Which prime is better for indoors portrait shooting?

[boredphuck]

I have contemplating between getting a prime lens and the 24-70 to shoot portraits in low light and indoors. I know most of us will advocate getting the prime but i want something that i will use frequently. as it is, my 135L is left at home most of the time because i don't get enough working space to use it lately.

I am deciding between the 35 and 50. personally, i will prefer the 35 but i am afraid it is
1. too wide when i upgrade to a 1.3 or FF later on.
2. has more distortion than the 50.
3. the perspective doesn't flatter the model.

Don't ask me to sell the 135. I wanna keep it for event shoots as well.

[Nick]

35mm is the better one.

Swap 135mm for 200mm?

[hwchoy]

I think if it is meant for portrait (vs performance) then 50 would be a better focal length. in fact the 50/1.4 would do fine if there aren't harsh lighting.

[boredphuck]

35mm is the better one.

Swap 135mm for 200mm?

no thanks. 

[boredphuck]

I think if it is meant for portrait (vs performance) then 50 would be a better focal length. in fact the 50/1.4 would do fine if there aren't harsh lighting.

but the 50 will be 80 on my camera. so may not have enough working room?

[hwchoy]

get a 24-70 just in case, and use a 50/1.4 as main prime.

[boredphuck]

get a 24-70 just in case, and use a 50/1.4 as main prime.

tats alot of money leh ... 

[hwchoy]

I thought you said you were going to get a 24-70 anyway? 50/1.4 is less than $600 new.

in fact since you don't need AF for shooting portraits, might as well get the CZ 50/1.4 oooo the bokeh is super sexy.

[boredphuck]

I thought you said you were going to get a 24-70 anyway? 50/1.4 is less than $600 new.

in fact since you don't need AF for shooting portraits, might as well get the CZ 50/1.4 oooo the bokeh is super sexy.

ya lor. i was quite firm on it until some people ask me to get a prime instead. i am actually not very keen to get the 50mm cos its abit not here not there. tats why i didnt even get the f/1.4 version.

i need af la. i quite cock eye one. haha.

[hwchoy]

however I feel 35 is too "in your face" for portraits.

[boredphuck]

however I feel 35 is too "in your face" for portraits.

oh. i planning to use it for full length shots, not head shots.

[hwchoy]

it would still be "in your face" given the subject vs the background. If I recall rightly, the 35mm can take full human height at a distance of less than 8 ft.

[UKay]

the 35 brings out a very in your face feel that may be very good for portraits... its something which i personally like... however you have to be careful with it as it tends to distort if not used properly

[hwchoy]

actually, 24-70/2.8L + 50/1.4 is still much cheaper than a 35/1.4L

[boredphuck]

it would still be "in your face" given the subject vs the background. If I recall rightly, the 35mm can take full human height at a distance of less than 8 ft.

yeah. given the focal length, minimal bokeh in tight areas as well.