Sigma 35mm 1.4 or... what?

<p>REALLY need your advice. <br>

My gear: 5D Mark II, 85mm 1.8, 70-200 f/4 IS. <br>

I mostly use it to shoot my own children. I also occasionally do photo shoots of families, so would like a lens that can allow me to do a nice GROUP portrait. When traveling, I enjoy architectural photography and landscape photography. <br>

Added to it Sigma 35mm 1.4. Seemed like a good idea (someone once told me that increments of 2 were a good rule of thumb: i.e., if you have a 70mm, 35mm would offer a nice change of perspective, whereas 50mm may be a bit too close).<br>

But now I'm considering returning the 35mm: I find that 35mm distorts the faces a bit too much for my liking and I can't always step further back indoors. Unfortunately, I didn't really have a chance to test it outside much, maybe I would have changed my mind then. <br>

However, if I return it, I need to replace it with some other wide-angle/normal lens. WHICH ONE? Can't seem to decide. <br>

It seems that all zooms are out - not fast enough.<br>

Is Canon's 35L worth trying? Is there a chance there will be less distortion with it, or if I don't like the focal length, I don't like it, period?<br>

Naturally, I'm thinking about 50mm. I used to have 50mm 1.8, sold it when I got 85mm 1.8, not looking to buy it again. A friend loaned me his 50mm 1.4, and I have to say, I feel its quality is inferior to Sigma 35mm... Of course, its price is, too, so I'm not necessarily dissing it, but for my budget, I'd like something a little nicer. <br>

I also bought and returned Sigma's 50mm - it was waaaay back-focused, couldn't get any sharp images with it at all.<br>

So, I have a couple of questions:<br>

1) Given that currently, my widest length is 70mm, what would those of you who have experience with both 35mm and 50mm recommend? Which one is more versatile? Which one is better for my needs all around? <br>

2) Is 50L really worth it? What about back-focus? Should I try it? I really want a lens that would blow me away.<br>

3) Would you advise to give Canon's 35L a try? Even though Canon's coming out with a new one soon? I feel like it'd be wiser to wait, even if the new one is more expensive, the prices on the old one are likely to drop, right? Problem is - I have a baby, so I really need something that would allow me to document his rapid growth RIGHT NOW, and not when Canon decides to make the 35L II.<br>

4) Should I try Sigma's 50 again?<br>

5) Or really, any thoughts on my predicament are welcome, especially if you have experience with different lenses in that range. Just please, don't say "get both 35mm and 50mm", I do hope to get both eventually, but right now it's not exactly doable. </p>

<p>My window for returning the Sigma is running out quickly, I will try to return tomorrow, so any responses I can get tonight, overnight (from European posters) or tomorrow morning would be GREATLY appreciated, as I am at a loss. THANK YOU!</p>

<p>According to reviews I've read, the Sigma has almost no distortion. I suspect what you're seeing is just a wide angle lens being a wide angle lens. All of them stretch things near the edge of the frame. On a 35mm the effect is fairly mild.</p>

<p>Also, all lenses, not just wide angles, show faces oddly if focused too close. If you stay at least 4 or 5 feet away from the subject you won't see that much.</p>

<p>Based on your lens collection, you have nothing wider than 70mm? If that's the case, I'd say you just need more practice with the 35mm. If it's focusing properly and acceptably sharp I'd keep it and keep using it.</p>

<p>If you're nervous about keeping such an expensive lens that you're not sure you want, you could return it and get something cheaper, like a Canon 28mm f/1.8, 40mm f/2.8, or 50mm f/1.8. The 40mm and 50mm are crazy cheap for how good they are.</p>

<p>Alan, yes, I'm certain that the distortion is normal, I just can't always put 4-5 feet between me and the baby, so, I feel that 50mm is more forgiving than 35mm, which immediately renders faces a bit oddly.<br>

And yes, you got it exactly right: I think there's a good chance that as I play more with 35mm, I'd learn to use it, but if I DO NOT, I'll be stuck with an expensive lens I don't like, and no budget to buy a different one. <br>

