5D and 50/1.4 vs. 7d and 35/1.4L (price tags are close)

<p>Which of these "kits" would deliver better quality if shooting is considered under ISO 800? I wonder how they would compete at f 2.0 f, 1.4? I have heard that 35/1.4L is sharp at 1.4.... At f 5.6 it is evident that 5D will be a winner. </p>

<p>Depending upon what you do with the photographs, your subjects, and how you shoot... the image quality differences could be completely insignificant or they could make some small difference.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that making a camera/lens decision purely on the basis of one parameter (e.g. - "highest resolution at f/1.4) may not be such a great idea. What subject do you shoot? Do you regularly make very large prints or do you mostly share jpgs on line? How important are features such as higher burst rates? Do you plan to shoot at f/1.4 all the time, a lot, occasionally? What other lenses will you use? What are your subjects? Do you hand hold the camera or shoot from a tripod?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>They are such different cameras that comparisons are moot.</p>

<p>I tend to lean towards "better" lenses rather a "better" camera. As you have probably noticed, camera bodies become obsolete where lenses tend to retain their value. Your future position would be better with the 7D combo while not sacrificing much for the current situation. </p>

<p>I own the 50/1.4 and 35/1.4; I use both lenses on a 50D. The 35/1.4 is "better" all around. The 50/1.4 wide open leaves a lot to be desired, and on a FF sensor it would be worse than what I see on my 50D. I'd rather have my 50D with the 35/1.4 than the 5D with 50/1.4, but if you need high ISO the 5D is a winner.</p>

<p>The 35L is a better lens wide open in terms of sharpness, but at equivalent apertures the 5D/50 will give better bokeh than the 7D/35mm. The 35mm also has ring USM vs. micro-USM on the 50mm.</p>

<p>I do not care about burst rates. I will use the only prime only. Subjects are people. Never use a tripod. I find 35 mm is a fine lens, but for portature I tend to 50 mm. I have seen a lot of 35 mm 1.4L shots, full resolution, I see that the borders are softer than the center, and the lens is prone to some CA. I can reach similar and better results with the Olympus pancake with better corners at the expense of worse aperture. (f2.8). Yes, the cameras get obsolete faster, than lenses, but most current cameras will still deliver good quality for a long time. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have seen a lot of 35 mm 1.4L shots, full resolution, I see that the borders are softer than the center,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On what camera ? Don't forget that with the 35mm on a 7D, the sensor will not record light from the outer part of the image circle.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>do not care about burst rates. I will use the only prime only. Subjects are people. Never use a tripod. I find 35 mm is a fine lens, but for portature I tend to 50 mm. I have seen a lot of 35 mm 1.4L shots, full resolution, I see that the borders are softer than the center, and the lens is prone to some CA. I can reach similar and better results with the Olympus pancake with better corners at the expense of worse aperture. (f2.8). Yes, the cameras get obsolete faster, than lenses, but most current cameras will still deliver good quality for a long time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you don't use a tripod and are usually photographing people, the potential resolution advantages of the full frame format will be diminished, if not moot. (Even if you are a very careful and methodical shooter, there will be some motion blur and this means that sensor resolution becomes a much less important concern.)</p>

<p>Virtually any lens will be softer in the corners wide open than at smaller apertures, even in the case of some very fine lenses. But, again, for hand held shots in particular, I don't think that is likely to be a really big issue.</p>

<p>The same is true with CA - virtually all lenses will exhibit some amount of CA if you look closely enough. When eliminating it matters, it is easy to do so in post.</p>

<p>I wonder if the camera/lens bulk/weight is of any importance to you? Are your people photographed quickly and intuitively in their normal environments, perhaps even in a street photography style? Or are you working in a controlled studio environment? If the former, I'd seriously look at a crop sensor body (maybe even the t2i if you are looking for small and unobtrusive but with great IQ) plus the EF 35mm f/2. This lens is regarded as being capable of producing results very, very close to those of the much larger and more expensive 35mm f/1.4 L.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I'd much prefer the 5D with 50mm f1.4 combo, for shallower depth of field posibilities, lens weight/dimensions, my general preference for full frame, and so on.</p>

<p>I'd go for the 5DII/35 1.4L combo. Great camera and great lens. The 50 1.4 will not do the 5DII right unless stopped down to F2.8 or more. Plus AF is pretty poor on the that lens, especially in low light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> This lens is regarded as being capable of producing results very, very close to those of the much larger and more expensive 35mm f/1.4 L</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>We've got one of those (35mm f2.0), mostly used on a 30D, as a sort-of "standard" lens. It is much more comparable to 5D with the 50mm f1.4, dimensionaly. With even more antiquated focus type, but not bad. It can focus to within 8". The 50mm f1.4's close focus is not very good, maybe 18"?</p>

<p>It's also a fun lens on the full frame 5D, except the corners are pretty soft.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'd go for the 5DII/35 1.4L combo. Great camera and great lens. The 50 1.4 will not do the 5DII right unless stopped down to F2.8 or more. Plus AF is pretty poor on the that lens, especially in low light.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You exaggerate. I use this lens on a 5D2 (and used it on a 5D before that) and it works quite well in many situations. It is soft and produces lower contrast <em>at</em> f/1.4, but this changes very quickly as you stop it down - it is noticeably better by f/1.8 and works like comparable lenses at f/2.</p>

<p>Dan, he said: >I find 35 mm is a fine lens, but for portature I tend to 50 mm.<<br /> So 35mm on a full frame may be to short for him.<br /> I'd go with 7d & 35mm f1.4 as a one body - one lens solution.</p>

