if you could only have use 1 lens

i borrowed the 35mm for the weekend. have to say it is quite magical and also quite hard to use at 1.4...

would defo save up and buy one soon as i can
 
the depth of field is sooooo shallow

if you move, if the subject moves, if the wind blows you could miss the focus

for example, the focus on centre dot and recompose shot might put you out of focus, thats how thin it is

all subject to the distances of course
 
Although I haven't used the 35L, I've use the 30mm on my crop more than anything so experience with that I would have to say 35L on a FF camera as well.
 
Paul11 said:
the depth of field is sooooo shallow

if you move, if the subject moves, if the wind blows you could miss the focus

for example, the focus on centre dot and recompose shot might put you out of focus, thats how thin it is

all subject to the distances of course
Click to expand...

I haven't found that to be too much of a problem even shooting on an 85 1.4 which has way shallower DoF?

If I had to just shoot one lens.... It would probably be an 85L on a 35 camera, or if I won the lottery, a Leica 120 f/2.5 on the S system. Other medium format cameras start being just a little too big to be the system you use for the rest of your life
 
Ksanti said:
I haven't found that to be too much of a problem even shooting on an 85 1.4 which has way shallower DoF?
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Also you won't likely have the same issue if focus-recomposing as the 35mm with your 85mm due to the narrower angle of being further away from your subject not changing the focal distance much (like in trigonometry).

I don't focus recompose, or delay releasing the shutter once focused, so I don't find wafer thin DOF's an issue tbh...
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
No it isn't.

Also you won't likely have the same issue if focus-recomposing as the 35mm with your 85mm due to the narrower angle of being further away from your subject not changing the focal distance much (like in trigonometry).

I don't focus recompose, or delay releasing the shutter once focused, so I don't find wafer thin DOF's an issue tbh...
Click to expand...

Likewise, I don't hang around at all when shooting with a wide aperture.
 
An Exception said:
No it isn't.

Also you won't likely have the same issue if focus-recomposing as the 35mm with your 85mm due to the narrower angle of being further away..
Click to expand...



the recompose angle thing i get

but i also thought the 85mm would have less depth of field than the 35mm

assuming both at 1.4 and both same distance to subject ? ?
 
Paul11 said:
the recompose angle thing i get

but i also thought the 85mm would have less depth of field than the 35mm

assuming both at 1.4 and both same distance to subject ? ?
Click to expand...

Yes the 85 will have less DOF at the same distance from the subject as the 35.
However, at the same subject magnification/size, ( i.e. if you move closer with the 35mm, or backup with the 85) you get the same actual DOF.

While the subject may have the same DOF with both lenses, the backgrounds will be rendered completely differently due to the difference in perspective.
The 35mm will shrink the background elements, making them appear more 'in focus' due to less relative magnification, this reduces the effect of background separation that a shallow DOF gives, but includes more background elements within the scene.
An 85mm will include much less of the background elements as the lens will magnify the background. This increases the effect of background separation, due to the magnification of the out of focus areas.
It's this effect of perspective, that causes people to mistakenly think longer lenses actually have shallower DOF's, they don't, and if you use techniques like focus recompose, 85mm is much more forgiving...
 
Last edited:
Used all the primes. Love the 35L, the 85L is probably my favourite, but only one lens? I'd take the 24-70.

And this thread is proof as to why photography is interesting.

Everybody does it differently.
 
An Exception said:
Yes the 85 will have less DOF at the same distance from the subject as the 35.
However, at the same subject magnification/size, ( i.e. if you move closer with the 35mm, or backup with the 85) you get the same actual DOF.

While the subject may have the same DOF with both lenses, the backgrounds will be rendered completely differently due to the difference in perspective.
The 35mm will shrink the background elements, making them appear more 'in focus' due to less relative magnification, this reduces the effect of background separation that a shallow DOF gives, but includes more background elements within the scene.
An 85mm will include much less of the background elements as the lens will magnify the background. This increases the effect of background separation, due to the magnification of the out of focus areas.
It's this effect of perspective, that causes people to mistakenly think longer lenses actually have shallower DOF's, they don't, and if you use techniques like focus recompose, 85mm is much more forgiving...
Click to expand...



thank you ..

got it now..
 
THC_SsSsSnake said:
not image wise but focal length wise?:) is the 18-55mm on a 1.6 crop roughly equal to a 24-70 that you guys like on a FF?
thanks
Click to expand...

Roughly, although the Canon 17-55 IS is the one to aim for if you want just the one lens. Cheaper option is the Tamron 17-50. I really did not like my 18-55 IS, but then I like a bit of bokeh.
 
Phate said:
Used many primes? :)
Click to expand...

Yep. Got a 50mm 1.8, liked it so much I bought a 50mm 1.4 and I'm hoping to buy the 85mm 1.8 soon. My 50mm 1.4 is my go to lens and spends most time on the camera.

However if I could only use one lens ever again it would have to be a fast zoom. As much as I love the image quality of primes, the L zooms are more than "good enough" for me and I'd rather have the range of focal lengths, from wide to short telephoto. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom