How good are L primes 50 1.2 or 35 1.4

<p>I have a really nice set of lenses ( 24-70, 70-200, 100 L macro, 50 1.4 ) and I am very much interested in a top quality prime on the wider end to shoot people, portraits, travel etc with my 5D2. I find the 50 1.4 focus annoying and I am seriously looking into a 50 1.2 or 35 1.4.</p>

<p>Can anyone offer some advice. I tend to shoot a bit tighter so the 50 seems a good FL but this lens seems to get somewhat poor reviews in comparison to other L primes. I hear the 35 is such a great lens and a little wider may be better since the 5d2 has so many MP I can easily crop. </p>

<p>I also like the 50 is weather sealed better then the 35. I am in no hurry as I really like using my 24-70 but this is something I want to upgrade in the near future.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

 

<p>I don't have any direct experience, but the Sigma 50 f1.4 might also be one to consider. It is supposed to be optmised for wide open performance.<br>

AFAIK no one ever says anything bad about the 35 f1.4. The 50 f1.2 seems to get more mixed reviews. In any event the point of these lenses is to shoot them wide open or near wide open, where optical performance is typically very good but less than stellar. If you are not planning to shoot them wide open then Canon's non L primes might be better value.<br>

Not sure what you find about the 50 f1.4's focuss annoying but if you are shooting at f1.4 dof will by very thin and challenging for any AF system to produce a lot of keepers.</p>

<p>I'd definitely take the 35L over the 50L. I've had the 50L side by side with the 50 1.4 and didn't find much improvement with the 50L, decided to keep the 50 1.4 instead. I've got the 35L and find it a better all around lens and better performer. Of all my lenses, the 50 1.4 is the only one I've chosen not to upgrade to the L series. (Oh, and the 100 Macro too).</p>

<p>However, your preferred focal length is always the first concern. Don't get the 35L with the though of cropping to get better results than the 50L. You'll lose that wonderful shallow DOF look and it won't be as sharp as the 50L or the 50 1.4. To me the magic of the 35L is it's ability to create the shallow DOF look combined with a semi-wide field of view, and that it has great color/sharpness wide open. It's a great environmental portrait lens and focal length.</p>

 

<p>The 50 1.4 it seems to hunt more often then my other lenses ( which are all real USM ) and its also a touch slower to focus. Its not terrible but I am probably just spoiled by my other lenses.<br /> I have thought about the Sigma but I feel more confident in actual Canon lenses.</p>

<p>Also I would want this lens for available light shooting so I would plan to use it wider then 2.8.</p>

<p>As to a preferred focal length that is the hard part, I mostly use a zoom so I move it around a lot. I can think of reasons to like 35 and 50 and I think 35 + 100 make a nice travel combo too. I was all set to order the 35 but I keep considering the 50. </p>

<p>I dumped my 50 1.4 USM for the 50 1.2L a couple years back and, unlike some reviewers, have been extremely pleased with the optic. I can shoot wide open and get reasonable sharp images, killer bokeh and razor sharp images stopped down a wee bit. Th 50 1.4 was pretty terrible until F2.8. 50 1.2L AF ain't as nimble as my 24-105L or 17-40L, but is much more surefooted than my 50 1.4 was. I can actually use AF in low light. Plus it is much better corrected for barrel distortion than the 50 1.4 at 2 meters or less.</p>

<p>Not answering your question, and I'm a bit of a broken record on this, but: I really wish Canon would produce a 50mm f1.4 prime L lens.</p>

<p>The 35mm f1.4L is a truly sublime lens. It is one of Canons best. Nobody is ever negative about it, it just seems to have become a comparatively unpopular focal length, strange because with a mixed sensor sized kit it has to be one of the most useful combination focal lengths.</p>

<p>BTW - I might be a bit biased because I have a cherry picked 50 1.4. It's nicely sharp wide open and only gets better from there. Both it and the 50L are squarely in the "darn fine lenses" camp.</p>