<p>Can anyone show ( or point to a link ) of some samples comparing the 50 1.4 to to the 35 1.4? I have long considered a 35L but I held out because my 50 is so good I can't imagine how much better it really can be. The only real downside for me is the focus speed can be an issue at times and I would prefer 35 over 50 on full frame.</p>

<p>Tommy, I have (and love) both of the 35/1.4 and the 50/1.4, and can't really see one replacing the other. In absolute terms, the focal length differential between 35mm and 50mm is identical to that between 85mm and 100mm, but relative to real world application, the difference between the shorter lenses is much greater. Like you, I use full frame bodies, and the 35mm prime is definitely alot wider than the normal prime for me, while my 85mm and 100mm primes seem much closer in focal length.</p>

<p>So I'd advise you to keep your 50/1.4, and continue saving your pennies for the 35/1.4.</p>

<p>I would not get rid of the 50 just wondering how good the 35 is in a real world comparison. ( no charts and brick walls BS ) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan writes, "You exaggerate. I use this lens on a 5D2 (and used it on a 5D before that) and it works quite well in many situations. It is soft and produces lower contrast <em>at</em> f/1.4, but this changes very quickly as you stop it down - it is noticeably better by f/1.8 and works like comparable lenses at f/2."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually I was being extremely kind and diplomatic. The one I owned was ah turd deluxe: serve barrel distortion at 2 meters or less, mild barrel at 3 meters and not critically sharp until F5.6. Wide open was unusable save for Holga impersonations. And even my cheapest zooms (EF 24-85 USM) could AF circles around it in low light. It was a big steaming pile 'o horse pucky with flies, maggots 'n chunks 'o funk.</p>

<p>When you ask a question like this you are really asking folks to rate their own equipment. Most will talk up their camera/lens combo. I personally have 5D classic and a 50 1.4. I seldom use 1.4 but at f2.8-f11 the quality I get is just superb. Couldn't ask for more. Is the 7D and 35 1.4 better? Dunno as I've never owned either but I' sure the results are also superb. But add up the numbers. Used 5D $1100 (US) 50 1.4 used in EX condition $325-350. Total cost $1450. Canon 7D new $1600, 35 1.4 used in EX condition $1200. Total cost $2800. So to get the same 1.4 focal equivalent from a 7d it's going to cost you about double as would it on a 5D. As far as body features I'd take a 7D over a 5D but for image quality for me its the 5D. And don't let them tell you the 7D's high ISO quality is a good as the 5D's. The 5D is at least 1 stop better which makes the 50 1.4 at F2.8 as good as the 35 1.4 at F2.</p>

<p>Puppy, the sharpest digital image I've yet taken was with my 50/1.4 @ f/4 mounted on my 5D II.</p>

<p>I suspect that you had a dud copy of the lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Actually I was being extremely kind and diplomatic. The one I owned was ah turd deluxe: serve barrel distortion at 2 meters or less, mild barrel at 3 meters and not critically sharp until F5.6. Wide open was unusable save for Holga impersonations. And even my cheapest zooms (EF 24-85 USM) could AF circles around it in low light. It was a big steaming pile 'o horse pucky with flies, maggots 'n chunks 'o funk.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you might want to acknowledge that your lens may have been an anomaly. "Turd deluxe" may describe your copy, but it most certainly doesn't describe mine. "Not critically sharp until f/5.6" suggests that you had a focus adjustment problem that might have been rectified by some adjustments. "Holga impersonations" - funny...</p>

<p>Now that you've had your hyperbolic fun, let's return to offering posters real advice that is useful and at least somewhat accurate, OK?</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p><em>"Subjects are people. Never use a tripod. I find 35 mm is a fine lens, but for portature I tend to 50 mm. I have seen a lot of 35 mm 1.4L shots, full resolution, I see that the borders are softer than the center, and the lens is prone to some CA. I can reach similar and better results with the Olympus pancake with better corners at the expense of worse aperture. (f2.8). Yes, the cameras get obsolete faster, than lenses, but most current cameras will still deliver good quality for a long time."</em></p>

<p><br /> And why is f/1.4 so important for people photography? Of course, if you want Leica'ish compositions, with the eyes in focus and everything else bokeh'ed out (nose included), then by all means, shoot at f/1.4. Btw, that's why most people find f/1.4 lenses "unsharp"... they simply don't get the focus nailed properly. That's also why the 35/1.4L lens is considered "sharper" wide open: it has more DOF to play with. Naturally, the f/2.8 pancake Oly lens mentioned above is "sharper" -- it has even MORE DOF.<br /> Case in point: portraits are rarely shot at f/1.4; Choose between the 5 and 7 for other reasons.</p>

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3896539">Tommy DiGiovanni</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 29, 2010; 07:26 p.m.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Can anyone show ( or point to a link ) of some samples comparing the 50 1.4 to to the 35 1.4?</em><br /><em></em><br />I'm getting reluctant to keep trotting this out, but anyway:<br /><em></em><br /><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121</a></p>

<p>The 35mm f1.4 looks sharper wide open. Also less light fall-off. For the price it <em>should</em> be. I doubt the differences would show in prints, though.</p>

<p>Thanks Mendel but I am talking real photos not tests. Like the same photo taken with each lens. </p>

 

<p>Even if my 50 1.4 was an anomaly and optical lemon, it was just as terrible as the two EF 50 1.8 I owned. Perhaps I got 3 lemons. None of them could AF in low light worth a damn. Now my EF 50 2.5 CM is amazingly sharp and distortion-free at any F-stop and, although AF is chunky & slow, focus is still more reliable that that damn EF 50 1.4 USM. And judging from the frequent posts on broken 50 1.4 AF, its AF mechanism is none too robust. Oddly, as farty as my copy was, AF never broke. It just didn't work very well except in bright light.</p>