p.1 #1 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
This is probably the millionth time this has been asked in the forum but I'm unsure what I should do. I recently sold my 20-70 f4 g lens. I love the images I got out of it but with a zoom I find myself not really focused as I'm taking a composition where as with a prime I feel in the zone and feel like my composition has much more meaning. Having said that I currently have a 14mm, 24mm,50mm, 90mm macro and 70-200 along with a 2x tc. I feel like this suits me well but I'm not sure of adding a 35 will add much other than another lens choice. I shoot landscapes, night scapes and cityscapes. The only other thing I might change up for the future is selling the 90 g and 70-200 GM and getting a 100 gm macro + 1.4x tc and keep the 2x tc and getting the 300 gm. But this is probably going to happen in the next 2 years as that 300 is not cheap. Anyways I've babbled on for too long but would love your inputs. Thank you for your time.
p.1 #2 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Looks like you have the A7R3. The 24mm can be used in crop mode as a 35mm with good results. I’d try that out for a while and see how you feel. A 24/50 combo can be very effective with the option of using them in crop mode for an effective 24/35/50/75 set. But…a nice and fast 35mm is great to have if you just want to bring on lens. 🙂
p.1 #3 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
I don't think there are any reason to not add any focal length prime to your kit if there are no budget limitation. However if you intend to invest into your gear on reasonable level, buy a high quality lens as your main prime, and 2-4 tier lenses for close focal length. My primary focal length on Sony (because the lack of good 28mm) is 35mm, my main lens is 35GM, and I keep a Viltrox 50 Air for outdoor family portraits as it's easy to carry, and also have a Voigtlander 21 f3.5 if I need something wider. For a short period I had 50 1.2GM and use almost the same amount as 35GM because of the unique rendering.
So if you have a 24 and 50GM, I'd consider a smaller 35mm as a walk-around lens, like the Zeiss 35 f2.8 or Sigma 35 f2, if you shoot slow pace in high resolution Voigtlander 35 f2 is also should take into consideration. Sony 40G also a compelling option as higher resolution AF cupcake.
Only limitation is the budget.
p.1 #6 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Zayne,
I think mudlake gives some great advice. I would also suggest you go back through your photo archive and see how frequently you used 35mm as a focal length with your zoom lens. Another consideration might be to look at a lens like the Laowa Argus 35mm f0.95. I bought it on a bit of a lark as it doesn’t fit my normal lens needs, but I’ve ended up using it quite a bit. It’s a bit of a change of pace lens and with your interest in night photography could serve you well. -Kk
p.1 #7 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
I had a similar dilemma and decided to retool. I sold my 24/ 50/ 135 to change to a 35/ 85/ 200. Well, I now have my 35 and 200 but boy do I miss my 24. So I'm thinking of getting a 12-24 to replace that hole that I feel.
p.1 #8 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
How many bodies do you carry and how many lenses do you really want to carry? Honestly, I think going primes is a phase a lot of photographers go through only to eventually end up carrying so many lenses they go back to a zoom. That said, I feel if you’re going to shoot primes the best option is pare it down to 3 and force yourself to live within what they can do. 24, 50, 100 is a nice 2x step set and you already own those or close. 18, 35, 75 is another. I personally don’t think you need a 50 and 35, but otoh you don’t know until you try… I also think this very dilemma is why we see more 40 options now.
For me, I always felt comfortable with 28, 50, 85, but when I carried that, I rarely used the 85. And then for travel, 28 was frequently not wide enough in a cramped space. Ironically, that led me back to the 24-70 zooms, an 18 or 20 and a faster 50. Now I’m perfectly happy with the (excellent) do-it-all 20-70 zoom and a fast 50. But! I still enjoy heading out for a casual day of shooting with just primes *for fun*. My 3 set now are lighter 18, 50 and 75, but for travel the 20-70 remains my workhorse.
p.1 #9 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
For many many years I’ve mainly used a 35/85mm combo with a 135mm to top it off for portrait work. I have owned a number of 24mm and 50mm lenses over the years but am currently making an attempt to see if the 24/50mm combo can replace the 35/85mm pair I have so relied on.
Just bought a really really nice 50mm 1.2 but for whatever reason 50mm no matter how good the lens and the 50mm 1.2 is truly superb I just never seem to love 50mm primes. Just seems stuck in the middle trying to be both a 35mm and 85mm and coming up short of being as good as either. Nice to own them all but In my mind it's either one of these two combos and I think for me its the 35mm/85mm for portrait and even general use stuff. And of the 35mm primes the Sigma 35mm 1.2 is by far my favorite no matter its size!
