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.

[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.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

"Where did the time go?"

I have no idea?

"You're a brave man to keep doing weddings when you don't have to"

Brave is not the exact word Miss Liz uses for me when I tell her we have another wedding.  If I remember correctly her word for me starts with an s----- and ends with a d.  But most or all of the ones I do now are from people I know. I don't actively seek out any jobs any more. But when they say they want me to shoot their wedding, I just can't say no. My son is the Arts Director at our school, so I get volunteered for a lot of school stuff.  Sometimes I am not present when I volunteer.  I don't really know how that happens?  But it does.

"...  weddings as one of the most difficult and dangerous forms of event photography."

I did many, upon many, events while at Hallmark and I can safely say you are correct, sir.  The pressure is enormous.

It is just another wedding for the phoyographer but a, hopefully, once in a lifetime event for the bride.  I do tell couples, I only do this once for you.  No redo's..

Just to make it more 'interesting' a large percentage of my work was with a darkroom.

[ebiggs1]

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.

[iphonemaster93]

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...

[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.