I actually should have mentioned that I used to own 28mm, I just gave it away. I don't know if I got a bad copy, but I hated that lens, all about it - very little bokeh, not very sharp. And I mentioned above - I used to own 50mm 1.8. I sold it. It's a very nice lens for the money, but I want a VERY GOOD lens, not just good for the money. </p>

<p>Natalya, I have (and love) the EF 35/1.4 L, but the Sigma 35/1.4 is reportedly better, so I wouldn't "swap" it for the L if I were you. Alan is right about wide angle distortion. When you're doing wide angle portraiture, it's best to step back a bit. Wide angle lenses are eminently suited for environmental portraiture, but don't work very well for head shots.</p>

<p>Another lens you might want to consider is the new EF 24-70/2.8 L. It delivers prime level image quality, and would complement your 70-200 perfectly. While it's not quite as fast as your 35/1.4, it focuses fairly closely and has a very versatile focal length range for portraiture.</p>

<p>Mark, <br>

yes, I hear Sigma is better, but without ever trying 35L, it's hard for me to feel like "yes, it's a great lens", there's always this lingering doubt (especially if you take the copy-to-copy differences into account).<br>

And I have been drooling over the new 24-70 2.8, but I'm afraid it's a bit out of my price range. My price range really is more $1000, I'm willing to stretch it to $1200 if need be, for 35L or a used 50L, but can't stretch it all the way to $2000+... I even looked at the old one, but with all the reviews telling how much better the new one is, it's hard to feel motivated to spend $1200 on an outdated zoom, I'd rather buy a nice prime, then.</p>

<p>The 35L is one of Canon's best, but the Sigma is attracting stellar reviews too. I don't think you can go wrong with either. The only thing I can think of that may weigh in the Canon's favor is its longevity. This means its qualities have been proven over time. The Sigma is new and may have yet undetermined issues. There are always rumors about new lenses, but the rumor of a new 35L is just a rumor. There is a new 35/2 IS though - which you might want to consider. You're not going to use a 35 at f1.4 for a group shot, so you don't need a particularly fast lens in my opinion. f2 is quite enough for the vast majority of shots such as you are taking. I only rarely use my 35L wide open.</p>

<p>A 35 will distort faces if you get too close. This may not matter for people you don't know, but for family, they may object. A 50 is better for more natural perspective "waist up". Having said this, a 35 is excellent for groups and portraits showing the environment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I have been drooling over the new 24-70 2.8, but I'm afraid it's a bit out of my price range. My price range really is more $1000,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then how about the often maligned, but still excellent 24-105/4, which you can pick up for well under $1000? Sharpness is very similar to the 24-70/2.8, but with less curvature of field. You'll be missing one stop, but you'll have a bit more reach and will have IS.</p>

<p>Here's the thing: You might find yourself missing for as shallow a depth of field with this lens (i.e. at f/2.8), but f/2.8 doesn't really get you that shallow anyway. You can always have an inexpensive prime for that anyway. And really, when the DoF is so shallow as to blur out the background, you only need a few focal lengths to get you the perspective you want anyway. So I would think your 85/1.8 (for shallow DoF head/shoulder shots), in combination with a 24-105 (for shots that require greater depth of field anyway) would be a great combination -- of course with your 70-200 to pick up the longer range with a bit of overlap in between.</p>

<p>The Canon 35mm f2.0 is good too, though the price has been sneaking up, for a lens that's been around for ages. Also the Canon 17-40 is worth considering, a very cheap L, lightweight, compact.</p>

<p>With the 50mm's, you could buy the f1.8 for very little..., didn't you just sell one, LOL. I wouldn't bother with the 1.2, way to expensive/heavy. The 1.4 is what I have, and it's ok, but overpriced for the build quality imho.</p>

<p>The Digital Picture is a good site to read up on lens.</p>

<p>(I'd also second the 24-105 f4.0. I have both that lens and orig 24-70 f2.8, and while the sharpness of my 24-70 is better, the IS and flare resistance of the '105 has won me over of late, don't use the 24-70 to speak of.)</p>

The new Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS or the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. Both are excellent.

