Why would I want to use my 50mm prime over my 24-70L in this situation?

[splproductions]

I'm shooting an 18 month-old today, and most of the shots will be indoors, using available window light and bounce flash. I feel like I can get decent bokeh (enough for what I'll be going for during this shoot) with my 24-70L at f/3.2 or 3.5.

So is there any reason to switch between the 24-70L and my Sigma 50mm 1.4 for this shoot? I feel like an aperture less than 3.2 or 2.8 while shooting candid shots of a toddler would be too risky in that I may not get her entire face in focus.

Am I wrong on my thoughts here? Any reason to switch between lenses today (or just keep the 24-70 on the whole time)?

 

[Big Mike]

When you're saying bokeh, I assume you're talking about Depth of Field. And yes, if you don't think that you will want to shoot with a very shallow DOF, then you may not need to use the 50mm.

But there is more to it than that. Each lens has it's own characteristics. Some might prefer the 'look' they get from the Sigma, over the zoom.

This isn't really a question that we can answer for you...you must make the decision yourself. That choice will help to define your style as a photographer.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

OP - Just curious looking at your threads, is this a paid shoot you just heard was coming last second?

 

[splproductions]

OP - Just curious looking at your threads, is this a paid shoot you just heard was coming last second?

No - not paid. Just some friends. I offered to shoot their toddler for free so I could boost my skills. I get a cute model and some experience, and they get some cute pics.

 

[MReid]

Bring the 50. If it is to dark to get enough shutter speed with the 24-70 you may have to use the 50 at a larger f-stop.

The 50 at 3.5 is the essentually the same thing as the 24-70 set at 50 at 3.5.

The the 50 at 1.8 is vastly superior to the 24-70 at 1.8......

 

[gsgary]

Bring the 50. If it is to dark to get enough shutter speed with the 24-70 you may have to use the 50 at a larger f-stop.

The 50 at 3.5 is the essentually the same thing as the 24-70 set at 50 at 3.5.

The the 50 at 1.8 is vastly superior to the 24-70 at 1.8......

I would love my 24-70 to go down to F1.8

 

[MReid]

I know right....unfortunately I wouldn't want to have to carry that one around...

 

[DiskoJoe]

use both and send me the one you dont like as much. Ill find it a good home

 

[MrsLittle]

I find it hilarious that anyone would think the 50 is superior to the 24-70 in any situation. I strapped that baby on and I'm not taking it off.

 

[Josh220]

I find it hilarious that anyone would think the 50 is superior to the 24-70 in any situation. I strapped that baby on and I'm not taking it off.

Other than the obvious fact that it is superior in low light I assume? Other than the lower aperture, then yes, the 24-70 is superior in every other aspect except for weight.

 

[MLeeK]

Bring the 50. If it is to dark to get enough shutter speed with the 24-70 you may have to use the 50 at a larger f-stop.

The 50 at 3.5 is the essentually the same thing as the 24-70 set at 50 at 3.5.

The the 50 at 1.8 is vastly superior to the 24-70 at 1.8......

I think you are intending to say that the 50mm at f3.5 is approximately equal to the 24-70 at f/5.6 in terms of general sharpness. Lenses are at their sharpest about 2 stops down from wide open. Plus primes are always sharper than zooms anyway-they ARE the sweet spot whereas the zoom has to work across the range. It compromises some. Not much in the case of L glass, but some.

I am a zoom kind of girl, so the chances are that I'd be happiest with the 24-70, however I OFTEN choose the 50mm prime when shooting one small child for it's sharpness.

 

[MrsLittle]

I am so glad I went with a zoom, as I almost picked up the 85 1.4g but decided on the 24-70. I realize now that I am more of a zoom gal as well.

 

[MReid]

I think you are intending to say that the 50mm at f3.5 is approximately equal to the 24-70 at f/5.6 in terms of general sharpness. Lenses are at their sharpest about 2 stops down from wide open. Plus primes are always sharper than zooms anyway-they ARE the sweet spot whereas the zoom has to work across the range. It compromises some. Not much in the case of L glass, but some.

.

No I said what I meant.
Both of these lenses are plenty sharp even wide open it you get the focus right.
I was saying they are equal at equal settings, but the zoom cannot go to as large of f-stops as the 50 can.

So if more shutter speed is needed then the 50 would come in handy.

Primes are not always sharper than zooms.
The 24-70 is as sharp wide open as it is at 5.6 in the center...the corners do improve somewhat at less than wide open.

 

[MrsLittle]

My 50 is nowhere near as sharp as my 24-70, maybe I got a bad 50 or that I shoot better with all that weight in front of me. I don't even notice the weight of it half the time and I just barely got mine.

 

[MLeeK]

The 24-70 would feel light to me! I am shooting most of the time with the 70-200 f/2.8 OS!
I am wondering if it's the sigma 50mm? I have never used it to know if it's as sharp as the Canon