<p>When I had both the 50L and the 50 1.4 at the same time I shot a lot of comparison images. I did the standard tripod/MLU/live view/newspaper on the wall test and found that they were pretty close in sharpness wide open and that the 50 1.4 was the sharper of the two as you stopped down. I also found that they were pretty much the same in focus accuracy. Shot a bunch of wide open portraits in the same setting and both did fine, shot a whole series of focus test images (defocus lens, refocus on fixed object, repeat) and found that there wasn't a huge difference (on a 1DS III at least). Neither is as fast or accurate as the 24-70 or the 35L. I also found that there really wasn't a huge difference in the "look" of the images. I shot similar comps to see the DOF difference and there isn't much to compare between f/1.2 and f/1.4. </p>

<p>Anyhow, I was ready to keep either lens since I already had both. Ultimately I decided that there wasn't enough of a difference to justify keeping the 50L, and sold it to put money into lighting gear instead. I would say that the 50L was the winner on all fronts (focusing, accuracy, sharpness wide open, color rendition) but that the margin of victory was very slim, certainly not worth the $1k cost of upgrade for me. I also am not a 50mm focal length kind of guy, so that also biases me.</p>

<p>Hope that you find my experiences helpful. Drop me an email if you want comparison shots, I think I've got them buried in the archives somewhere.</p>

<p>Tommy, what happened to your EF 28mm f/1.8?</p>

<p>Unless money is no issue, I would go for a throughly-checked Sigma 50mm -- it is considered as sharp as the f/1.2 and better build than the Canon f/1.4. However, AF speed is as slow as the old Canon lens.</p>

<p>I sold the 28 to fund my 24-70. I still think the 28 1.8 is a great lens but I use the 24-70 all the time.</p>

<p>I too wish Canon would make a 50 or 35 similar to the 28 or 85 in build</p>

<p>Allot of it has to do with how you focus. I compared a couple of my zoom lenses with primes and could not find any discernable difference. For ordinary shooting, I would not look for sharpness alone, but with contrast, build quality, weather sealing, re-sale value, campatibility, low distortion and saturation . </p>

 

<p>I am actually not concern much with sharpness, All of these lenses including my 50 1.4 are certainly sharp enough. I actually find the 50 1.4 very sharp I just find the focus a bit frustrating. From what I am hearing the 35 will focus faster then the 50 1.2?</p>

<p>Also this may seem silly but I am in no hurry since my 24-70 and 50 1.4 do the job but should we expect a 35L mark 2 soon? it seems to be one of the few L primes that is not weather sealed and its also much older then the new 24 or 50. </p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<p>Rumour has it that next year is going to be a big year for Canon photo. There has to be a 1Ds MkIV, and the VDSLR snowball is not going to slow down either, we already know several new lenses are to become available and more are planned for launch. The 35 L is the one L prime that has not gone to a MkII (apart from the comparatively new 50L). I wouldn't be surprised to see a MkII version announced next year. But what do I know!</p>

<p>I usually don't sit on the fence waiting for something new to arrive ( I did get a 24-70 without concern of the much hoped for rumored IS version ) but in this case I have no problem waiting. I am sure the current 35 is probably more then I need but again considering the lenses I have I can easily wait it out and if I get the 35 I will be out of lenses to consider buying. ( maybe upgrade my 70-200 2.8 to the IS mark 2 version? ahhh probably not. :-}</p>

 

<p>If autofocus is a concern, the 50mm f/1.2L is similar to the 85mm f/1.2L. However, I found it focused better in low light on a recent trip. I was sitting on a hillside waiting for a traditional fireworks display and was able to snap some pretty decent silhouettes using autofocus. It was late twilight and quite dark out.</p>

<p>FWIW, I bought used and made sure that I tested a bunch of copies to make sure I was happy with sharpness and the reported front/backfocus problem. I haven't had any concerns with mine and have used it a fair amount over the last month. I'm also a nut for shallow depth of field, which was a big reason I got that lens rather than the 1.4.</p>

