35mm Vs 50mm on FF

Guys it's me again asking this boring old question...

Please I just wanted to get a confirmation that someone agrees my thinking is logical between the two lenses for my purposes on a 6D.

 

I've had previously 50mm's: 1.8 and 1.4 canon. I liked their small size and they were very nice for 1 person portraits; nice blur. Not stellar like the L primes i've seen; but I've never tried the 50 sigma art or the canon 1.2L to judge. My reservation on 50 is even on outdoors it can be too zoomed in in certain scenarios i.e. remember was in Praque old city with my wife and only shooting her in the image I had to walk back 4-5 steps in a crowded area and still got a slightly tight image.

 

I've had the Canon 35L 1.4 it was amazing. Practical; my 'Night time' lens; indoor lens; and nice blur though obviously not as good blur as the 50. Mainly used it as a general purpose lens.

 

Now all I care about is: Baby photos; 1 person portraits; 2 and 3 person portraits (of our little family) lots of indoor and outdoor.

 

My lenses which would complement my choice of 35/50 would be 100 Macro f2.8 (amazing portraits and blur); 70-200 f4 IS and standard zoom 24-105 f4L.

 

I am leaning towards 35 mm for practicality and compromising only on some blur and some distortion at closeups because I have other lenses for that closeup purposes. If I buy would be either the Sigma ART series or the Canon L version of the 35/50 primes.

 

I noticed many newborn professional photographers use the 35 mm in fact more than 50 as most of their work is indoors.

 

Any ideas or suggestions?

 

Regards

Peter

Back in the 35mm film days, if we only had one lens, it'd be a 50mm, usually an f/1.8. I don't think anything has changed. However, if you do a lot of indoor archetecture, then sure, it's not wide enough, but as a general purpose, only lens in the bag (no bag needed, really), then on ff, the 50mm is still king.

 

OTOH, when I gave my old 5D MkII to my daughter, I suggested the 40mm f/2.8 STM as a great starter lens. She later bought the 24-105mm when she had the money.

 

These days, we have so many great lenses to chose from, I think it's wise to shade you pick, based on your personal usage that you anticipate. If I know nothing about the person, then I recommend 50mm. If I know that they want to do landscapes, then I'll more likely aim them toward a 40 or 35mm. Of course, if they can afford it, I always recommend a good zoom over a prime.

, the 50mm is still king

Never was for me and I don't own one now. Tried a few times but it always feels "neither here nor there".

50 ... slightly tight image.

35 ... general purpose lens

Seems to me the decision has already been made.

If you won't be too lazy to bring your 100mm along, 35mm sound like a great counterweight to it.

I am not sure if it is a great focal length for shooting single newborns but I'd rather stick to it and a 100mm than having no space to back off to frame a family with the 50mm. That being said: I don't see need or use for an ultra fast 50mm. - I am happy and content with f2. So maybe splurge on your 35mm L and buy fantastic plastic to fill the gap? - No clue about Yongnuo's but I guess it takes pictures. Or maybe adapt a Helios for swirl bokeh?

Upon the lens choice: I suppose a lot depends about how intimate spectator and subject are. - A kissable girlfriend can be shot, as such, with a wide lens. - Arm's length selfies are either intimate or weird looking since the perspective suggests the subject poked the spectator's social privacy bubble. Newborns go from arm to arm, so maybe shooting them from short distances is more acceptable?

It does indeed sound as though you have already chosen. In my view, if you need a single prime lens, the 50mm is best, and this will be particularly useful for (waist-up) pics of a single person. On the other hand, obviously, a 35mm is hard to beat for group portraits, but go too close and large noses and mouths will result. This is less of an issue for babies as babies have small noses, so apparent enlargement tends not to be noticed. Still, a longer focal length is better for them too. But it does depend on how much of the environment you want to include. Given the choice, 35mm is a favorite all rounder for about half of photographers, but for me I would always pick a 50mm. A combo of 35 and 100mm or 85mm is a great two lens kit though.

