70-500mm f2.8L a lot and my ef16-35mm f2.8L a little. The bride was gorgeous. Here is one of her engagement photos. Shot with my ef 70-200mm f2.8L.

About 140mm, f5, 1/400, ISO200. Cloudy day light.

Of course down sizing for the web take a toll. But you may want ot revisit the ef 70-200mm f2.8L. Especially on a FF camera like the 6D. I know, at this point, I would prefer it over any prime lens made.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 17 May 2016 21:47:40 GMT

"I just recently changed my style in automotive ..."

Really? To what?

I bet you can't guess what gear I used to shoot these two shots.

BTW, it was raining when I shot these!

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

iphonemaster93 — Wed, 18 May 2016 03:37:22 GMT

Oh, I was shooting portraits on the beach, not the beach itself as a whole. I believe I went down to F2 instead of shooting at completely wide open.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

ebiggs1 — Wed, 18 May 2016 04:17:20 GMT

The beautiful young lady was shot at f5. What did you think of think of the background?

Care to have a guess at the two car photos. I'll bet you would be surprised at the gear.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

iphonemaster93 — Wed, 18 May 2016 04:30:27 GMT

that was shot with the 70-200??? dang she is gorgeous! haha how did you get her skin so smooth? That's the one thing I can't get when editing portrait photos 😞 and I'd have to guess the 24-70?

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

ebiggs1 — Wed, 18 May 2016 04:42:07 GMT

Yes, it was shot with my ef 70-200mm f2.8L. I use it as my go to portrait lens. I have the ef 85mm f1.2L and I do love it. But the zoom is just so much more user friendly. That shot was at 140mm or so and at f5.

You have to remember all good photos go through PS. And that one is no different. I softened her skin a bit. Plus a few more 'touch' ups. These new lenses, especially the 85 but even 70-200 are so sharp, they can be too sharp for the best portraits. Even the prettiest girl needs some tweaks. Don't tell them that though.

The cars were shot with a very old and cheap ($300 bucks) ef 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 zoom on an 8 mega pixel camera. Plus it was raining.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

RobertTheFat — Wed, 18 May 2016 11:46:54 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
The beautiful young lady was shot at f5. What did you think of the background?

The background is OK, but the white balance seems a little off. I'm not sure what the PS or LR equivalent would be, but in DPP I'd try a "click white balance" correction on the subject's teeth.

The subject's nose and hands are overexposed, presumably from slightly too intense lighting. The WB correction, because such corrections generally work by subtracting light, might help that too.

Is that your daughter? I recall from a picture of her you posted sometime back that she's an eye grabber.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

ebiggs1 — Wed, 18 May 2016 12:48:48 GMT

Bob from Boston,

I noticed exactly what you critique. "Of course down sizing for the web takes a toll." The print does indeed look very much better. She is not my daughter or even related to me. Before her engagement photos I had never met her. I knew her future husband. He was a music teacher at our school.

My daughter is 40 years old! I have grand daughters that are her age.

BTW, I have noticed it depends on which photo viewer you use, too. They all seem to show pictures differently. Windows Photo Viewer and Medial Player show them differently. Even Outlook shows differently when you email them.

I don't seek out jobs anymore that I am retired. They seem to find me. So I do usually know one of the two. Sometimes both.

Got two coming up, one on Saturday.

Re: sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

RobertTheFat — Wed, 18 May 2016 15:16:38 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Bob from Boston,

I noticed exactly what you critique. "Of course down sizing for the web takes a toll." The print does indeed look very much better. She is not my daughter or even related to me. Before her engagement photos I had never met her. I knew her future husband. He was a music teacher at our school.

My daughter is 40 years old! I have grand daughters that are her age.

BTW, I have noticed it depends on which photo viewer you use, too. They all seem to show pictures differently. Windows Photo Viewer and Medial Player show them differently. Even Outlook shows differently when you email them.
I don't seek out jobs anymore that I am retired. They seem to find me. So I do usually know one of the two. Sometimes both. Got two coming up, one on Saturday.

Yeah, it has to be one of the granddaughters whose picture you posted earlier. I keep forgetting how old we all are. My daughter is 47, which boggles my mind if I think about it too much, and my grandchildren are in various stages of high school. Where did the time go?

You're a brave man to keep doing weddings when you don't have to. I've always regarded weddings as one of the most difficult and dangerous forms of event photography. Only war correspondents in combat zones have it worse.