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