<p>I'm a fan of the Sigma 50/1.4 and I've tried the Sigma 35/1.4, which I thought pretty good other than lacking in closest focusing distance. If that's focal length you want, then all well and good.<br>

I would also second Sarah, there's the excellent 24-105, which is my everyday lens. </p>

<p>At that distance from the baby (4 to 5 feet), go with a 50mm lens.</p>

<p>If you cannot step back, so you are up close to the face, then it will be distorted no matter what lens you use. The perspective distortion depends on how close you are to the subject, not on the focal length of the lens. If you kept at the same distance from the baby but used a longer lens, you would just get a narrower angle of view.</p>

<p>So not being able to take a step backwards is not a reason to get a longer lens - though it may sometimes suggest getting a wider one, if you can't get everything you want in shot.</p>

<p>That said the Sigma 35/1.4 is an expensive lens and you might realize some cash by replacing it with something cheaper. If your home is reasonably well lit (or it's sunny where you live and there are plenty of windows), you do not need a f/1.4 lens even for indoor use. Sigma make a good and inexpensive 50mm f/2.8 macro lens, as do Canon (f/2.5). This is often good for use with babies because you can get as close as you want.</p>

<p>As far as the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is concerned, it is a fantastic lens <strong>*if*</strong> you manage to get the focus set up properly on it. I also bought one for my 5D MkII and the focus was so far off I could not take up the slack with the AF micro-adjust on camera. I sent it to Sigma for calibration under warranty and now it's perfect. I think the glass is on a par with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L. Even when calibrated properly, care is needed to ensure sharp focusing at f/1.4 but that's the same story for any lens.</p>

<p>Robin - you're absolutely right, a big advantage of 35L for me is that it's been around forever, and I know it resells well if I decide later that 35mm is really not my cup of tea. Thus I'm wondering if $300 more is not a bad price to pay for that.<br>

And you're also right on distortion: I love photos with 35L that I see on the web, but when I photograph my own children, I KNOW that it distorts their faces and that bothers me a bit because "it's not how they really are".<br>

Sarah - I am, indeed, considering 24-105, I have a few friends lobbying for it. I just have always been more of a prime girl, it took a LOT of convincing to get me to buy the 70-200 (I wanted 135), so I'm having an even harder time committing to another zoom instead of a prime. AND I really need something very fast for indoors, and f/4 will most likely not cut it for a room on a rainy day.<br>

Mendel, Ellis - really? I read the reviews of the new 35 f/2 and walked away thinking it left much to be desired...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah - I am, indeed, considering 24-105, I have a few friends lobbying for it. I just have always been more of a prime girl, it took a LOT of convincing to get me to buy the 70-200 (I wanted 135), so I'm having an even harder time committing to another zoom instead of a prime. AND I really need something very fast for indoors, and f/4 will most likely not cut it for a room on a rainy day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you miss my point, which is that it's not necessary to get your new lens to do everything. It will do well what it does well. If you are really struggling with finding enough light indoors, that's when you pull out an inexpensive prime, like your 85/1.8. An f/1.4 lens isn't really going to do THAT much better for you. Of course if you're wanting to do a group photo by dim light indoors at f/1.4 or f/1.8, almost everyone is going to be out of focus, so that doesn't really work anyway.</p>

<p>Besides that, an even better solution, if you are lacking that much in light (and still can't shoot at a smaller aperture, even with the high ISO capabilities of your 5DII, and even with the assistance of IS, if you have it on your lens -- we're talking REALLY dark), is to pull out a flash! I'm not suggesting you put the thing on the hot shoe and nuke anything in front of the camera. Rather, you put a radio slave on the hot shoe, set your flash somewhere on a table, aimed at a wall, and create what looks absolutely convincingly like soft daylight through a window. It's easy, it looks great, and you won't have to fiddle with razor thin depths of field and slow shutter speeds. </p>

<p>One last note: Zooms really take a bashing on this forum, but do you really dislike your 70-200 that much or feel that a prime is so superior that you shouldn't consider another zoom? I admit the 24-105 isn't quite as stellar a lens as the 70-200/4IS (which I also own), but it's still a very, very nice lens, and its greatest strength is its versatility. It's the one you'll usually find on my camera.</p>

