This lens vs. a 35mm lens? Which do you recommend?
1381521
That's a bit like asking what length of string should I use? First question; what is the application? Second question; crop or full frame (FF)? Third question, what focal lengths do you already cover? On FF the 24mm is generally a better landscape lens than a 35mm and 35mm is generally better for journalistic type photography, or just walking around. On a crop, 24mm is about the same (a little longer) as the view one would get from 35mm on a full frame. I love the 35mm on a crop as well, which is closer to the classic "standard" lens (50mm), which will be generally better for street. When I say generally, I mean that it is often more appropriate to use one focal length in these situations that others, but I have seen portraits with wide lenses and telephotos used for landscapes to great effect. Sorry, I dont believe a better answer can exist without additional information.
1381522
I don't have the 35mm David but its excellence is reputed and I do not doubt it's better than canon's 24 but it's a completely different focal lenght. If you dont mind manual focusing Samyang Rokinon makes excellent 24, 35 and 85 all of them 1.4 and you can get all 3 for the price of the canon's 24 or 35!
1381523
Depends on if you have a full frame camera, or one with a cropped sensor. A 24mm is really wide on a full frame. With a cropped sensor, a 24mm is really close to what a 35mm gives you.
1381524
Like any tool, it depends on what you want to use it for. This is probably the best lens out there for wide angle, night sky photography (although the 35mm 1.4 is very good too), and will be good for a wide variety of applications. Either one will do well in low light, but since I usually take photos of people, I have a preference for the 35mm. Either lens, when used in bright light, loses a lot of their advantages unless you intentionally place your camera in aperture priority mode and keep shooting in wide apertures.
1566532
The lens is quite sharp at f2.8, I have no hesitation to use it wide open. If it will work for your purposes will depend more on your lighting conditions and the maximum ISO you feel comfortable using on your camera gear. If the light level is really low, you might be better off with the Olympus 75mm f1.8, but the cost of that lens is much higher. The other question that only you can answer: Is this focal length long enough, at 120mm equivalent for 35mm, long enough for your sports needs? The Sigma is a terrific value for this focal length, very happy with mine.
2000789
Mindy,For kids couples etc, I love shooting with my 85mm not my 35 mm. 35 is great when traveling and might need a bit of a wider angle but the 85 is the best to get you a little closer than you would usually shoot and get great results.
385636
I can't answer that Question since I do not own the 14-35mm but to me the 12-40mm is a excellent lens.
2256733
I usually think of zooms for versatility, but if you were just interested in a prime, I'd say this one was the best combination. 14mm is too wide. 35mm a bit too close (remember it's actually closer to 50mm when you take into account the cropped sensor). 23mm is a bit more flexible as well as being a great lens.
990748
I would suggest getting the 35mm because it's going to be a lot more useful for 99% of your shooting situations. Unless you really need to get up close to a subject, like during a football game, the 35mm is the best choice. It's excellent in low light, great for portraits, and really really fast. It's an excellent buy, you won't be disappointed. If you're still uneasy, go to a store to try it out. I went to B & H to try it out, where I made my final decision.It all really comes down to putting each in your hand and trying them out to see which one will suit you better. Good luck!
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.
433204
I have both, but use the 50mm more (for portrait). Now that I have a tokina 11-16mm 2.8, 35mm won't be used as much, but I did get some good shoots from it.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
382377
i won't comment on bokeh, but i find the 35mm a better walking around lens (but i am a landscape person) if shooting people, my guess is the 50 might be better.
2193893
I don't possess a 35mm nor have I received this lens as yet, the recipient hasn't given me lens. I have an 18-55mm. From the comments I've read prior to purchasing it, it seems of great performance but I guess lighting (whether frm natural lighting or a speedlight) will also determine ur photo outcome. Speedlite helps alot! I tuk evn a few shots yesterday with mine n they're of great quality. Go browse some reviews from evn Youtube, like I did. Am planning to buy a 35mm prime lens later also.
1773306
I have the Oly 45 and 75, and the panasonic 25 and 12. The 75 is regarded and one of the finest lens around, and its very sharp, but its $900, and the focal length isn't always practical. For the money, the 45mm is my favorite. Its inexpensive and very sharp. When you hold it in your hand, honestly, it looks a little cheep but the results are excellent.
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
316099
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 omd, at the price it'd hard to beat. If you do not have many primes, its a good start.
1974652
I haven't used the 35mm but i can assure you the image quality is better than the 50 f1.8 or the kit lens. This sigma will serve you well as a starter lens and actually shouldn't be something you immediately feel like upgrading. Primes are well and good if you are ready for them but zooms are better for starting out. if you test out different focal lengths you can find out what prime lenses will work best for you. you don't want to buy a 35mm just to find out you'd rather have a 24, etc.
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.
2193892
Do you mean fast as in how quick it grabs autofocus? If thats your question, i dont know about the 35 but this is pretty quick. If you were asking about the max aperture, well, this is a f/4 glass so its not as near as fast, but they re two totally different lenses for two different purposes.