Got a new Canon 70D with 18.135mm kit lens. Is a 35mm 14 L lens a worthy second lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by KimJonNumberUn, Feb 18, 2014.

  1. KimJonNumberUn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #1
    I previously had a nikon d5200 with kit lens and a 35mm 1.8 prime. sold that set to try something new with canon and upgrade to a a more pro consumer camera the 70D.

    I liked the 35mm since it was sharp, nice bokeh and acted as a nifty 50 on a crop sensor.

    thinking of going all out for canon 35mm L 1.4 lens.

    Is it a good prime lens to invenst it? or put it towards like a 24-70mm 2.8 L?
     
  2. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #2
    It's a great lens and I love mine. Mind you, I use it on a full frame camera. Decided on 35mm over 50mm out of personal preference.

    Speaking of preference...

    How are we able to answer your question when we don't know what you want to shoot?
     
  3. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #3
    portraits/groups like 3 or 4 people / team shots

    read its also a great walk around lens. and acts as a 50mm on a crop sensor like the 70D
     
  4. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    You're in quite the spot then. Neither lens is going to do all of those things for you.

    The 70-200 will cover that gamut if you don't mind taking those group/team shots while standing in another suburb. ;)
     
  5. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #5
    your saying the 35mm isnt a good lens for people shots?
     
  6. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    It's great for group / team shots. No good for portraits.
     
  7. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #7
    any particular reason? I thought the bokeh would be great for portraits since it has a 1.4 aperature
     
  8. nateo200 macrumors 68030

    nateo200

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Location:
    Northern District NY
    #8
    I only have the 35mm ƒ/2 but its my #1 lens for crop bodies. Its on my 550D (1.6x crop APS-C) like 70% of the time while my 85mm ƒ/1.8 is for portraits and my 50mm ƒ/1.8 sits at home. The 35mm ƒ/1.4L is even faster and sharper so I would be inclined to say its a very good choice, its also great for group shots and even with my ƒ/2 I can throw the background out of focus for portraits if needed but I usually carry my 85 if its a dedicated photo shoot.

    EDIT: It is expensive though and honestly unless you've grown acustom to the taste of L-series primes I would maybe look at the 35mm ƒ/2 IS, all that money will certainly give you a nice sharp image but you really have to ask whether its worth the cost of a camera or two...
     
  9. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #9
    Distortion. People don't like looking at photos of themselves with exaggerated body parts. It's not flattering.
     
  10. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #10
    would the 24-70mm 2.8L lens be better?
     
  11. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #11
    To cover the criteria you've set out? Yes.
     
  12. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #12
    Portrait lenses are usually from 50mm up to ~90mm. It leads to less distortion of the face.

    Anything wider than that and you start to see things like the nose appearing larger.
     
  13. wkw macrumors 6502

    wkw

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Location:
    Eugene, OR
    #13
    its a fantastic lens. I had one with a 7d. I should have kept that setup
     
  14. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #14
    since the 35mm will act as a 56mm on a crop sensor on he 70D, would that be okay?
     
  15. MCH-1138, Feb 18, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2014

    MCH-1138 macrumors 6502

    MCH-1138

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #15
    I don't have any experience with the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L, but I think the answer to your question is probably "it depends."

    What do you have in mind when you say "portraits?" Do you mean tightly framed head shots, or do you mean environmental portraits that give context to your subject? A 35mm lens may not be "perfect" for either of these, but it may be "pretty good" at both. Indeed, I would submit that 35mm is a fairly versatile focal length on a crop-sensor body, especially if you are going to limit yourself to a single focal length.

    I would be careful to avoid confusing "distortion" with "perspective" (or "exaggerated perspective"). Distortion is a function of the optics of a particular lens, and might manifest itself as barrel, pincushion, or complex distortion. Perspective, on the other hand, is a function of the distance between the camera and the subject. All else being equal, as you decrease the focal length (i.e., move to a wider angle), you have to decrease your distance to the subject in order to maintain [EDIT: similar framing]. So if you are able to fill the frame at, say, 6' on a 50mm lens, you may have to move, say, 2' closer to fill the frame with a 35mm lens. Because you are closer, you will see more exaggerated perspective (for example, an exaggerated nose) with the 35mm lens, all else being equal.

    But all else isn't always equal. Many people consider 50mm to be an acceptable focal length for portraits on a full frame camera. (You may, of course, disagree with that premise, but we have to start somewhere.) A 35mm lens on your crop-sensor body will provide about the same field of view at a given distance and should therefore show similar perspective to the 50mm/FF combo. And if you want to be precise, the 35mm would actually have a slightly narrower field of view, so you would probably have to slightly increase your distance to the subject, thereby resulting in less exaggerated perspective, when compared to the 50mm/FF combo.