<p>And a final last note: If you are particular about perspective and composition, a prime can actually be the inferior lens, because if you need a certain perspective that doesn't fill the frame with the focal length of lens on your camera, you either have to crop your image (thereby losing whatever sharpness advantage you thought you were getting) or move to the next longer lens, which might not be wide enough to give you the perspective you want. Primes will do some things zooms won't (divorce perspective from framing), and primes will do some things primes won't (extremely large apertures and very slightly sharper at large apertures). If you want to do everything possible, you can only get there with BOTH primes and zooms in your collection. But right now it sounds like you need versatility, and the 24-105 is hands-down your most versatile sub-$1k option as a normal zoom designed for general use on full frame digital camera.</p>

<p>Er... That sentence should start, "<strong>Zooms</strong> will do some things <strong>primes</strong> won't (divorce perspective from framing)..."</p>

<p>I don't think I miss your point, the problem is that 85mm is more often than not too tele- for indoors. It's not that 1.4 is going to be that much better than 1.8, it's that 50mm or 35mm will be that much better than 85mm for inside a small townhouse.<br>

And yes, I would get both 35 and 50 in 24-105, but f4 will make it all but irrelevant for indoors. <br>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that I need 50mm or less and at least a 2.8 aperture (1.8 even better) to take successful indoors pictures. Or, of course, a flash, but then I have to invest in a some flash equipment (don't have a radio slave), which then should be factored into the cost of 24-105... But I really HATE using the flash indoors in my house: we have colored walls in every room, and our living room has peach-colored walls, which I love, but they give a hue to all my photos, and if a flash bounces off one of those walls - the hue is horrendous. <br>

And I love my 70-200, however, I think that a telephoto zoom and a normal zoom are 2 different stories: telephoto zooms still provide very pleasing background blur thanks to compression. Wide angle and normal zooms don't compress as much, so I'm suspecting that a prime would provide a much more pleasing bokeh than a zoom. I could be wrong - I never owned a normal zoom.</p>

<p>Another vote for 40/2.8</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that I need 50mm or less and at least a 2.8 aperture (1.8 even better) to take successful indoors pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The focal length depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting young children and have the space, your 70-200 makes an excellent lens for candid portraits, because you can back off far enough that the kids will forget you're there (yes, even with a flash occasionally popping off!). As for the aperture, I have to disagree. I shoot with a 5D (original) and mostly f/4 optics. I've never felt limited by the f/4 optics, except when I want a thinner depth of field and/or a heavier background blur. If blur is what you want, you should keep in mind that this style of photography is the most recent fashion, and it's already starting to get a bit tired. A very mild blur is all that is required for good subject separation, and it maintains the context of the background. Anyway, the aperture is a matter of individual preference, and depending on your preferences, no, f/4 won't limit you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or, of course, a flash, but then I have to invest in a some flash equipment (don't have a radio slave), which then should be factored into the cost of 24-105...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yongnuo flash, $70. Yongnuo radio slave kit from Ebay, maybe $30 (e.g. RF-602). Their stuff works fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I really HATE using the flash indoors in my house: we have colored walls in every room, and our living room has peach-colored walls, which I love, but they give a hue to all my photos, and if a flash bounces off one of those walls - the hue is horrendous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Colored walls -- the bane of modern indoor photography! Rest assured the wall color screws up your colors even without bounce flash! Solution: Bounce the flash off of a piece of white foam-core board (which becomes your "window"). Then be aware that additional bounces off of walls color the light. Of course you could just embrace the color and use a custom WB (or adjust appropriately in post), but of course each additional wall bounce colors the light even more. Again, this happens with or without a flash. I personally prefer introducing as rich a spectrum as possible into the room, which would come ideally from daylight or xenon flash (very similar spectrum), or failing that, from tungsten (incandescent) lighting. This will give you the best colors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> And I love my 70-200, however, I think that a telephoto zoom and a normal zoom are 2 different stories: telephoto zooms still provide very pleasing background blur thanks to compression. Wide angle and normal zooms don't compress as much, so I'm suspecting that a prime would provide a much more pleasing bokeh than a zoom. I could be wrong - I never owned a normal zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most upper-tier zooms and moderate-to-upper tier primes these days have roughly the same fairly "neutral" bokeh, which results from optimal correction for spherical aberration, which is necessary to optimize lens sharpness. So honestly, there are few differences, enthusiastic claims to the contrary. If you want to soften the bokeh, you really need to do it with a soft focus lens, which lets you adjust the level of correction for spherical aberration, hence the softness of the blur. The original 24-70/2.8 may also give you a bit softer bokeh because of its field curvature.</p>