Thanks everyone for your input and to you Robin;

 

I checked out so many Flickr photos from these two lenses over the last few nights surely the 50 perspective is more artistic and it focuses on the person rather than the environment and I am again torn between the two lenses!

 

I guess I have a 24-105 for general purpose what will I gain in 35L indoor shot of family as opposed to 24-105 with flash? Maybe not much and wide photos are the one you need more people in focus anyway.... so then maybe 50 is the better use of my $ and the F1.4 aperture.

Decisions!!

 

Thanks to you all

. . . get a confirmation that someone agrees my thinking is logical between the two lenses for my purposes on a 6D. . . Now all I care about is: Baby photos; 1 person portraits; 2 and 3 person portraits (of our little family) lots of indoor and outdoor.<br>

 

My lenses which would complement my choice of 35/50 would be 100 Macro f2.8 (amazing portraits and blur); 70-200 f4 IS and standard zoom 24-105 f4L.<br>

 

Any ideas or suggestions?

 

 

Considering the High ISO capability of the 6D and that it is 135 Format ('full frame") - my opinion is that a far better logic would be to acquire (only) a 24 to 70/ F2.8L or 24 to 70 F/2.8 L MkII for the 6D and after using that combination for a couple of months for the purposes that you outline, then consider what lenses (if any) you require to complement the 24 to 70/2.8L<br><br>

 

 

WW

Considering the High ISO capability of the 6D and that it is 135 Format ('full frame") - my opinion is that a far better logic would be to acquire (only) a 24 to 70/ F2.8L or 24 to 70 F/2.8 L MkII for the 6D and after using that combination for a couple of months for the purposes that you outline, then consider what lenses (if any) you require to complement the 24 to 70/2.8L<br><br>

 

 

WW

I second the zoom. Neither 35mm or 50mm is generally a very great portrait focal length. I find myself more inclined to shoot in the 70mm range, or even higher. In fact, my favorite portrait lens is 70-200mm. The high-ISO performance of you body is excellent and you can always go to flash, if needed.

• A "normal" lens on a given format is usually a focal length equivalent to the diagonal of the image.
   
  
• On a "full-frame" SLR camera, this would actually be closer to 43mm than the traditional 50mm.
  
• Many people will shoot 35mm focal length in preference to the longer 50mm.
   
  
• Many 35mm film rangefinders came with ~45mm fixed focal length lenses.
  

I agree with dcstep regarding portrait focal lengths. For portraits, 85-100mm range is still king, imo. Distortion is minimized and the slight compression is usually flattering. .Actually, though, I prefer 135mm for portraits. I can get back further away from the subject and the compression isn't too much such that it becomes obvious. So, if you're considering either the 24-105L or the 70-200, you've got the portrait focal length nailed -- as well as a great deal more. But with regard to the 35 and 50, my impulse is not to choose, but to get both. Each has its merits. The 50mm is more cut-and-dried, providing a true perspective to the image. It's a "just the facts, ma'am" lens. Whereas the 35mm, because it can distort perspective somewhat, can be more dramatic in certain situations. For example, I prefer a 35mm for street photography. It's just wide enough to include a scene without causing too much distortion, and the distortion that it does cause is often what adds to the drama of the photo. So, yeah, I would prefer not to choose. They're both small, lightweight lenses, so I'd pack 'em both on my outings (and I often do).

Neither 35mm or 50mm is generally a very great portrait focal length.

 

Plenty of people take portraits with 35mm and 50mm. Some of the most famous portraits ever made were done with 35 and 50mm lenses or their equivalents (because of format changes.) Richard Avedon, widely recognized as one of the greatest portrait photographers ever, used a 360mm lens on 8x10, which works out to 45mm equivalent. Basically, using a variety of lenses for portraits will allow one to find out what distance and what crop they find comfortable.

