35mm f/1.4 L vs 50mm f/1.4

[josmanuel]

Just wondering,

 

wich one of these two set�s would you prefer to walk around with...!? and why..!?

 

40D + 35mm f/1.4 L or 5D + 50mm f/1.4...?!

 

Thank you all

[asher]

I have the 5D, 10D, and those 2 lenses. I'm using the 5D + 35mm almost exclusively. The reasons are really personal preference... <p>

 

What do you like to shoot and how do you like to compose? If you're into street/people and you like to get right in there, the extra space of the 35mm is more for you. If you're more into architecture and even the slightest hint of distortion bothers you, then maybe the 50mm is better (although the 35 is really clean). This setup most closely approximates my all time favorite combo (M6 + 35mm summicron). Also, the 50mm lens is a great deal and a really nice performer, especially for the cost, but the 35 L is even more impressive. It does weigh quite a bit more though, but you've gotta suffer for your art!

[eric merrill]

My 50/1.4 makes a great bookend.

 

I would strongly discourage buying one. Search the net. There's a known issue with something in the autofocus so that it just stops without any apparent cause. Mine stopped autofocusing without any trauma. Never had any other lens ever do that.

 

If you are still intent on buying a 50/1.4, I'll sell you mine. :)

 

 

Eric

[g dan mitchell]

For "walk around" on a crop body... I don't think I'd want either of those. The 50mm

is too long for my purposes and the 30mm, while having a more appropriate focal

length, is a pretty darn big lens that doesn't provide a lot of flexibility and utility.

 

I'd go with a non-L prime in the 24mm-35mm range for "walk around" if I were a

prime kinda' guy. Personally, if I were limited to one prime I'd rather err on the side

of too wide rather than too long.

 

Generally, I'd rather use a zoom. In my notion of "walk around" there isn't that much

advantage to the super-narrow DOF of the f/1.4 lenses, I can usually up the ISO to

deal with somewhat smaller max apertures, and if I'm shooting hand held in a "walk

around" situation having the absolute sharpest lens isn't nearly as critical has it

might be if I were shooting from a tripod. I'd rather have the flexibility of a zoom.

 

On the 40D that would most likely be the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for me - if I shot a

crop body.

 

Dan

[roger krueger]

So fix it!

 

I shoot rough punk shows, I've killed the AF in mine twice, $90 and it's good as new.

Which is a heck of a lot cheaper than killing the AF in my 135/2 ($180) or 24/1.4 ($250)

was.

[link]

Jose,

 

I have the 5D with the 50 1.4, and the 35 2.0. Why not get that and have both?

 

Personally, I don't like "walking around" with a large, heavy "L" lens and the image quality

of the 5D will be slightly better than the 40D. Also, isn't that 35mm 1.4 a very expensive

lens?

[correct_exposure]

Jose,

 

I had the same question with the 30D and 5D with those exact lenses. I chose the 5D and 50 1.4. Why? I found that even though the fov was similar, the bokeh made the 5D image look much better. Then I tried the 35L on the 5D and it was beautiful just like Asher said. Plus, it was the larger viewfinder on the 5D that really made the 'walk around' combo excellent. My choices really came down to the 35L or 50 1.4.

 

The 50 1.4 won b/c it was 800 less and I could just take a step back/forward with the feet and use the difference on the 70-300 DO. If only one lens though, the 35L is awesome all around.

 

Passed on the normal zoom b/c a step in either direction covers the range for WALKING around plus no Canon zoom is faster than 2.8 or has a brighter viewfinder experience.

[fred_c1]

"I found that even though the fov was similar, the bokeh made the 5D image look much better. ... The 50 1.4 won b/c it was 800 less and I could just take a step back/forward with the feet and use the difference on the 70-300 DO."<P>

 

Obviously you know very little about bokeh, especially the rendering from the DO lens.<P> <img src=http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-300-DO-Bullseyes.jpg>

[bjscharp]

For a walk-around on a crop body, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is a very nice lens, and build like a tank...

[josmanuel]

ok, you are all great friends... thanks a lot...:)

 

and what about 5D with the 50mm f/1.8...!?

i love this lens when used with a crop body... mostly for family portraits... using it on a 5D must be great, i think...

Also love to use prime more then zooms, so i was thinking about a 85mm or a 100 prime and for now, keep with these 2 or 3 lenses with a 5D...

 

thanks

[correct_exposure]

-Obviously you know very little about bokeh, especially the rendering from the DO lens.-

 

I appreciate your comment Fred C., however, in the sample pictures section of the DO lens, where are those bullseyes?

 

Also, Fred did you read Bob's review under normal lenses section that shows the bokeh differences of crop vs full frame at the same angle of view?

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_5D_vs_eos_40D.html

 

Jose,

 

I like the 100 prime but the 85 is very nice as well. Enjoy the art of photography.

[fred_c1]

I don't know about you, but the 70-300mm DO lens is not "normal" in anyway to

me.<P>

 

Those "bullseye" highlights (or more exactly bright concentric rings) are

caused by the diffractive element, a fact well-known in Japan and discussed to

death over there for years.<P>

 

The lens got some unique bokeh, I'll give you that. Whether it is pleasing to

most people is rather obvious though.<P>

 

One review of many that mention the fact: <a href=http://www.photo.net/equipment/

canon/70-300do_2/>http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/</a>

<P>

This one reminds me of OOF saline droplets on microscope slides:<P><img

src=http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/Herring_gull_100_crop_web.jpg>

[fred_c1]

Ah shucks. Here's the proper HTML version:<P>

I don't know about you, but the 70-300mm DO lens is not "normal" in anyway to

me.<P>

 

Those "bullseye" highlights (or more exactly bright concentric rings) are

caused by the diffractive element, a fact well-known in Japan and discussed to

death over there for years.<P>

 

The lens got some unique bokeh, I'll give you that. Whether it is pleasing to

most people is rather obvious though.<P>

 

One review of many that mention the fact: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-

300do_2/

<P>

This one reminds me of OOF saline droplets on microscope slides:<P><img

src=http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/Herring_gull_100_crop_web.jpg>

[eric merrill]

"So fix it! [my broken 50/1.4]"

 

It's not the issue of the $90 to repair it. I don't trust the 50/1.4 anymore. It just quit working without any warning and without any trauma. It's the only lens I've had in the past 20+ years to simply fail without any apparent reason. Maybe I've been lucky. Maybe the 50/1.4 is poorly designed. The last thing I want is a lens that I have to worry is going to quit at me while I'm shooting.

 

I don't see any point in throwing good money after bad.

 

 

Eric

[correct_exposure]

Fred, let us try and stick to the question Jose raised. You can email me about the DO or raise the issue to the forum and see who see's these bullseyes in their photos. My point was, he could get a combo of lenses for the price of the 35L.

 

Jose, the 35L is a great lens, you simply can not go wrong with it on either body. For the price however, on a 5D, I would go with the 50L or 24L. They are just more dramatic.

[Ian Taylor]

My main combo these days is the 5D + 35/1.4. Hugely useful.

[del_bomberger1]

The 5D (or 1DsMarkIII) and the 35 mm 1.4 make a great walk around combo. I am continually amazed at how sharp the 35mm for the 20x30 prints that are my standard.