# 5DIII+35mm or 50mm？



## factoryxii (Mar 14, 2013)

Hello I'm using 35mm f/1.4 for 2 years, and really want to give 50mm f/1.2 a try. Just wondering which is better for "walk around" & Portrait？anyone list 2 difference and experience？

get 50mm and sell 35 or keep both？ or 50mm+16-35mm？

Please give me some advice thanks


----------



## pierceography (Mar 14, 2013)

For portrait, I'd say the 50mm hands down. But that really depends on the shooting situation and style. If you're doing full body shots and don't have the space, the 35mm is really your only choice.

As for a walk around... it's again pretty dependent on what you generally shoot, but that's a toss up to me. The 50mm obviously a more normal lens, and would probably be more versatile. But I personally shoot a lot of architecture and landscape, so I'd probably lean more towards the 35mm if given only one choice.

Bottom line, it's completely up to you!


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 14, 2013)

I like the 35 better for walk around and I like the 50 better for portrait. The question you have to answer first is which focal length would you rather have large apertures. If you don't intend to use the 50 much wide open, then something like the 24-70 II is a better choice.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 14, 2013)

Depends only on you.
I simply love my 35/1.4.
Why? This is my favorite: persons and a bit of the surrounding scene, softly blurred away.
The 50/1.4 I don't take often; IQ is good too, but.....
What would life be without these sweet paon of decisions.
Good luck, and have fun with your chosen one!


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 14, 2013)

This may ultimately come down to you choosing a 'standard' of choice between 50mm and 35mm lengths. While I favor the 35mm as my standard, there are excellent photographers out there who have chosen 50mm as theirs. You need to follow your own instincts.

You can have your cake and eat it too for cheap... Keep your 35L and get the affordable 50 f1.4 which is a good lens in its own right. Or go with 50L and choose a cheaper 35mm. Beware however, 50L is more deliberative in AF and has certain quirks when compared to the f1.4...equally the 50 f1.4 will never generate that sought-after dreamy look the 50L produces. 

To answer your 16-35 query...the 35mm pictures from the zoom at f/2.8 will not look anything like what you will get from the prime 35L wide open or even at f2.8. The 35L, though old, is an excellent prime still and has its own unique look.

Cheers!


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 14, 2013)

35L


----------



## peteroc (Mar 14, 2013)

Hi there,
The 16-35 is not that sharp on the sides and corners, even at 35mm, and specially on a FF.
The 50 f/1.2L is cool, but not than much worth the price, considering it's an old lens (still a version I) and has a lot of CA.

50 f/1.4 is a very nice lens for the price. I don't like the focus ring, but it still works really fine.

Why not keep your 35 as your standard lens and get something really different, like an 85 or the 135 for portrait?


----------



## Jim K (Mar 14, 2013)

I would consider an 85mm for portraits and keep the 35mm.


----------



## iso79 (Mar 14, 2013)

35mm. It's more versatile. The 50mm is such an overrated lens not to mention not a good portrait lens.People's heads will get distorted when shot with the 50mm (unless you're going for the distorted head look).

I agree with Peteroc. Keep the 35mm and get either the 85mm or 135mm.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 14, 2013)

iso79 said:


> 35mm. It's more versatile. The 50mm is such an overrated lens not to mention not a good portrait lens.People's heads will get distorted when shot with the 50mm (unless you're going for the distorted head look).



To be fair, the above statement is not really fair nor accurate regarding the 50mm. While I favor the 35mm myself...the 50mm generates less distortion in comparison. If the photographer is not careful with his distance, the 35mm is more likely to distort and generate larger noses than the 50mm would normally.

The 35 does provides just a tad more versatility and cropping possibilities if handled well. A tad more versatile indoors and with small groups in low light and on the street. But the 50 f1.4 is not that far...just different.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Mar 14, 2013)

iso79 said:


> 35mm. It's more versatile. The 50mm is such an overrated lens not to mention not a good portrait lens.People's heads will get distorted when shot with the 50mm (unless you're going for the distorted head look).
> 
> I agree with Peteroc. Keep the 35mm and get either the 85mm or 135mm.



Either you've never used one or you're... Im going to just go with you've never used one. I own and use all the primes below 135mm. They all work well for portraits, especially the 50mmL, 85mmL and 135L. They are tools, when you know how/when to use them they work fine.

