# Which lens to get? 50mm 1.4 or 35mm 2.0



## TCUphoto

90% of my photography is portrait work and I'm getting ready to switch from pentax to canon. Just wondering for which lens would be better for portraits.....50mm 1.4 or 35mm 2.0 ?

I currently use a 50mm 1.4 with my pentax and love it but was wondering if a wider angle would be better (for shots looking down on couples laying in the grass, for example). For those who own either of these lenses, what do you think?

Thanks!


----------



## o hey tyler

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a great optical performer and a very nice lens. A lot of people recommend the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, but the Canon actually outperforms it in resolution and is cheaper. 

I would suggest that, and potentially the Tamron 17-50mm(?) f/2.8 as I hear that performs very well too. 

I have both the 35mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4 (both used on full frame cameras) and I prefer the 50mm. The 35mm f/2 is just too old of a design and the focusing is loud and slow. Not worth the coin imo.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

TCUphoto said:


> 90% of my photography is portrait work and I'm getting ready to switch from pentax to canon. Just wondering for which lens would be better for portraits.....50mm 1.4 or 35mm 2.0 ?
> 
> I currently use a 50mm 1.4 with my pentax and love it but was wondering if a wider angle would be better (for shots looking down on couples laying in the grass, for example). For those who own either of these lenses, what do you think?
> 
> Thanks!



For portraiture you don't want to go less than 50mm.  Sure you can lens error correct in software but trust me on this you just don't.


----------



## jake337

Yeah, In your place I'd be looking at 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, 200mm, and UP!


----------



## shortpants

I'd definitely go with the 50 for portraits. I actually love my 35mm f2 and shoot a lot with it in general. Yes it's loud but it's really sharp. I got mine used and cheap though, I'm not sure it would be worth the money new.


----------



## jaomul

I have the 35mm as well, the noise doesn't bother me and I find it very fast to focus. I really like it but I use a crop camera (not sure what you intend to use). Some of the comments were from people that use FF and it would not be a good portrait lens then. Its not what you asked but you could probably get the 35 f/2 anfd 50 f/1.8 for the price of the 50 f/1.4. Here is one @ very high iso from the 35mm as an example




Smile by jaomul, on Flickr]

Here is another from the 35mm




buzz by jaomul, on Flickr

and here is one of the same person in the first photo with the 50mm



spiderkane by jaomul, on Flickr


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

*jaomul*, nice pics.  Doesn't matter if the lens is hitting a full frame sensor or crop, 50mm is 50mm and anything less is undesirable for portraiture due to the lens distortion.

If you are happy with the 35mm for portraits I've no issue with it, I like breaking the rules too, just sayin'.  Nothing to do with FF or cropper though, the FACT remains.


----------



## jaomul

2WheelPhoto said:


> *jaomul*, nice pics.  Doesn't matter if the lens is hitting a full frame sensor or crop, 50mm is 50mm and anything less is undesirable for portraiture due to the lens distortion.
> 
> If you are happy with the 35mm for portraits I've no issue with it, I like breaking the rules too, just sayin'.  Nothing to do with FF or cropper though, the FACT remains.


Fair enough, I am fairly new to this, i know longer focal lengths are better for portraits. I did actually think that the crop mattered but now its pointed out i see why it wouldnt matter seen as only difference is the amount of the centre being used. Everyday a learning day


----------



## Nikon_Josh

jaomul said:


> I have the 35mm as well, the noise doesn't bother me and I find it very fast to focus. I really like it but I use a crop camera (not sure what you intend to use). Some of the comments were from people that use FF and it would not be a good portrait lens then. Its not what you asked but you could probably get the 35 f/2 anfd 50 f/1.8 for the price of the 50 f/1.4. Here is one @ very high iso from the 35mm as an example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smile by jaomul, on Flickr]
> 
> Here is another from the 35mm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buzz by jaomul, on Flickr
> 
> and here is one of the same person in the first photo with the 50mm
> 
> 
> 
> spiderkane by jaomul, on Flickr



Yes, I like the photos. The effect of using a 35mm lens works well here.

But you can see the 35mm perspective written all over these images, the noses look big and it feels as if you are right in the subjects face with these images. This can be a great effect if it is desired, but if you shot these images with an 85mm lens instead of a 35mm. You would notice a dramatic difference in perspective.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

o hey tyler said:


> The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a great optical performer and a very nice lens. *A lot of people recommend the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, but the Canon actually outperforms it in resolution and is cheaper.
> *
> I would suggest that, and potentially the Tamron 17-50mm(?) f/2.8 as I hear that performs very well too.
> 
> I have both the 35mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4 (both used on full frame cameras) and I prefer the 50mm. The 35mm f/2 is just too old of a design and the focusing is loud and slow. Not worth the coin imo.



Don't forget the Sigma 50 1.4 'bokeh' factor though Tyler, I saw an interesting comparison done on the OOF rendering between the Sigma and Canon and they said the Sigma's OOF rendering was close to the 50 1.2 L in terms of look, the Canon does have better resolution though as you say.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Many suggest the 50mm Sigma is on top of the OEMs, but I had to pay 20% more for it because they say such sillyness. Its size is much bigger too which is a drawback.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

2WheelPhoto said:


> Many suggest the 50mm Sigma is on top of the OEMs, but I had to pay 20% more for it because they say such sillyness. Its size is much bigger too which is a drawback.



Have to say, I love the size of the Siggy 50. It feels amazing to hold and use (I may be unusual though). I think the reason for its high price though is because it was a bit of a new design by Sigma, I think they put alot of time and effort into making it the best lens they could meaning higher R and D costs.

Are you liking yours then 2wheel??


----------



## Mot

I use my 50mm 1.4 fairly frequently as a portrait lens, usually in the torso+head area but also full body if I have enough room. I generally use the 85mm 1.8 for tight headshots but it also gets a lot of use as a general portrait lens. If you want to do environmental portraits then the 50mm won't be wide enough, not even on full frame, so for that kind of thing you would be considering a 35mm at the very least.

As you've stated, your main concern is how the focal length affects facial features or body proportions.


----------



## davisphotos

I think you would like the 50mm f1.4 for portraits. I have one, but don't use it much, although I shoot full frame. I have the 35mm f2, and I just upgraded to the L version, because the f2 wasn't cutting it, it is slow and noisy and not all that sharp for a prime. I absolutely love 35mm on a full frame, for my style of work it is a perfect perspective.
I tend to shoot a lot of portraits with my 70-200, so you might also want to consider the 85mm f1.8, it is a relatively inexpensive lens that translates to about 135mm on your camera. But, I also like to do more environmental portraits, which I shoot with the 35mm, which would be something like a 24mm on a crop body. Canon makes a 24mm f2.8 that is under $400.


----------

