Since this camera comes with the 24-85mm lens. Would it be wise to buy the 35mm 1.4 lens. I take family, children, & newborn portraits.
48831
The 35mm 1.4 would be way better than the kit lens for this type of photography.
48832
Actually, for portrait I really much prefer something like 85mm to have a really nice bokeh and isolation of your subject. A 35mm is awesome to have put not primarily for portrait because you will endup always being so close to your subject that it becomes almost embarassing!
48833
I would consider the 85mm 1.4 or 105. The 35mm is great but not my main portrait lens.
48834
Why not get used to the camera with the zoom lens and after finding out what work bests for you buy another lens that fits your needs, I can't imasging using a 35 mm lens as my main portrait lens, I rarely get that cozy with my subjects. I'd look at the 85 mm 1.4 lens, the 105 lens as more desirable for portraits.
1346887
I have the 85mm 1.8 and a digital rebel. With a crop sensor camera, the 85mm is really tough indoors - you have to stand across the room and then you likely will only get a little more than a face in the frame. I don't own the 1.4, but I'd guess it would be better for a lot of tight indoor shooting over the 85mm 1.8 on a crop camera.
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
794543
I would pick the 24mm because since you are dealing with a non-zoom lens the 35mm will be more limiting than you might think. I rented both the 24mm and the 35mm before I made the purchase and I found myself switching back to the 24 frequently to capture the shot I wanted. Also, the distortions one might expect to see with "cheaper" 24mm lenses are virtually non-existent with this lens.
320074
I have a D800 and all the lenses you listed as well. The 35 i think would lend itself to portraits and the like. I take mostly outdoor stuff which the 28=300 is a fantastic all around lens that I use for a walk around lens. Necessary no not at all but a nice addition.
2014123
If you can afford it I'd recommend the 17-55mm IS 2.8. This a basically an L quality lens but doesn't carry the L in it's name because it is a EF-S series lens. It is very fast and the sharpness and overall IQ are comparable to the 24-105L IS. The range on the 17-85mm IS is really great and it is about $400 less but the images are softer and the varible aperature starting at 4 will not be nearly as fast. the 17-55mm IS 2.8 is a GREAT walkaround lens and will rarely leave your camera.
316100
Sharp lens, at 120mm its longer than the 1.8 45mm, which works out to 90mm. It is a bit slower, but just as sharp. Yes and no, it gets you close from the edges of a room, head shots are fine, its a cheaper alternative to the oly 75mm.The 25mm 1.8 might be more useful, I have the sigma 60. Do it all would be the pro zoom, but its pricy. The sigma would be great on the old, at the price it'd hard to beat. If you do not have many primes, its a good start.
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
633525
Honestly, I'd think it was less a question of which lens is better than if you have a full-frame or crop sensor camera, and how far you are willing to stand away from your children to take their photos. With a crop sensor camera in particular, you'll have to be across a large room to take full-body shots of your children with the 85mm.
84381
For a travel lens, the 16-35mm f/4 might be a better lens. It is lighter and sharper. For travel photography, rarely are you at 2.8. Most times you are stopping down to f/11 to get more things in focus. If I had to buy this lens again, I may have gone for the 14-24mm f/2.8. The only time I had to go down to 2.8 was when I was doing night time star photography.
241542
If I had a just a choice between the two lenses I would choose the 35mm. Reason? Wider angle to easily fit family and friends in the picture without having to backup to make them fit all the time.That being said, I would also look for a lens that would give me the best of both worlds like a 24mm - 85mm, or something in the range of 24mm to 200mm.Purchasing a really nice zoom lens that can give you the wide angles you need for indoors and family closeups in small spaces combined with a good telephoto range for closeups of more distant subjects should give you more versatility.
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though
1905577
Upgrade the lens, b/c you can always use them WHEN you upgrade your camera. The 50mm f/1.8 is a good start, you may also thinking about a 85mm f/1.8 and/or the 35mm f/1.8 as options.
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
713052
Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat.
1346884
The 50mm f/1.4 doesn't offer enough of an image quality boost over the 50mm f/1.8 to justify buying it. The 85mm f/1.8 offers faster ring type USM focusing, the 50mm f/1.8 does not. The 85mm f/1.8 has a rich and creamy bokeh that is as good or better than the 50mm f/1.4. While still being a great traditional portrait lens, the extra reach of the 85m f/1.8, makes it great for concerts, plays, and gymnasium sports. I like to say the 85mm f/1.8 is the lens that every parent should own (and anyone who wants to sell photos to parents too).