Canon 'L' Primes - 35mm or 50mm ....

[h4rri]

I've just been told I have a grand coming from a relative who recently passed. I'm looking to put this into a lens as this is something I would use regularly and would be unlikely to sell in the future.

I've narrowed it down to the Canon 35mm f/1.2 L or the Canon 50mm f/1.4 L as these are both sub £1k and in the range I want. I can see the 50mm being closer to what I want but was looking for opinions on both.

The lens would be used on a full frame body [5D for now and ultimately a 1Ds3] and mainly for portraits etc.

Thoughts?

[salubrious_k]

This is exactly the decision I was making just the other day. Went for the 35mm in the end. (BTW you've got your max apertures mixed up).

The 50mm just seems to soft at the edges from everything I've read, and all the tests I've viewed.

Plus at the 50mm focal length you have the choice of two much cheaper but still very good lenses.

Here's a few links for you:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...=0&FLI=0&API=1

MTF charts:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...review?start=1

The user reviews on fredmiranda.com were also much more in favour of the 35mm.

BTW I should point out that the lens hasn't arrived yet, hopefully will come next week.

[T0MAT01]

harri, the 50 f/1.4 isn't an L lens, do you mean the 50 f/1.2L ?

[h4rri]

Originally Posted by T0MAT01

harri, the 50 f/1.4 isn't an L lens, do you mean the 50 f/1.2L ?

Yeah LOL

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

The 50mm just seems to soft at the edges from everything I've read, and all the tests I've viewed.

Plus at the 50mm focal length you have the choice of two much cheaper but still very good lenses.

Odd, the reviews I was reading stated the 35 was soft and had vignetting on FF bodies down to f/2

They favoured the 50mm. Have tried the 50 f/1.8 and didn't like the results.

[edddie_veddder]

I have the 50mm 1.4 and love it. Its a little soft at 1.4 but very sharp stoped down. Its only about £200. Have you considdered a 85mm f1.2 ? i'm sure Radiohead could let you know he got on with his before he turned to the dark side

[h4rri]

Originally Posted by edddie_veddder

I have the 50mm 1.4 and love it. Its a little soft at 1.4 but very sharp stoped down. Its only about £200. Have you considdered a 85mm f1.2 ? i'm sure Radiohead could let you know he got on with his before he turned to the dark side

I did consider the 85mm but wondered if it was a little long for my needs. It's also over the £1k threshold but I could live with that for the right lens

[Radiohead]

The 35 every time. The 50L design means it back-focuses at near to close and close focus distance. It's better than the 50/1.4 from f1.2 to f2.8, but above that the 50 1.4 outperforms it. It does, however, have far better resistance to flare, a far better build, faster AF with true ring USM rather than the micro USM of the f1.4. It does vignette a little, but I find that no bad thing (and the 1.4 does it as well). The f1.4 suffers from halation until f2 which gives it a dreamy look sometimes.

You can get an 85L for under £1k but it's a more specialist lens - the decision comes down to whether you want to shoot wider (and therefore the 35mm), or more into head/head-shoulder territory (and therefore the 85mm)

[h4rri]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

You can get an 85L for under £1k but it's a more specialist lens - the decision comes down to whether you want to shoot wider (and therefore the 35mm), or more into head/head-shoulder territory (and therefore the 85mm)

Thanks

Definately more interested in the 35mm than the 85mm, I would be looking more at the wide [and walkabout] range as this isn't something I would use for a specific purpose.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by h4rri

Thanks

Definately more interested in the 35mm than the 85mm, I would be looking more at the wide [and walkabout] range as this isn't something I would use for a specific purpose.

In that case I'd go for the 35/1.4

[salubrious_k]

Originally Posted by h4rri

Odd, the reviews I was reading stated the 35 was soft and had vignetting on FF bodies down to f/2

They favoured the 50mm. Have tried the 50 f/1.8 and didn't like the results.

Yes the 35mm 1.4 does suffer from vignetting, I don't think that's going to worry me though as I often quite like vignetting and will add it artificially during post-processing LOL

As to the soft edges, I may be getting confused with the 24mm, as that was another lens I was considering. What Radiohead says about back-focusing rings a bell, I think it may have been this, and the excellent value non-L 50mm f1.4 that made me want to go for the 35mm instead. (Well actually in my case, I was trying to decide between the 135mm f2 and the 35mm f1.4 by the end)

[tomson]

Aperture have a used 35/1.4L listed... http://www.apertureuk.com/used-Can.htm

[Luffy]

You say mainly for portraits in which case I would go for the 50mm which is still a slight telephoto even on a full frame body

[Radiohead]

But he already has one of the best portrait lenses around in the 70-200/2.8IS....

[Luffy]

Don't deny it was his words not mine

[salubrious_k]

Well my 35L has arrived. Pretty damn quick considering I only ordered it on Wednesday morning from Hong Kong.

I'll try to post up some shots tomorrow.