    So to return to your question, can you shoot portraits with a 35mm on a 70D? Sure. How will they compare to portraits shot with a 24-70mm f/2.8? Well, if they are both at 35mm, they'll be reasonably similar, all else being equal (aperture, etc.). You may see differences in lens-based distortion and bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus portions of the image, not to be confused with the depth of field), and there may be a number of other tradeoffs (prime vs. zoom, max aperture, IQ, size/weight, cost, etc.), but the perspective should be the same.

    Which isn't to say that a 35mm would be my lens of choice for tightly-cropped head shots. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, especially if you want to shoot group shots with the same lens.

    Just my opinion of course.
     
  16. nateo200, Feb 19, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2014

    nateo200 macrumors 68030

    nateo200

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Location:
    Northern District NY
    #16
    No offense but are you just reading stuff online or actually going out and shooting? The distortion on a 35mm is more than a 50 or 85 obviously but its nothing like 18 or 24mm. Also its not obvious unless you put the lens right up to the persons nose...I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous to imply that a 35mm lens causes "exaggerated body parts" seriously go out and shoot at 35mm focal length. This thread is beginning to bug me, I usually see good advice on here but not as much as I would hope in this thread.

    To the OP, a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens, and 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, etc. lenses don't change their focal length from a smaller sensor, they simply change the angle of view so everything stays the same except for the angle of view, think of it as shooting on full frame and cropping the center of the image. Go use your 18-135 kit lens and select specific focal length marks and only shoot at those for a bit and you'll get the idea quick. All of this stuff is so preference based so I would avoid taking any comments and running with them...before you go spend over a grand on a single lens you seriously should rent or
    borrow or whatever...it scares me when people who are just getting the hang of the ropes spend thousands on a camera kit, I'm not trying to be rude but unless you have $500 bills to smoke, burn and throw away its a big deal.
     
  17. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #17
    I er…well, um I've shot a couple of portraits. But yeah, I'm mostly just going off what I've read on the net though.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/fm5kfotos/

    There's my photos and here are my lens: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM, Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM and Canon EF 17-24mm f/4 L USM.

    Ya think I should use the 35mm more for portrait work?
     
  18. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #18
    The Tamron 24-70 with Vibration Control is a far better value than the Canon 24-70. Be sure to read reviews of both. Having VC makes it practical to do hand held shots.
     
  19. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #19
    this portrait was shot wiht a 35mm....seems pretty good to me?
     
  20. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #20
    None of those portraits were shot with a 35mm. :)
     
  21. sjschall macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    #21
    Seems like a steep jump from kit lens to 35 1.4. How bout working your way up? You could buy 2-3 great lenses for the price of the 35L. Maybe look into the 40mm pancake, 50 1.8, 35 f2, 35 f2 IS, etc... all great primes for the price.
     
  22. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #22
    sorry i copied the wrong link, "smacks head. anyways

    like this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/232706...oBT-89vQGn-88sgi1-8bHPLK-8bNkZ2-8bLvf3-8bDfjp

    ----------

    well my older camera, the nikon d5200, i had the kit lens and a 35mm 1.8 so i thought i maybe add a nice 35mm for the canon
     
  23. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #23
    If you liked 35mm before I see no reason not to get another one. If you can afford the 1.4 then go for it (I'm a Nikon user, and haven't used it).On the other hand, if you're still rooting around and like new experiences a different focal length might be a nice change, but for more of the same, maybe better, if you got the shots you wanted with a 35mm it will still do the job. Longer lenses will have shallower dof for a given f stop but you have to be able to step back...
     
  24. ocabj macrumors 6502a

    ocabj

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    #24
    I had the 35 f/1.4L awhile back and sold it to cover a 24-70 f/2.8L. I regret that every day.

    35 on a full frame is a great focal length, and the 35L is fantastic.

    That said, if you want a 35mm, I would actually recommend the new Sigma 35 f/1.4. I tried one on my 5D Mark III and it's really good and focus speed is speedy, even in low light. A guy I know just got one, having sold his Canon 35 f/2 IS and is in love with the lens.
     
  25. KimJonNumberUn thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    #25
    ive seen most comments saying people loving the 24-70mm lol

    is the 35 more sharper since its a prime lens?
     

Share This Page