<p>My 50/1.4 has the same AF issues you describe, yet it is with this lens that I keep taking some of my favorite photos. I think it was Phillip Greenspun who pointed out that the 35mm lens perspective is boring. Let's just say that it's the most challenging focal length for getting interesting pictures.</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't call it boring... I like 35mm. I often find that my wide angle shots are taken at 24 or 35mm on my 24-105 (and exactly the same was true on my 24-85). I think probably it's because it's "familiar" rather than boring - it's covered by every standard zoom under the sun and is a focal length that's taken for granted. I prefer it to 50mm as a standard lens (since both 35mm and 50mm are about equally far from the "true" standard of 43mm. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 35 L is the one L prime that has not gone to a MkII (apart from the comparatively new 50L)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the 135F2L. Perhaps in both cases because they don't need to? The 14 and 24 were always reviewed as (I admit I have no personal experience of either one) as somewhat disappointing lenses, while the 50 F1.0 compromised a lot for the F1.0 aperture - these lenses all needed updating, while I suspect the 85 was updated more to get rid of the electronic manual focus and the old M1 USM motor than for optical reasons. The 200 F2.8L was quite rapidly replaced by the mk II simply to change the hood design. The 400 F5.6L soldiers on as well, of course. </p>

<p>Perhaps canon should concentrate on some more affordable primes? 50 F1.8, 50 F1.4, 35F2, 24 F2.8 are all begging for updates. Nikon are coming out with ring-USM consumer lenses at these points, and canon need to catch up. </p>

<p>50/1.2 L is very well reviewed at www.photozone.de also you can see results of its resolution at<br>

www.the-digital-picture.com<br>

Not for landscapes. </p>

 

<p>IS</p>

<p>I'd love to try to understand the lens R&D and marketing teams decision making processes. The 300 and 400 f2.8 are both superb lenses but have received worthwhile upgrades. The 70-200 f2.8 IS was no slouch, though again, the MkII is better in most areas. So it can't be based on an IQ requirement. The 100-400 has to be a fantastic seller, it must be comparatively easy to make improvements to it and the resulting MkII would sell faster than they could make them. The 400 f5.6 is so old the BBC used that to shoot dinosaurs! Why has no IS upgrade been done to it? They already have all the parts in the 300 f4 IS.</p>

<p>So many anomalies, deficiencies and easy upgrades, meanwhile they develop amazingly good freak lenses like the 17 TS-E, and uncompetitive $1,500 70-300 L's.</p>

<p>It has the smell of a committee, rather than a director, to me.</p>

<p>As to picking a focal length I was using 28, 50 and 85 and I like all but I really tired switching so I got a 24-70 which I love but many times I like to take my camera out with just a smaller lighter prime so I guess I would prefer non L's but only the 28 and 85 are USM and those are more specialty lengths. So I would really like something that is practical. I love 24 but its to wide for general shooting so 35 seems better though a combo of 24 and 50 seems like it would be very nice but again 35 is probably the most practical as a 1 lens kinda do it all prime. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am very much interested in a top quality prime on the wider end to shoot people, portraits, travel etc</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Portraits you want the 85 1.8, not a 35 or 50</p>

<p>Tommy</p>

<p>That is my favorite combination too. I have a similar issue. I have the 50 f1.4 and like it, but the 35L is special - no one really has any beef about it. The trouble is that for a general wide angle I prefer a 28mm and would leave the 35 home, but there is no really good 28mm in the Canon or anyone else's lineup (Zeiss ZE included). The bad thing about the 35L and the 50L is that they are yet another huge lens, so you might be best to stick with your 50/1.4. The 35mm is no more boring than any other lens. It is unparalleled for wedding/party/street event-type photography in my opinion. Certainly the 50L does not exactly attract stellar reviews - people want to like it because it is well made and very fast. It is better from f1.2-2.8, but otherwise it is not as good as the 1.4. The 35mm is excellent wide open and very good stopped down, so there is no downside (apart from its size).</p>

<p>I'm not sure if this is helpful.</p>

<p>Brett,</p>

<p>Both 50mm and 35mm lenses make superb portrait lenses. Steve McCurry is a heavy user of the 50mm focal length and the 35 is perfect for environmental portraits, just look on the NatGeo website for thousands of 35mm focal length images.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input everyone, For portraits I generally stick with my 24-70 or 70-200 ( when I am using lighting ) so I guess I should be clear that this will be more of a people lens with available lighting. The 35 is pretty big but it seems a bit smaller then the 17-40 which is pretty decent but the 50 1.4 is an ideal size. Maybe I should just buy back my 28. :-}</p>

<p>If you can live without AF, go Zeiss ZE. You'll never look back...</p>