35mm Versus 50mm - Opinions Wanted

[PhotomanJohn]

I am trying to decide if I should buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4A or a Sigma 50mm f/1.4A lens. My motivation is to have a lens that is sharp across the fame at f/1.4 for low light and shallow depth of field shots. I am also looking for a lens in this focal length range that will be significantly sharper than my 24-70mm when stopped down. Either of these lenses would fit those general requirements.

I understand that the answer to my question lies in what situations I would mostly use the lens. I am compiling a sheet of the pros and cons of each lens as I see it. I would appreciate opinions on how and why one would be better in one situation or another.

Thanks,

John

[DanK]

John,

I think you have the answer in your hands.

From what I have read, the two lenses are both excellent, and you wrote that either would meet your general requirements. So, they differ primarily in focal length. Your 24-70 encompasses both focal lengths. Why not use that to determine which focal length best suits your purposes? What others prefer might not be on the mark for you, given what you shoot.

Dan

[rpcrowe]

John,

What format camera are you using? The choice of focal lengths might depend on whether you are shooting full-frame or cropped format.'

I really don't know if either of the Sigmas would be "significantly sharper" than your 24-70mm zoom "when stopped down". Of course, this might depend on which 24-70mm lens you are presently shooting with.

I shot for years with Canon crop format cameras and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L Mk-1 lens and that lens was very sharp, especially when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. However, I cannot speak for a full frame camera but, the guy to whom I sold the 24-70mm f/2.8L Mk-1 uses that lens professionally on a 5D Mk-ii camera and produces some very fine imagery with that combination.

I don't know your criteria for "significantly sharp" but would guess that in normal shooting situations, it might be quite difficult to distinguish shots taken with a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens from those shot with either of the primes mentioned above. I realize that in MTF testing as well as pixel peeping the primes are sharper than the zoom. But is the difference enough to be significant? We have to add into this equation that the photographer can most often "crop in the camera" when using a zoom lens but, may need to do some cropping when shooting with a prime...

As far as which focal length would be best for your uses, you should have a handle on that already since the 24-70mm lens obviously includes both focal lengths.

As for me, I have never liked the 50mm format when shooting full frame. At one time, I had access to use Leica M2 kits which included lenses of 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. I used the 35mm and 90mm almost exclusively and seldom used the 50mm. My standard medium focal length lens is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Even on a crop format camera, the 55mm is too short for many of my uses. I shoot with a pair of 7D cameras and use the 70-200mm f/4L IS for my longer focal needs and most often use the 17-55mm toward the wider portion of its focal range...

Another factor to dial into the sharpness question is your skill at PP. IMO, all digital images need some sharpening and photographers who are seeking a lens with which they need do no PP sharpening are selling a lot of good lenses short.

[GeoBonsai]

Do you have a full-frame (36x24mm) or an ASP-C (around 23.2x15.4 mm) camera?

A 50mm lens on an ASP-C sensor with a crop factor of 1.5 "sees" what a full-frame sees at 75mm; a 35mm lens would see what a full-frame sees at 52.5mm.

I agree with DanK, determine what focal length you tend to favor, and base your decision on that.

Here are two example images I shot using the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens; straight out of the camera (STC).


Nikon D3300 > Nikon 35mm f1/8 > 1/100 sec > f/11 > ISO 100
Lake Chabot, Castro Valley, California



Nikon D3300 > Nikon 35mm f1/8 > 1/640 sec > f/4 > ISO 100
Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, Antioch, California

[PhotomanJohn]

Thanks to all. To answer a few questions:
I have a FF and crop cameras (D800 and D7000). Most of the time I use the D800 with the option to crop to equal the D7000 I have the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC which is as sharp as the Nikon 24-70mm f.2.8, still not up to HQ prime standards. I have looked through my photos using the 24-70mm and I have about as many around 35 as I do around 50mm.

My main motivation is to have a sharp lens at f/1.4. I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.4G which is a bit soft wide open but, as Richard mentioned, a bit of extra sharpening will make an acceptable picture. I suffer from wanting technical excellent and pixel peeping. Not that I am not happy with my current lenses, I just want a not excuses f1.4 prime.

Is there anyone out there that has both focal lengths and can tell me when they use one over the other? Just looking for opinions before I plunk down my money. My normal approach when I can't decide is to buy both which I am trying to avoid this time.

John

[dubaiphil]

I have both 35mm and 50mm primes which I used on Nikon FF. I also have the 24-70 Nikkor.

Regarding sharpness, you will notice a difference if you pick a good 35/50 over a 24-70. I went for a 2/35 Carl Zeiss, which knocks the socks off a 24-70 up to f5.6 where the performance levels out a little more. Focusing is as slow or quick as you like as it's manual and the focus confirmation dot is accurate for 35mm focal length. I'm quicker to focus, especially in challenging light, than using AF.

If you're using a prime you may notice a difference in focusing speed compared to the 24-70 - it definitely won't be as zippy and this may be critical to you. However if you need the speed, whatever the critics may say, the prime will have benefits beyond sharpness.

I've had several 50mm lenses. The first wasn't 50 at all, but I used it on a D90 - the 35mm f1.8G. Good lens, but didn't get on with focal length at the time on crop. My next was the 50 f1.4G on FF - slower focus and not as great as I'd like wide open. I was starting to prefer the focal length at that stage. My latest is the 50 f1.2 AI - manual focus again, and sharp as a tack from f2 onwards.

In my case I use 35mm far more and it feels more right for me. If need be I can get closer but with 50 sometimes you can't get further away - this may be an issue for you. Also with all your megapixels the 35mm may be better as you can crop to 50 if need be.

If you're going down the Sigma route is recommend getting to a shop and trying before you buy to ensure focus is accurate. Sigma have a history but the newer Art lenses seem to have a better rep in this regard.

