# Sigma 35 or 135L??



## Zv (Feb 15, 2013)

Hey guys, I always get great advice on CR and I feel like I learn so much every time I'm on here! Anyways, down to biznass -

I'm going to be shooting a wedding in May. My first paid job really. I am thinking wether or not to buy another good prime lens to add to my kit. 

I think I'll shoot most of the wedding with the zooms I have. But for some artistic shots and some particular shots after the wedding I'm thinking shallow dof stuff maybe outdoors. I actually want both these lenses but I have a feeling I'm just being silly. 

My question is this - If you had to pick one, which would you say would prove more useful for wedding / portraits? Bare in mind I can acheive 35mm f/4 and 135 f/4 with what I have. 

I'm leaning towards the 35 as I think in tight spaces and indoors it will come in handy (seems a lot of events end up in poorly lit places). Also I need a wide fast prime, got nothing fast that end. 

Is this wise thinking or should I just man up and buy both? 

Thank you in advance, any help will be greatly appreciated!!


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 15, 2013)

I'm more of a tele-guy so I'd say 135L but the 35mm will get used more.


----------



## macrodust (Feb 15, 2013)

According to your signature you have the 85mm f/1.8, so the 35mm f/1.4 sounds like the right choice.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 15, 2013)

macrodust said:


> According to your signature you have the 85mm f/1.8, so the 35mm f/1.4 sounds like the right choice.



+1. I love the 135L and if it were just head to head, I would say that 135L. But considering that you have the 85 you have about 80% of the 135L. The Sigma will be a very handy lens, and is my next lens purchase.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 15, 2013)

Zv said:


> Hey guys, I always get great advice on CR and I feel like I learn so much every time I'm on here! Anyways, down to biznass -
> 
> I'm going to be shooting a wedding in May. My first paid job really. I am thinking wether or not to buy another good prime lens to add to my kit.
> 
> ...



135!


----------



## Cptn Rigo (Feb 15, 2013)

I have the 35L, 85L and 135L

the 135L is my precious


----------



## mitchell3417 (Feb 15, 2013)

Look at the 35mm 1.4 Sigma. Better IQ, for a few hundred less.


----------



## wayno (Feb 15, 2013)

35 for flexibility


----------



## distant.star (Feb 15, 2013)

.
Much as I love my 135, for a wedding, no contest.

I always find it easier (and safer) to walk forward rather than backward. You also get an extra stop's worth of light, and reviews I've read say it's stellar.

I'm planning for one this year myself.


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 15, 2013)

135 at f/4 will still give you pretty good background diffusion. So I'd say Sig 35. f/4 on a 35 is pretty blah.
I have the 35L and 135L and love them both but for a wedding 35 1.4 is really sweet. I personally like to use a 50mm but 35 is really good too,


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 15, 2013)

135L

Though it is not always an obvious choice for event shooting, it should be.

The caveat being the 135L requires some space in the venue...if you have that, 135L produces some excellent shots...you always get more interesting candids this way rather than being in your subject's face which shorter focal lengths inevitably require.

Event shooting also has a lot of movement, either the subjects themselves or others in the background or around them... so shoot a lot of frames, the ones that "hit"...are absolutely superb with 135L. 

Go in prepared to throw away a lot of frames...but you will be very happy with the keepers.


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 15, 2013)

Another way of looking at it too is...

Do you want 3 stops more noise in your wide shots? Or 2 stops in your tele shots? Wide shots might be more forgiven with more noise. Tele you really need to maintain as much detail as possible.

I know that contradicted my last post but something to think about for you personal tastes.


----------



## Zv (Feb 16, 2013)

Thanks for all the replies! All good points and I am taking each one into consideration. 

I really don't like shooting the 17-40 @ f/4, as Kbmelb said there isnt much subject isolation. 

Now, my 70-200 @ f/4 is not only sharp but provides decent background blur too. I guess the 85 can provide any further shallow dof stuff I need. Possibly stick it on my 7D, instant 135 (close enough!).

When walking around I think I could get some nice candids with the 35. Plus what usually happens is that someone else wants to join in the picture and next thing you know its a group shot! Yeah, I'm thinking 35 now! Plus I can switch it on to my 7D if I need that 50 ish look. 

My plan is to use two bodies. Stick my 17-55 on the 7D and leave it there for any type of shot, wide or portrait. Then on the 5D I'll have my 70-200 for all the tele shots. Might keep an 85 and 35 handy or nearby to swith around on the 5D during the reception. 

Somehow I a voice in my head is still nagging me "this is your chance to get the 135L and you're buying a Sigma lens instead?" Shut up brain I know what I'm doing. 

;D

Update - went out with my 85mm and experimented with it wide open on the 7D. Really like that focal length equivalent (135) but didn't like the purple and green fringing. Next tried the 85mm on the 5D II also wide open and there seems to be considerably less purple and green fringing but the focal length isn't as pleasing (feels too standard) Might sell the 85 and just buy both lenses. 

Thanks again!


----------



## Ew (Feb 16, 2013)

This question is almost a hint of big brother watching - thing is - I've been using the Sig35/1.4 and the 135L almost exclusively for the last two months.

No weddings, but some events, production location shots, and the typical family w kids at home.

I've mixed the 135L w an x1.4 TC with ok results... and there have been the few occasions at a construction site where the 35 was just not wide enough.

Both really have me working to get the shot, and I am greatful for that.