<p>You are of course correct that the field compression of a longer lens results in a "bigger" (more magnified) background blur. I generally don't like background blur in a wide angle shot, because it's hard to get enough of it that it doesn't just look poorly focused. Anyway, bokeh doesn't matter at all for any shot that is substantially all in focus, which for me is the vast majority of my wide angle shots.</p>

<p>BTW, I think you might be confusing bokeh (the pattern of background blur) with the magnitude of background blur. A faster lens gets you a larger blur, and field compression magnifies the blurred background, so to speak, assuming you maintain the same framing of the subject. However, this has nothing to do with bokeh. For almost all "better" lenses (with substantially "neutral" bokeh), aperture and focal length tell the whole story of how your background blur will appear. (Many people on this forum will disagree with me strongly on this point, but then again, many people will show a totally, 100% in-focus shot and rave about the bokeh, which of course makes absolutely no sense.)</p>

<p>Oh, and I should correct myself that you CAN get substantial background blur with a large aperture on a wide angle lens, but it really takes a lot of physical separation between subject and background, perhaps more than you'll have indoors, unless you're right in the subject's face. But then you get the distortion you don't like, etc.</p>

<p>Sarah:<br>

I have a basic grasp of how focal length works, since I already have 70-200 and 85, I most certainly tried them inside first. If I'm looking for a wider angle, it stands to reason it's because I found 70 and 85 do not work. I did once shoot at a house where 200 was doable, but that would set me back 4 million dollars, a fast prime seems like a cheaper option at this junction. :-)<br>

I am impressed that f4 never held you back, but my guess is that you're a lot more comfortable with a flash than I am. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Solution: Bounce the flash off of a piece of white foam-core board (which becomes your "window"). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>And 10 seconds later the baby will crawl away and I'll have to move my board, and my flash that I set up nicely on the table. :-) I admire people who're skilled with flash, I really do, but I'm not one of them, and I find that for candids, a fast lens is better than flash gear.<br>

And I'm not sure why you think I'm confusing bokeh and blur. I'm fairly certain I know them apart.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I'm looking for a wider angle, it stands to reason it's because I found 70 and 85 do not work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry... I'm not arguing! As I said it depends on what you're photographing. I just mentioned an example when one might shoot with a longer lens. Just addressing your point ("correct me if I'm wrong...") that indoor photography requires <50mm and a large aperture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And 10 seconds later the baby will crawl away and I'll have to move my board, and my flash that I set up nicely on the table. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not at all. You leave the board and flash where they are, and you tweak your aperture up or down a bit (shooting manually). Either that, or you have a more expensive slave and speedlite, so that you can shoot with ETTL and not have to make the adjustments manually.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I'm not sure why you think I'm confusing bokeh and blur. I'm fairly certain I know them apart.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a common confusion. I don't really know what you do and don't know. I'm just trying to be helpful.</p>

<p>And I really appreciate your advice, I do! <br>

In fact, I am almost wondering if you could help me set up a nice inexpensive flash outfit for indoors and outdoor fill (for sunny locations and days, where shadows are strong and no shade to be found, such as on a beach at noon). But that is probably a conversation for another thread.</p>

<p>Sarah's advice and perspective, as always, is thoughtful and spot-on. I think she already suggested a Yongnuo wireless outfit, which will run around a fourth of the price of similar Canon gear. I'd recommend going the Am@&*n route rather than Ebay though, as the only knock against Yongnuo is "DOA" that is higher than what we expect from the major manufacturers.<br>

Background blur notwithstanding, I'm curious why f/4 doesn't work for you. The 5dMk2 is so clean at ISO 2,000-3,200 you should be able to shoot confidently in most ambient light settings, I would think. Unless you live in Alaska and it's winter, I suppose (or Russia!) ;-)<br>

Robert</p>