sigma 35mm or 50mm Art?

[iphonemaster93]

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.

[Waddizzle]

" 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.

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[ebiggs1]

"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!  

[iphonemaster93]

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.

[ebiggs1]

     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.

[iphonemaster93]

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?

[ebiggs1]

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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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.