Since moving onto the 5D3... the 50L is my go to lens for most shooting environments. The 35L was my fave lens until my first 5D3. The 35L is a great-walk around lens but now I gravitate to the 50L. 50mm is a great PJ focal length, and has been for many years. It also excels with portraits but… again, put it in the hands of a monkey and YMMV. Sure you can buy the 1.4 but it has a notorious habit of taking a crap when you need it... shabby build is why it's such a deal. If you don't mind that, then go for a 1.4. If your looking for a workhorse tank 50mm, the 50L is your lens.

50mm f/1.2 on a 5D3...



Nikkei Matsuri, San Jose 2012... by David KM, on Flickr



Robinson... by David KM, on Flickr



Lovers at the park... by David KM, on Flickr


----------



## pierceography (Mar 14, 2013)

iso79 said:


> 35mm. It's more versatile. The 50mm is such an overrated lens not to mention not a good portrait lens.People's heads will get distorted when shot with the 50mm (unless you're going for the distorted head look).



A 35mm will distort more than a 50mm? You're going to have to specify what type of distortion you're referring to. I typically prefer a longer lens (if I have the working distance) for portraits, as I find the distortion (what little there is) to be more pleasing. 35mm at close distance, in my opinion, is not a good portrait lens.

Some friends of mine had their engagement pictures done recently, and the photog used ONLY a 35mm at close distances (despite being outdoors). The couple were... larger... individuals, and the 35mm under 10ft away did nothing to help them out.

Yes, the 35mm is a fantastic lens, and if you don't have the distance to work with it's great for portraits. But if you have the working distance, I see no reason why you wouldn't go with the 50mm, 85mm, 135mm or even 200mm.


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 14, 2013)

Note: Of these lenses, the 85 is the only one I have, and I've not borrowed the others. Just saying what I'd do if I was in your shoes...

If it was me, I'd sell the 35L, buy a sigma 35, and use the leftover money for an 85 f/1.8 for portraits. I'm just not thrilled by any 50 on the market right now, but the sigma 35 looks awesome, and I've had a blast with my 85 1.8, which is a great buy for the money.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 15, 2013)

Since I added a full frame camera (6D) as my primary use body, I find I use the 35L much less than with the 7D. My 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are my primary indoor, low light lenses. I prefer the 135L for portraits or the 85 for tight quarters portraits. The 35L, while an excellent lens, is not flattering for portraits, as others have pointed out.

So, for me the 50, 85 and 135 primes get the most use. I pull out the 35L for group shots and an occasional really tight quarters indoors shot. Another option nobody as mentioned is the pancake 40mm 2.8. From all reports an excellent lens.


----------



## iso79 (Mar 15, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > 35mm. It's more versatile. The 50mm is such an overrated lens not to mention not a good portrait lens.People's heads will get distorted when shot with the 50mm (unless you're going for the distorted head look).
> ...



I've used to own one and sold it. I notice you stand quite a distance away from your subjects. Get in closer and shoot just their heads and watch their heads get distorted and how unflattering they become.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 15, 2013)

The 50mm is a better portrait length than the 35mm IMO. I always get a kick out of a comment who believes that a 35mm makes a better "portrait" lens when any 35mm would have tremendous perspective distortions if you get too close.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 15, 2013)

iso79 said:


> 35mm. It's more versatile. The 50mm is such an overrated lens not to mention not a good portrait lens.People's heads will get distorted when shot with the 50mm (unless you're going for the distorted head look).
> I agree with Peteroc. Keep the 35mm and get either the 85mm or 135mm.



Are you saying the 35mm is better than the 50 for close portraits?

Personally, I think neither is good for that, use an 85mm or 135.


----------



## Eli (Mar 15, 2013)

iso79 said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > iso79 said:
> ...



The 50mm is not a close up headshot lens, knowing the limitations of the lens can still lead to great portraiture.
That's like saying I hate my 135mm for portaits because I need to step back too far to include the surroundings.
The 50mm is a great environmental portrait lens, great for including surroundings and giving more of the story, not all portraiture are just headshots, as you can see by those great examples!


----------



## ChilledXpress (Mar 17, 2013)

iso79 said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > iso79 said:
> ...



:



First there was Ariel, now Nemo... by David KM, on Flickr


----------



## factoryxii (Mar 17, 2013)

thanks everyone, i just bought 50mm f/1.2. still trying it see which one to keep..

not sure if i will keep both, 35 & 50 are too close..


----------

