kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Full body shots can be quite successful with a 35mm lens. The exaggeration of perspective, if the subject is close, can be quite dynamic. You wont't be getting much facial exaggeration unless the head occupies more than about 1/4 of the frame.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If you can get a good deal on one, it could be worth your while, but there isn't a huge difference between 35mm and 50mm.

https://www.howtogeek.com/313337/what-is-the-best-lens-for-taking-portraits/

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If your portrait involves showing the subject and background stuff then OK, like painter with paintings, or collector with stuff around them, or potter with their creations around them.

cthahn

Not a good choice.

whwiden

If you can get a copy, take a look at the book "An Inner Silence: The Portraits of Henri Cartier-Bresson. I expect most, if not all, were taken with a 50mm lens. You will see that the head or face usually does not take up a very large portion of the frame--the environment of the person and surroundings is included. You already have that ability without spending more money on a new lens. If I had to add a fixed lens to your group, I would think about a 24mm or 28mm, and then stop with a great 4 lens prime set.

If you want to look at an interesting lens, perhaps the Tamron 45mm lens. I have one and like it. It offers some weather sealing and image stabilization in a prime medium lens, is a little wider than 50mm, etc. You can get good deals on one now. I only mention it given that you already have a 50mm because of the image stabilization for a prime normal lens. You can use lower iso and wide open for potentially better file quality.

Other than a wide, you probably have all that you need, unless you want some other features.

For street photo shots with a 28mm, take a look at the work of Gary Winogrand.

Good luck with your decision.

ronz Loc: Florida

I have used a 50mm on rare occasion but the 85 f 1.8 or 70-200 have been the best for years. I have experimented with several others but wide angle just didn't make the cut

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Great! Good to know, thanks.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Thank you for your reply.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

on a APS-C I prefer 70mm for portrait, of course the working distances effect your choice, I've done well with the 50mm, Bob.

Jcmarino

35mm is excellent for shooting more curvy women. Check out Sue Bryce "posing curvy women" . She has won several WPPI awards with that lens for her portraiture.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

It all depends on the type of portraits you are going to be shooting. Full body works fine and groups work fine too for a 35mm lens but for head shots I would not recommend using that lens.
Keep in mind the depth of field. Wide angle lenses tend to have more depth of field so they could be invaluable for environmental portraits.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I own the 35mm 1.4---but for portraits I use a 58, 85, 105, or 70-200.
But, if one likes the effect of a 35, why not?

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

That's one point I haven't though about (DOF). That is exactly what I was hoping to use it for.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

What do you use your 35mm for?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I can't say whether 35mm would meet your needs, but I wouldn't refer to fully body shots or small groups as portraits. That explains the confusion I had from your original post.