# Thoughts on Having a 35 and a 50 on Crop?



## Cory (Oct 9, 2014)

I have a crop sensor camera and really do like my 35 2.0 IS for most things. Paired it with a 10-18 and I have most non-sports things covered. Just got a job to photograph a large legal practice so figured that I would do well to have a 50. The Sigma 50 1.4 Art just arrived and I've all but already welded it to my camera. Focus is spot on and the colors/contrast/etc., well, you know.
I view the 35 as my landscape lens, wide angle zoom for large groups/tight spaces/foreground subject and the 50 as the portrait lens and general purpose (similar to the 35).
Does that make sense? Any thoughts on coexisting with a 35 and 50 (or a 50 and 85 on a full frame) would be a great thing.
Thanks.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 9, 2014)

I just got the 85mm Otus and I have the 55 Otus from earlier. I was pretty sure I would end up selling one of them. But they fulfill very different needs, so for me they are a good combination and so far I am using both equally much. But in general, based on the lenses you have, 24mm and 50mm primes might be a better combination. But you´re the photographer, so you must decide for yourself


----------



## agierke (Oct 9, 2014)

I use both focal lengths on full frame and have found them to be different enough to remain useful enough for my purposes. Typically I will use the 35mm when I want to include more environment in the shot or when I'm dealing with groups. The 50mm i will use for single subjects when i dont quite want the compression that would come from 85mm and above.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 9, 2014)

Having both is fine. When I used APS-C, I used fast 24 and 35 lenses. Now on FF, I prefer 35 and 50 most of the time, 85 for portraits (50 on crop). I love using fast primes indoors where the light levels are low and flash is not allowed/desired.


----------



## Cory (Oct 9, 2014)

Thanks. Thought that maybe 24 and 50 were "better", but I try to keep things to a minimum and already have the EOS M/22mm.

8)


----------



## c.d.embrey (Oct 11, 2014)

I have a 50mm f/1.8. It's been on and off my xxD a million time, but I've never pressed the shutter. For me, the 85mm f/1.8 gives me the composition/POV/compression I prefer. YMMV. 

On a Full Frame camera a 50mm is OK, but the 135mm is more to my liking.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2014)

You're just shooting 50 and 85mm. Think of the conversion, not what says on the lens.


----------



## siegsAR (Oct 11, 2014)

I recently bought a 35mm F2 IS to be used as my "normal" lens with my 70D. If I'll add either a 50mm or an 85mm it will be for shooting portraits.


----------



## DRR (Oct 11, 2014)

skoobey said:


> You're just shooting 50 and 85mm. Think of the conversion, not what says on the lens.



This is not true. You still need to consider actual focal length. Just because there's a crop factor it does not change the actual focal length of the lens. There's a big difference in distortion between 35mm on a crop and 50mm on full frame. The field of view will be similar but the 35mm is still a 35mm, regardless of the size of the sensor behind it.


----------



## heptagon (Oct 11, 2014)

DRR said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > You're just shooting 50 and 85mm. Think of the conversion, not what says on the lens.
> ...



These two configurations produce _exactly_ the same image (same distance to subject, same shutter speed):
Full frame: 56mm, f/3.2, ISO250
Crop: 35mm, f/2.0, ISO100

The advantage of full frame is you have lower ISO available, faster f-stops available and more field of view available. 

The advantage of crop is you use the center part of the image, so you get better bokeh but less blur for a frame filling subject. You also get a longer reach and better edge sharpness. Additionally when using crop lenses, you have lower cost and weight.

Using a big sensor camera has only advantages once you get faster than about f/1.4-f/2 on the current model because faster lenses cannot be made easily. Instead it is easier to increase the sensor size and image circle and use a sharp f/2.8 lens on a medium format camera instead.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 11, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Having both is fine. When I used APS-C, I used fast 24 and 35 lenses. Now on FF, I prefer 35 and 50 most of the time, 85 for portraits (50 on crop). I love using fast primes indoors where the light levels are low and flash is not allowed/desired.



+1, I had the same experience. I am waiting for canon to deliver a new 50mm lens and compare against the Sigma 50A. Currently I use the 35IS quite a bit.


----------



## DRR (Oct 13, 2014)

heptagon said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...



No, it's not the exact same image. Any distortions present with the lens will still be there, you're just not using the corners. The wider you go, the more distortion there will be.

Consider this:
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

10 portraits taken at different focal lengths, with subject distance adjusted so the composition is similar. What this proves is something you should already know - lenses behave differently regardless of the sensor behind it. You'll find the same exact effect if you mounted the same lenses on a crop sensor. A wider lens will give you more distortion. Just because you crop in on the image, which is effectively what you're doing by putting a crop sensor behind the lens, does not mean you change the behaviour of the lens. 

You can't take a portrait with a 25mm lens with a 2x crop factor and say it's the same as a 50mm on FF. The 25mm is going to distort more.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 13, 2014)

Cory said:


> Thanks. Thought that maybe 24 and 50 were "better", but I try to keep things to a minimum and already have the EOS M/22mm.
> 
> 8)



The gap from 24mm to 50mm is huge.


----------



## DigiAngel (Oct 13, 2014)

DRR said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > DRR said:
> ...



uhm..no, its not going to distort more. a tiny compact camera sensor with an 8mm lens will take exactly the same image as a 80mm lens does on a medium format body. there will not be any difference in distortion (assuming both lenses are perfectly corrected), if you take a portrait, noses wont be flatter or longer on any of the two pictures. why is that? simply because the angle of view of both systems is the same. you stand the same distance from your subject, so you get the same depth compression.

that changes when using different focal lenghtes on the some sensor size of course. there the field of view of each lens DOES change, you have to step back more, or come closer. ant THAT is going to distort the image, change its compression, make noses bigger or the moon appear farer away...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 13, 2014)

Neil Van Niekerk, great photographer and teacher, has an excellent discussion:

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 13, 2014)

I think 35 and 50 are great focal lengths for crop. I find the 50 is a little too much for tighter spaces. And keep in mind, you can have some pretty tight spaces in even cavernous rooms when you're shooting crop. Trying to fit all three speakers in one frame, or capturing a person in that law firm in the context of his office can get quite tight. 

I too think that 24mm instead of 35mm would present too large a gap with the 50. My solution was to get the Sigma 18-35 Art and then the Sigma 50 Art. That combination really gives me what I need. I used to have the 40mm 2.8 pancake, but I just ebayed it because I found that I never use it (although I think it's a very fine lens).


----------



## Cory (Oct 13, 2014)

I have the Canon 10-18, 35 2.0 IS and Sigma 50mm Art. I'd give up some of the UW area, but would it be wrong to consider swapping out my UWA zoom and 35mm for a 16-35 f4 IS? I'll be sticking with crop for awhile, but maybe not forever.
I like all three, but I also like simplicity and the Sigma 50 is a cut above.


----------