[William W]

. . . Is there anyone out there that has both focal lengths and can tell me when they use one over the other? . . .

I do not have those particular Sigma Lenses but I do I have several Prime lenses, specifically two 35mm and also two 50mm Prime Lenses.

I also have a dual format DSLR kit.

I use both my 35mm prime lenses more than either of my 50mm primes, probably more than twice as much in general use.

More specifically, both my 35mm prime lenses are definitely used more than twice as much than the 50mm primes on my 5D series cameras (‘full frame’ DSLR), because I like the 35mm FoV / perspective attained for most low light candid portraiture and street portraiture, and that is where I tend to use lenses at or faster than F/2.2: considering also that for indoor low light work it is usually better to have a wider lens because one cannot back up further from the Subject than to the wall that is behind.

On my APS-C cameras I would use my 35mm primes about twice as much as my 50mm primes. The APS-C bodies that I use do not perform as well at high ISO as do my 5D series cameras, so therefore I tend to use any APS-C camera in good light and if that camera does have a prime on it, it tends to be used for a ‘standard view’, and not a ‘short telephoto view’ - in fact I often question if there is much logic to buying either of the (Canon or Nikon) ‘nifty fifty’ for a general fast prime for use on an APS-C camera.

As ageneral comment, I have several Fast Prime Lenses. Since 2004 (when I cut over to digital) I often work with fast primes and a pair of camera bodies in a dual format camera kit (one APS-C and one 135 format, aka ’full frame’), the pairs and triplets that I most use are, in order of most often use to least often used:

> 35 and 85 (equivalent FoV: 35; 56; 85; 136)
> 24 and 85 (equivalent FoV: 24; 38; 85; 136)
> 24, 50 and 135 (equivalent FoV: 24; 38; 50; 80; 135; 216)

It is only when I move to using a triplet set of Primes that I tend to use the 50mm FL, and that’s not all that often.

Most previously, (late 80’s to 2004) when using a Film SLR kit (refering to only 135 format kits), I also used a wider than 50mm Prime more often than a 50mm Prime: the only exception to this trend was early on, when I was shooting Minolta Cameras and using a Rokkor 58mm F/1.2.

***

. . . I have the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC which is as sharp as the Nikon 24-70mm f.2.8, still not up to HQ prime standards. I have looked through my photos using the 24-70mm and I have about as many around 35 as I do around 50mm. . . .

Apropos investigating the EXIF if images that you made with your the 24 to 70 as a guide to your choice of what Prime to purchase:

One question I think that is relevant is about technique ... when using a zoom do you generally first select the CAMERA VIEWPOINT for the PERSPECTIVE and then the FOCAL LENGTH for the FRAMING/ FoV?

The results of the using the zoom to test what prime you will most often use may well be skewed if you follow this traditional / technically correct method: so I think that you will need to consider what shots that you could have made with a 35mm Prime that appear at or about being made nearer the 50mm area of the zoom.

***

If I had to choose only one, I would not hesitate in choosing a fast 35 Prime over a fast 50 Prime, especially if I were choosing a fast prime for a dual format kit.

Having both Focal Lengths is convenient, but there is a helluvalot that can be done with a fast 35 in low light, even if the framing requires a slight crop in post production.


WW

[ajohnw]

For pixel peepers going on the review site I tend to use the 35mm F1.4 looks to be the best option on full frame. The 50mm is great centre but not so good at corners and edges - as a pixel peeper myself I wouldn't buy it. They give the 35mm a 4 star rating - unusual in this range of focal lengths but as always it is softer wide open but fortunately has fairly even performance across the frame

The Zeiss F2 35mm distagon is arguably better but it doesn't look like there is much in it to me. In fact in some ways going on this review I would say it's worse. However it wouldn't surprise me if it gave higher apparent contrast but then there is PP.

John
-

[PhotomanJohn]

Thanks again for all the good advice.

Phil - Yes, Sigma did have issues with focus, more so on some cameras than others. I would think they have that sorted out on the Art series. I guess one good thing to come out of their focus problems was that it prompted them to come up with their USB dock. John mentioned the older Sigma 50mm which not only is soft in the corners at any aperture but has a significant focus shift with aperture. All the reasons I bought the Nikon f1.4G instead. As far as the 50mm f/1.2 is concerned, to me it is a beautifully lens that I have almost bought several times just to have around to look at.

Bill - As usual, your comments are very helpful and especially the one about how I approach a shot when I have the option of different focal lengths with a zoom. I have been wandering around this morning with my 24-70 on either 35 or 50mm and have to agree that 35mm looks like a better all around focal length for my typical low light shots. And as Phil said, I always have the option of cropping which with a sharp lens on the D800 will still yield outstanding photos. I would seldom want to crop the 50mm to get more reach in low light situations.

I was initially leaning toward the 50mm partially because it is slightly sharper than the 35mm and being the "standard" focal length it must be more useful. But I am splitting hairs in the sharpness area and this is another case where I probably won't notice the difference in actual photography. I really appreciate all the inputs which has changed my mind for the better. I have a birthday coming up in a couple of weeks which is a good excuse to give the 35mm a try.

Thanks again,

John

[William W]

. . . I have been wandering around this morning with my 24-70 on either 35 or 50mm and have to agree that 35mm looks like a better all around focal length for my typical low light shots. . . I always have the option of cropping . . .

These two points were the predicate of the logic which I used when I made up my initial DSLR kit and I chose a 35 Prime before a 50 Prime.

Firstly what is typical use and secondly the fact that one can crop form 35 to get a FoV of 50 - I guess the third aspect I considered was the fact that one cannot move further backwards to get a wider FoV if one's back is already against a wall.

Happy Birthday.

WW