Continuing on the line of Jeff's (Spearhead) comments about the labeling of lenses as "portrait focal lengths" - 99% of "distortion" which is rendered in Portraiture and which is talked about so often (i.e 'flattening' 'compression' etc) is a result of the CAMERA VIEWPOINT (that is the Camera to Subject Distnce and the Camera's Elevation relative to the Subject) and it is not the Focal Length, per se. <br><br>

 

Obviously the (choice of) Focal Length has a direct result in the FRAMING of the Portrait and mwmcbroom alluded to this fact when he wrote of liking to use his 135mm lens so he "can get back further away from the subject": but I think it is important to make a specific mention that it is the Camera Viewpoint which determines these 'distortions' (elongation, foreshortening, compression etc) in Portrait Photography. <br><br>

 

WW

What you've written is true of course, and while it may not be focal length per se, the distortion and compression is inevittable to some extent because of framing. The wider the lens, the closer you have to get to your subject to fill the frame, and thus the greater the distortion. The opposite is the case, of course, for a longer lens. At least with telephotos, you're reducing compression as you move away from your subject.

Yes, that's the exactly points that I wanted to make: I wanted to encourage identifying the relationships between the choice of Focal Length and the choice of Framing and the Distance to the Subject. <br><br>

 

Additionally, there is no rule for Portraiture, that you have to "fill the frame" or that for it to be "a portrait" it must be an "Half Shot" or an "Head and Shoulders Shot". . . a "Portrait" can be made at a distance of 25ft using a 35mm lens, or at 25ft made using 135mm or 200mm lens - the PERSPECTIVE and the amount of these 'distortions' on the Subject will be the same in each case, because the Subject Distance does not change, but the FRAMING (Field of View) will be different - and importantly both will be "Portraits" - there seems to be a notion that a "Portrait" is confined to only a tight shot of a person's upper body and head - that's simply not so. (not implying that you hold that view.) <br><br>

 

WW

Oh, I agree. I've seen very effective portraits that were almost full-body shots. But when I refer to a portrait, without getting specific, I guess I'm surrendering to the received wisdom that a portrait will be a head and shoulders shot. And when I think about it, a lot of the portraits I've done were actually full-body shots. And I've used a variety of focal lengths as well -- varying typically from 35mm to 200mm.

. . . But when I refer to a portrait, without getting specific, I guess I'm surrendering to the received wisdom that a portrait will be a head and shoulders shot. . .

<br><br>

 

Yes! I find that so interesting how we each think differently and what the word "Portrait"/ "Portraiture" means to us and what images that it conjours . . . <br><br>

 

What I mean is - if I am not getting specific about the word "Portrait", then its meaning is all encompassing and in simple terms simply means "People Photography".<br><br>

 

When I do get specific, I would specifically state: "A Group Portrait"; "Street Portrait"; "A Team Photo"; "A Family Portrait"; "Bridal Portraiture" as examples to represent the genre of Portraiture<br><br>

 

And: "Tight Head Shot"; "Half Shot"; "Full Length Shot"; "Two Person Half Shot Landscape", to describe the Framing of the Shot . . . <br><br>

 

I think my process is slanted 'more technically' (for want of a better description) because I was taught Photographic Practice and Theory prescriptively where as most people use photography words and terms more in a general meaning.<br><br>

 

Thanks for the chat.<br><br>

 

WW

So people I thought I should update you all... thanks for all your advise I bought the sigma 50 1.4 art and I've only tested it indoors but is seems very special compared to any other lens I've ever owned... great colours blur and super sharp.

 

I've figured my home and rooms are big enough I don't need to shoot from tight corners etc... 50 is less distortion and perfect for baby portrait and outdoors where lenses shine best anyway I can zoom out and include a few people in the frame... if I managed to fit a family shot in a 135L the. The 50 will be much easier!

I am super happy with the choice; thanks for your advise all :)

 

Have a great day

Enjoy...