p.1 #10 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Zayne12 wrote:
This is probably the millionth time this has been asked in the forum but I'm unsure what I should do. I recently sold my 20-70 f4 g lens. I love the images I got out of it but with a zoom I find myself not really focused as I'm taking a composition where as with a prime I feel in the zone and feel like my composition has much more meaning. Having said that I currently have a 14mm, 24mm,50mm, 90mm macro and 70-200 along with a 2x tc. I feel like this suits me well but I'm not sure of adding a 35 will add much other than another lens choice. I shoot landscapes, night scapes and cityscapes. The only other thing I might change up for the future is selling the 90 g and 70-200 GM and getting a 100 gm macro + 1.4x tc and keep the 2x tc and getting the 300 gm. But this is probably going to happen in the next 2 years as that 300 is not cheap. Anyways I've babbled on for too long but would love your inputs. Thank you for your time. ...Show more →
If you have to post asking if you should buy anything then know that the answer is “no”. Use what you have. If you actually needed the lens then you would not need to post this question.
p.1 #11 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
So much of photography to me is what you WANT to do with it. Pure need has little to do with it once you satisfied what you originally picked it up for. Your "needs" could change based on your evolution of WANT.
I think my first 20 years of photography never actually used 35mm much, if at all(certainly don't own one). I didn't have the want for it and certainly do not have the actual need at the time. I used to shoot a lot car racing, and car related things. And I shot APS-C most of this time. The FOV of 35 was not wide enough when I wanted to shoot wide, and it was not nearly zoomed in enough to shoot car racing. And I myself as a photog didn't really venture out much to other kinds of photography. So my wants was not evolving much. I did, find myself, using 28mm in APSC(42mm equiv) a lot in traveling. So that was the closest I used relative to 35mm.
Eventually I went full frame in recent years, and I started using 40mm and 28mm. And I decided that I have a "want" to try 35mm, and I got a 35mm for that. And now I use it a lot, I developed my habit and workflow with it after that.
You can get something you want if you want to see if that works for you.
p.1 #12 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Zayne12 wrote:
This is probably the millionth time this has been asked in the forum but I'm unsure what I should do. I recently sold my 20-70 f4 g lens. I love the images I got out of it but with a zoom I find myself not really focused as I'm taking a composition where as with a prime I feel in the zone and feel like my composition has much more meaning. Having said that I currently have a 14mm, 24mm,50mm, 90mm macro and 70-200 along with a 2x tc. I feel like this suits me well but I'm not sure of adding a 35 will add much other than another lens choice. I shoot landscapes, night scapes and cityscapes. The only other thing I might change up for the future is selling the 90 g and 70-200 GM and getting a 100 gm macro + 1.4x tc and keep the 2x tc and getting the 300 gm. But this is probably going to happen in the next 2 years as that 300 is not cheap. Anyways I've babbled on for too long but would love your inputs. Thank you for your time. ...Show more →
I'll come back and ask of the 4 primes you have above, if you head out with all 4, which do you actually find yourself using most of the time? Do you "resonate" with the 50, meaning is it used a lot, or do you migrate more to a couple of the others? If you don't use the 50 much, do you tend to grab the 90 or 24 more instead? If the 90, then the 35 is unlikely to add much to your stable. If OTOH, you grab the 24 a lot, then the 35 may in fact suit you better than the 50.
End of day this is a hobby for most of us, and trying different things out is really the only way you're going to know. Plus it's fun and that's what hobby's are for I say buy one, try it and then decide for yourself. My guess is once you more carefully analyze your usage, you'll pare the set down to 1 main goto and 2 other most used.
PS: Keep in mind now with digital, it's pretty darn easy to stitch a wide or pano. So if you find yourself only very occasionally needing the 14, you could instead use the 24 in vertical orientation and grab 3 or 4 adjacent captures and process them into a nice wide single later. You can even do a 2-row stitch and get a huge, extremely wide composite without the expense or weight of the 14. OTOH, if the 14 is something like the little Viltrox AIR, then it's almost unnoticeable in the bag to begin with, so there is that
p.1 #13 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
The most pragmatic answer has already been given above, which is that if the EXIF of shots you took with the 20-70 show a lot of shots in the 28/29 to 40mm range, buy a 35 prime.
However, upon reviewing your prior shots you don't find that to be the case, you may still want to acquire a 35. Having a focal length you are not entirely comfortable with can lead to some fun outcomes. I personally do not like 50mm much, but I own a couple of 50mm primes and shoot with them about a quarter as much as with my 35mm primes. It is novel and adds some spice to the shooting. I also make a point of not being upset if I take out the 50 and miss shots I could have gotten with the 35.
You can acquire the Sigma 35i for $300 in the used market, so that might be a good place to start. If you don't like it, you can sell it for probably the same price as you bought it for.
p.1 #14 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
I find a 2x gap in primes works fairly well. That said, I have more lenses than that. I have the 35 and 50, use both, but typically bring one or the other, but not both.
p.1 #15 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
In 50 or so years of interchangeable lens camera use, I don't believe I've had a 35mm. That's only showing I didn't "need" one or want one, nothing more. Not suggesting "You can't like what I don't like."
