# Help me to decide: 35 vs 50mm



## Shootitalready (Jul 27, 2014)

I've gotten lucky (for a change :-* ) and have some cash to burn! I have enough zoom lenses, and am kind of tempted to buy either the Zeiss Distagon T 2/28mm ZE or the 2/35mm ZE for use on my -1D series camera. The thing is, I am very inexperienced with the use of primes (brought up with zoom lenses) and really want to try and change the way I shoot by going for a '1 prime only' attitude for a while. I enjoy shooting street & field (i.e. taking my camera along and shoot what ever ' I see' ,in B&W mainly, can be a situation which involves people, a shape or light in an empty street...).

Now what I would really like to know from you guys and dolls is: which of the two lenses mentioned would give me to most satisfaction to use? In other words I guess if you had a choice between a *35 or a 50mm* (that's what I would get on my APS-H crop camera) which one would you go for? :'(

I don't have this budget to spend every week, so I really would like to make the best decision 


PS: thanks very VERY much for all the answers to my 'HUMIDITY ALERT' post!!!


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2014)

Carefully reconsider buying Zeiss lenses. I have had them and with the new Canon lenses I do not think the Zeiss I worth it. My opinion.


----------



## Shootitalready (Jul 27, 2014)

sanj said:


> Carefully reconsider buying Zeiss lenses. I have had them and with the new Canon lenses I do not think the Zeiss I worth it. My opinion.



Hey Sanj,

Thanks for the reply, but the thing is, I really want to use a manual focus lens (I know, it's all in the mind) so that I am forced to slow down and think more about what I am about to shoot.
So please ignore the brand mentioned and try to help me choose between a 35mm or a 50mm focal length


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 27, 2014)

35mm is more useful for general purpose shooting but at the expense of portraits. The 50mm is a flip side of that.


----------



## Dreamer (Jul 27, 2014)

Hi there

Having had a look at the data from my zooms, I noticed that I seemed to be equally sitting around the 50mm and 35mm range for most of my shots. I already had the 50/1.4 so I decided to also invest in the 35/2 IS after reading a review from Dustin Abbott. 

Suggest you do the same - that is - see where you shoot most by looking at the data when in LR. What focal length do you naturally trend towards

All the best. 

ps. there is something nice about primes


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 27, 2014)

Either one is perfectly fine for street shooting. I'd decide based on what I'd want next after I realize how much
I liked the prime lens. I've traveled the world with two lenses, a 35mm and an 85mm and never regretted not
having something else. If you're a little more "stand back", consider the 50mm and 135mm combo. Remember
that for a long time the 50mm lens was shipped with the camera as the "standard" lens and not without reason.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 27, 2014)

Wider for me, I'd prefer a 35mm and do indeed shoot lots with my 22mm on my EOS-M, I'd suggest a serious look at the focal lengths you use via Lightroom or similar, to see if you are a long or wide type of shooter


----------



## Danielle (Jul 27, 2014)

I own a zeiss distagon 2/35, it's a gorgeous optic if you take that path. That was my choice between the 35 or 50. Used on crop or full frame, it's a good choice. Once upon a time in the film era I might have said different but my taste has changed and I assure you zeiss 2/35 is an excellent piece of kit - I'd choose it any day over the L lens.


----------



## DRR (Jul 27, 2014)

In my experience, everyone sees a scene differently. For me, when I first see a scene, I find I see it in about 35mm. So that is my bread and butter, go-to focal length. Of course I vary from there based on the situation, but certain things catch certain people's eyes and you just have to figure out how it is you shoot.

Some people paint broad pictures, some are very detail focused - neither is more right nor more wrong for street photography, it just depends on you. In other words - I think the only one who can answer the question is you.


----------



## Menace (Jul 27, 2014)

For my type of photography, I'd prefer the 50mm focal length. Ditto to members who have suggested checking your exif data to determine your most used FL.


----------



## Perio (Jul 27, 2014)

I think that 35 mm lens would be better for a crop camera.


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2014)

Shootitalready said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Carefully reconsider buying Zeiss lenses. I have had them and with the new Canon lenses I do not think the Zeiss I worth it. My opinion.
> ...



35mm.


----------



## Vossie (Jul 27, 2014)

28 = 36 on APS-H
35 = 45 on APS-H

Both are versatile focal lengths; it really depends on your personal taste what fists best for you.

Looking at TDP, the ZE 35 f2 is considerably sharper and has more contrast than the ZE 28 f2; The ZE 35 f2 is also slightly sharper than the ZE 35 f1.4. The ZE 35 f2 is about as sharp as the EF 35 f 2 IS which is about half the price. Of course sharpness is only 1 parameter. You wrote you were looking for a MF lens, but (although the focus right will probably not be as smooth as for the Zeiss), the Ef 35 f/2 can ofcourse also be used in MF mode 

Diglloyd has an extensive guide on Zeiss lenses tha may be of interest to you: http://zeissguide.com/ (subscription required); he also has 2 minireviews for both lenses: http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-28f2.html / http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-35f2.html

You might be able to make a deal with Sanj who is considering to sell his 35 1.4  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21963.msg418271;topicseen#new


----------



## Vivid Color (Jul 27, 2014)

For a variety of reasons, I too think going with the 35mm focal length makes a lot of sense. 

I would also encourage you to think about what others have said in this post about the attributes of the modern Canon lenses--outstanding IQ, IS in one instance, autofocus, and the ability to shoot manual if you wish to do so. 

And think about how you may use this lens a year from now or five years from now. You might very well want that autofocus. I grew up with manual lenses back in the 70s. And I believe that you are correct in that slowing down will make you a better photographer. But at some point after you develop those skills, you may want to be able to take the quick fast shot. Also, you also say you enjoy street photography. In my mind, that means people, and people often move very quickly. In those situations, and in lower light levels, autofocus and IS can come in very very handy. So I'm not sure why you would give up autofocus capability when you can have it, and shoot manual when you want it, and have excellent IQ, all for a lower price. I would humbly ask you to consider that question before you make a purchase and also what you could do with the extra funds you may have as a result.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2014)

Shootitalready said:


> ...the thing is, I really want to use a manual focus lens...



Simple solution.







Economical solution, too, beacuse when you no longer want to use a manual focus lens you only need to move a switch instead of buying a new lens.


----------



## e17paul (Jul 27, 2014)

If I was to only carry the one lens - the one on the camera - it would be a 35mm for full frame. 

My current travelling light set up is different to that - I have a 50 on the camera, and a wide (24) in a bag or pocket somewhere. 50 is great for forcing a tight field of view, but there are times when wider is needed.


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2014)

Neuro: Brilliant!!


----------



## Badger (Jul 28, 2014)

I posted this a while back. The video was helpful to me, it might be to you.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20794.0


----------



## sanj (Jul 31, 2014)

Shootitalready said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro: Brilliant!!
> ...



hahahaha


----------

