what to buy? 50mm 1.2 or 35mm 1.4

[mariom]

Hello everyone. I just wanted to ask what would be a better buy, the 50 or the

35. I have a camera with a 1.3x factor so that would make the 50 an 85 and the

35 an 46. Considering that the 50stops down to 1.2 and the 35 to 1.4. The use I

plan to give it is for mainly portraits in low light situations but without

loosing interaction with the subjects. Any advice would be great, thanks.

[tibz]

depends. you want longer focal lengths for portraits especially head shots (15 ft away). I would go with the 50.

[joewoo]

The 50 is pretty pimp...

 

I'd say it depends on your available space...

[brian_coy]

Actually the 50mm becomes a 65 on a 1.3x crop camera.

[bryan_lardizabal]

35mm would have more distortion at closer distances....choose the one that suits your style, I can't see a bad choice either way

[m_barbu1]

If you're interested in a lens faster than f/1.8, and you aren't photographing groups of more than 1-3 people, and/or aren't in tight quarters, I'd say the EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM would make a better portraiture option on an APS-H body.

 

If by interaction with the subjects, you are referring to having a wide angle of view, I would say consider the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM. Yes, there will be some distortion at the corners. However, I don't think the 35mm would end up being wide enough, on an APS-H body.

 

If by interaction, you mean that you want to be close enough to communicate with the subjects, the 85mm won't be a problem for that, IMO.

 

In either case, you should take into consideration the depth of field you will be using at wide apertures, and how that will impact your subject's features.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Assuming that you did some homework and shopped around, and also stopping down the choice between these two specific lesnes:

 

I'd go for the 35, even with a full frame body.

[ken munn]

Do you have a zoom - even a cheap one - that covers those focal lengths. If so, I'd suggest

shooting a few portraits with the zoom at each of the focal lengths that interest you, then

assessing the results and determining for yourself which length would best meet your

requirements. Personally, if the zoom stretched that far, I'd also shoot some at 85mm so that

the 85mm f 1.2 or f1.8 could be taken into consideration as well. On a 1.3 x sensor that

would equate to 110mm equivalent, a nice length for tight head shots.

[christopher hartt dallas]

When I go out with my 1D3 (1.3x) for general shooting, the 35 1.4L is always on the camera. It is a fantastic combination that fits MY shooting style very well. At a constructive crop of 46mm, I get a just slightly wider than normal fov and have not noticed any distinguishable distortion even for detail shots.

 

IMO, the 35 1.4L on a 1.3x crop camera is an ideal combination. I also have a 50 1.2L, but (for my style of general shooting), it isn't wide enough on any camera but Ds3's (Full frame).

[bueh]

The difference in depth-of-field between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is not noticeable in real life photography. Even the full stop from f/1.4 to f/2 renders not vastly different pictures.

 

As the others noted, the working distance is one of the main things to consider when selecting lenses. The 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 all are great lenses for low-light photography, but which one fits YOUR shooting style best is impossible for us to say. Keep in mind that AF performance is far from perfect when shooting super-fast lenses and unless you shoot very meticulously, you will have only few real keepers. Firing high-speed bursts helps nailing the depth-of-field, as does the AF assist light from an external Speedlite. So if casual shooting "without loosing interaction with the subjects" is your goal, you might give this a little more thought before purchasing such an expensive lens.

[bueh]

Meant the 85mm f/1.<b>2</b>, of course...

[William Michael]

Could you define (as a distance):

 

`without loosing interaction with the subjects`

 

and

 

` for mainly portraits `

 

 

As an example: using an 85mm for a FL portrait on x1.3 camera to me is a good idea, but it requires about 20ft, and over that distance although I would not loose touch with the subject in a studio setting, if it were a less rigid environment and / or more candid portraiture capture, in a club or a bar for example, 20 ft might be way outside the limits of the SD to maintain communication / keep interaction.

 

Then again, 20 ft SD in the studio might be way over the limits at which YOU like to work.

 

But if the `portraiture` is limited to tight H&S: the SD and the environs become less of a concern and less of a consideration in regard to choice of the lens`s FL.

 

In any event, to address your question specifically: the more flexible of the two lenses mentioned will be the 35F1.4L as it will allows you to work in a tighter environment and closer to the subject than the 50mm. And I doubt the small difference between F1.2 vs F1.4 will ever be more critical than the working space, should it become tight.

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>The difference in depth-of-field between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is not noticeable in real life photography</i></p><p>My point is that the depth of field can be <b>very</b> shallow, and that the ramifications of this should be understood, before jumping into a lens with a very wide maximum aperture, that would also be used at a short distance from teh subject.</p>

[mariom]

Thanks everyone for being so helpfull. I will let you know in the next couple of days what I went for at the end. And to Ken Munn, you can be sure I am going to try that to see wich one would fit me better. Thanks Again.