I do have a 24mm ff lens that I've used on my aps-c a bit - looking at what either scenario offers. But I'm mostly a zoom user. I took it out exploring a couple of times and kind of liked the 24mm. It worked well in a local historic spot that I like visiting and photographing, and lens or body checking. It offers gardens,interesting interiors and exteriors. The lens also did well on a local "weekend" get away spot on both cameras.
I believe B&H has available more 35mm lenses than any other focal length. That suggests widespread popularity and in a lighthearted way, that deciding one might want a 35mm is just scratching the surface. The real choice effort is deciding which one?
p.1 #16 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
@mudlake gave you an excellent advice. I only want to add a few subjective points from my experience:
First of all, no matter how hard I tried, I simply cannot make images with zooms of the same qualitiy as with primes. It's a mental thing, but a prime forces me to see in one or two FOVs which makes my vision "deeper" if you will, i.e. I spot opportunities better and compose better. I know, this is not universal, but some of us are just wired for primes.
For this to work, you **must** have the full view (or framelines) in the viewfinder. Simply cropping later doesn't work.
p.1 #17 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
I'll let you in on a dirty little secret... sometimes when the creative well runs dry, a lot of us buy new stuff to inspire us back into the flow. Nothing wrong with wanting a 35mm just to have one... I find the typical 24mm distortion not flattering for people portraits, so if you want something wider than 50mm for indoor people shots, then 35mm would be my go-to focal length.
You really didn't say much about your primes... are they smaller, slower primes or fast big heavy chunky primes? Either way, a little 35mm f2.8 wouldn't take up much space in the bag, but a f1.4 is another story.
The good news is that there is no wrong answer. If you have the cash to burn, and you want to try it, why not... you can always sell it if you hate it.
p.1 #18 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Honestly, I think going primes is a phase a lot of photographers go through only to eventually end up carrying so many lenses they go back to a zoom.
This is a good point, Jack, although I don't think it's always the case. I far and away prefer primes and own way more than I would ever try to carry at once. I do like to make up a "kit" before heading out for a day or trip based on what I want to do. I do own a couple general purpose zooms (24-70 GMII and 24-50G) and usually use those for travel when I want my camera with me, but it's not a photography trip. The 24-50 gets more use than the GMII since it appears far less intrusive and obvious when I'm traveling.
I believe there are photographers like me who just prefer primes versus zooms and build their gear around it. Not right or wrong, just how they like to go about their business. To me, building your kit around primes also makes it easier to introduce a lens whose characteristics are different from your normal kit of working lenses. For instance, Zayne is looking to fill a gap in his lineup. He could buy a lens consistent with his other lenses, or he could purchase a lens that captures differently and provide greater variation in his equipment. That's why I suggested an out of the box option like the Laowa.
p.1 #19 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
old-gregg wrote:
@mudlake@ gave you an excellent advice. I only want to add a few subjective points from my experience:
First of all, no matter how hard I tried, I simply cannot make images with zooms of the same qualitiy as with primes. It's a mental thing, but a prime forces me to see in one or two FOVs which makes my vision "deeper" if you will, i.e. I spot opportunities better and compose better. I know, this is not universal, but some of us are just wired for primes.
For this to work, you **must** have the full view (or framelines) in the viewfinder. Simply cropping later doesn't work. ...Show more →
Interestingly, those of us that learned to shoot in the heydays of interchangeable film cameras where primes ruled the day and zooms were limited to a few 80-200’s initially which were optically slow and garishly expensive in comparison, we almost always lived by the axiom, “shoot a little loose and crop later.” Because of that, I still do that today with primes and digital. An advantage is it also allows for things like horizon leveling and perspective corrections before a minor compositional crop. I’ll also point out that with my current 33mp A7CII cropped to aps-c, I still net out at a very usable 24mp. Yes net DoF is diminished with that crop, but the ability to do it on the occasions a bit tighter view needed is a definite advantage.
Not saying your method is wrong, just pointing out that there is an alternative logic available when shooting primes, especially so with higher resolution digital.
p.1 #20 · Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Wow do u appreciate all the insight everyone has provided me. I'm landscape photographer and I see quiet a few answers that were geared towards a portrait photographer setup. For lenses all mines are the Sony gm promes being 14 f1.8 24 f1.4 50 f1.2 and the GM ii of the 70-200 and the 90 being a macro. Last time I shot out I thought I'd need a 35 for a specific scene but the 24 ended up being the better choice. I appreciate all the input and I think I'm going to hold off for now on getting a 35 and inste6put that money in the 100mm macro gm and start saving up for the 300 gm. Indo feel promes provide that extra level of sharpness that I'm missing in zooms and as I said they help me to compose a lot better than a zoom would. Again thanks for all you're amazing inputs!
I say buy one, try it and then decide for yourself. My guess is once you more carefully analyze your usage, you'll pare the set down to 1 main goto and 2 other most used.