In short - go for both if you can, then decide what to sell off to compensate.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2013)

I just shot my first wedding since getting the 35mm sigma last week from B&H since there were none locally and i was going to have to wait another month. This lens is razor sharp, I think its now the sharpest lens I own Yes sharper than the 85 1.4! also in AI servo its tracking is super fast and accurate (going out on a limb i'm gonna say at least on a par with the 70-200 f2.8L II possibly better but that could just be a factor of the larger DoF by virtue of the focal length vs a relatively tight tele. I probably shot 60% of the wedding with this lens on the 5Dmk3

the thing that stands out vs the 85 is at f1.4 there is almost no fringing (although by f2 fringing is gone on the 85 and its easy to correct in LR anyway) and at f1.4 its sharper than the sigma or canon 50mm 1.4 are at f4!

people have compared the siggy 35 1.4 to zeiss when discussing build, I feel its good but I wouldn't go that far
its better than the 85 build (which is also pretty good, much much better than the legacy siggys that gave the company a bad name). Build is definately at canon L levels but it definately doesnt have that forged from a meteorite feel that zeiss stuff has

I say get the Siggy now and keep an eye on the used market for a cheap 135


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 17, 2013)

Both good choices obviously. Necessary for your kit? No, not really. So either safe the money or buy what itches you most or would lead to more inspiration.

I personally find 35mm on full frame to be the most boring focal length. Not really wide, to wide for portraits in my book. And the shallow depth of field look is not that easy to get to unless you go in close - which for people photography is problematic with a wide angle lens (any lens really but let's not get into the physics here).

The benefit of the 35 is that you could use it on your 7D as a 50mm substitute which I personally find more useful than real 35mm. The 135L is a lovely lovely lens. Good point though that you 85mm kind of covers that focal length already (and becomes kind of a 135 2.0 on a crop camera anyway).

That being said, the 135 on FF is one of my favorites for those environmental candid shots in crowds. If you had two full frame bodies it would be a no brainer. With your setup I'd say don't spend the money right now - or see if there is anything else you need for these kind of jobs such as insurance (including liability!), back up flash, enough batteries, a sturdy case, whatever.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 17, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> I personally find 35mm on full frame to be the most boring focal length. Not really wide, to wide for portraits in my book. And the shallow depth of field look is not that easy to get to unless you go in close - which for people photography is problematic with a wide angle lens (any lens really but let's not get into the physics here).
> 
> .....The benefit of the 35 is that you could use it on your 7D as a 50mm substitute which I personally find more useful than real 35mm.



I own both the 35L and the 135L... and will say that blanket statements such as the ones above are rarely accurate.

35mm has its place on full frame...and it is ludicrous to suggest it's primary benefit is as a 50mm on crop bodies!! 35L has been an event and street photography standard for a good reason... it provides that slightly off-keel punch to the shot, includes enough detail when needed in the background that is not totally melted away owing to shallow DOF (you don't always want too shallow a DOF in event photography as you want to convey the existence of the crowd, the movement, and to provide context to the subject). This is not an excercise in how shallow the bokeh can be even though 35L is capable of excellent bokeh. 

135L which I recommended also has its place in event photography, though not always associated with events, as it provides distance from the subject(s) not to mention the IQ... which to me includes not only the sharpness but also the compression aspects of the tele.

Look at your shooting style and get lenses that fit your style.


----------



## Zv (Feb 17, 2013)

@ 7enderbender - yeah, I suppose I could live without these lenses but then again I've already invested a lot of money in my gear, slowly building it up. Seems silly to just stop now, especially when this close to my ideal kit! I already have a 430 ex II speedlite, 2 Yongnuo 560 II, umbrellas, light stands, bags, cases the lot. Don't need insurance, live in Japan. No one will nick your gear here. If I break it al buy a new one! 

But back to 35 and 135. Hmmm boring focal length? I guess you could say that but depends how you use it. I want it for full length portraits and enviromental portraits. I know that shallow dof look is hard to get at that focal length. That's part of the reason I wanna try it! I want to push myself and improve my skills as a photographer rather than just improve my photoshop skills! 

I'm certain about the 135L now. I'll keep the 85mm, it's not taking up space so no point selling it. It's a shame that lens fringes so much between 1.8 and 2.8. Or I would have been content. I can ser the purple without even zooming in! And I'm not about to spend hours correcting 1000 odd images. 

Now I wish I had two FF bodies. Curse you crop factor!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Look at your shooting style and get lenses that fit your style.



nailed it


----------



## Zv (Feb 17, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Look at your shooting style and get lenses that fit your style.
> ...



Just did a metadata search on LR, most of my shots are either at the wide end (17mm - 28mm) or the tele end (mostly around 85mm). I also tend to crop a lot. So I guess my style is a mix of wide and close-up. 

Next experiment - stick my 17-40 on 35mm and shoot at that focal length all day, see how it goes.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



one of my favourite combos 
has always been 2 FF bodies 1 with the 16-35 f2.8L II and the other with the sigma 85 f1.4
it gives great coverage and flexability, especially for events


----------



## sdsr (Feb 18, 2013)

Zv said:


> Just did a metadata search on LR, most of my shots are either at the wide end (17mm - 28mm) or the tele end (mostly around 85mm). I also tend to crop a lot. So I guess my style is a mix of wide and close-up.
> 
> Next experiment - stick my 17-40 on 35mm and shoot at that focal length all day, see how it goes.


 
While you're at it, since you have the 50mm 1.8, compare it with 35mm to see whether you think 35 would be much more useful than 50. For my taste, on FF 35mm is too wide most of the time, partly because I prefer not to get very close to the subject, especially if the subject is a person. My inclination is to go longer, and would take the 135L for the reasons given by others. (That said, the Sigma 35mm is so good I've found myself going out of my way to find way to use it, which has been a rewarding experience in itself....)


----------

