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]

what's the difference between the sigma 35mm 1.4 and the canon 135 F2? is there any difference in sharpness or would I just be wasting my money renting out the 135mm for 2-3 days while I'm still here in canada? I've been comparing prices (currency rate for the most part) of a few different lenses and it seems like the 135mm and the 70-200 F2.8 II would be best bang for buck lenses (cheaper in other words) to rent here outside of the states.

[Waddizzle]

---

@iphonemaster93 wrote:

what's the difference between the sigma 35mm 1.4 and the canon 135 F2? is there any difference in sharpness or would I just be wasting my money renting out the 135mm for 2-3 days while I'm still here in canada? I've been comparing prices (currency rate for the most part) of a few different lenses and it seems like the 135mm and the 70-200 F2.8 II would be best bang for buck lenses (cheaper in other words) to rent here outside of the states.

---

I would not know how to compare a 35mm lens to a 135mm lens.  Is that a typographical error?

[iphonemaster93]

Nope, because i've seen someone else using the 135mm and it's a prime lens, the same as the 35mm, so I was just wondering haha

[ebiggs1]

"...  it seems like the 135mm and the 70-200 F2.8 II would be best bang for buck lenses ..."

No not really!  I have a 135mm f2 and the 70-200mm f2.8 but I am not 'normal' .  For most people that would just be too redundant.  The 70-200 f2.8 will do the same thing as the 135 and much more.  The 35mm and 70-200 f2.8 would be nice.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...  it seems like the 135mm and the 70-200 F2.8 II would be best bang for buck lenses ..."

No not really!  I have a 135mm f2 and the 70-200mm f2.8 but I am not 'normal' .  For most people that would just be too redundant.  The 70-200 f2.8 will do the same thing as the 135 and much more. ...

---

I've never seen the 135, but I suspect it's easier to carry around than the 70-200. I've generally treated my 70-200 as an indoor event lens. But I remember once climbing around on the rocks at Acadia National Park with the 70-200 on a 7D and wondering if I had gone out of my mind. (I got some pretty good pictures with it, though, IIRC.)

[ebiggs1]

B from Boston,

My last outing for real was at Mesa Verde.  Climbing down cliff dwellings with two 1 series.  One had a 600mm lens on it. The other a more reasonable 24-70.

"... wondering if I had gone out of my mind."   I guess I must have lost mine! Pretty much everybody here agrees.  Now I know where it happened!

[iphonemaster93]

Yeah I've rented the 70-200 F4 before and it's so heavy LOL but I know the F2.8 is slightly better but I've got different reasons for why I wanted to compare the 70-200 with the 135. I'm going to be using the lens in the same environment though. I realized that it's a lot easier to carry the 35mm around in Canada because it's definitely a lot lighter. Although in terms of placement and thinking out of the box to get the right angle, it's extremely difficult because I'm not the only tourist there haha.

[Waddizzle]

---

@iphonemaster93 wrote:

Yeah I've rented the 70-200 F4 before and it's so heavy LOL but I know the F2.8 is slightly better but I've got different reasons for why I wanted to compare the 70-200 with the 135. I'm going to be using the lens in the same environment though. I realized that it's a lot easier to carry the 35mm around in Canada because it's definitely a lot lighter. Although in terms of placement and thinking out of the box to get the right angle, it's extremely difficult because I'm not the only tourist there haha.

---

If you go past the Niagara Falls again, catch a shot of it a night.  It's lit up with colored flood lights.

[iphonemaster93]

I won't be able to haha. I'm back in Ottawa and I go back to the states next week. I tried renting out the top prime lenses and they're all sold out, and I tried renting out the 70-200 F2.8 II but they required a $1000 deposit (they had a sale going on, pay the price of a one day rental for four days) so I was like nope...

[Waddizzle]

---

@iphonemaster93 wrote:

I can't shoot a waterfall to save my life haha. Used the 24-105 for this with a 3 stop ND filter at I believe 10-15 seconds. Only shot this because I may only see Niagara Falls once in my life and this was it. 

---

Nice shot.  I like to see waterfalls captured like that.  You didn't over do it with the ND filtering.  That waterfall is what is known as "The American Falls", and was shot from Canada looking across the Niagara River towards America. 

There is a lot of stuff to photograph from that vantage point, just by simply turning around.  I hope you also took shots of the "The Canadian Falls", which is the  great horsehoe shaped waterfall just to the right of this one. It's the one that everyone thinks of when they imagine Niagara Falls.  And just to the left, there is the Rainbow Bridge, which spans the Niagara River.  Further to right is the Seagram Tower, for viewing all of the above from the air.