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

h4rri · 29-02-2008, 2:54 PM

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 · 29-02-2008, 2:59 PM

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 · 29-02-2008, 3:00 PM

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

h4rri · 29-02-2008, 3:05 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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 · 29-02-2008, 3:11 PM

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 · 29-02-2008, 3:17 PM

Quote:

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 · 29-02-2008, 3:34 PM

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 · 29-02-2008, 3:42 PM

Quote:

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 · 29-02-2008, 3:46 PM

Quote:

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 · 29-02-2008, 3:54 PM

Quote:

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 · 29-02-2008, 4:08 PM

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

Luffy · 29-02-2008, 5:24 PM

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 · 29-02-2008, 5:25 PM

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

Luffy · 29-02-2008, 5:27 PM

Don't deny it was his words not mine

salubrious_k · 29-02-2008, 10:25 PM

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.

salubrious_k · 01-03-2008, 11:01 AM

Just had a quick "pixel peep" at my new 35L in comparison to my 24-70L. At f5.6 and above it generally seems much sharper (than the zoom). Below that, it tends to be a tiny bit weaker left of the center and at the left edge, it's as if my sweet spot is about 1/3 of the way from the centre to the right side of the image interestingly (anyone else find this with their lenses - I've noticed it before...). Even at f1.4 it is sharper just right of centre than the zoom at f2.8, but unsurprisingly it's fairly soft at the edges (left especially).

From a few trial shots so far the control over bokeh and low-light potential you get with f1.4 is just amazing. I'm popping round a friend's this afternoon, so I'll bring my camera and try to take some shots to show you later.

salubrious_k · 01-03-2008, 10:33 PM

h4rri - I've uploaded a few shots and put them in this thread:
I think I'm in Love

I'll try to put a few more there tomorrow when I have some time.

So far I'm very very impressed!

h4rri · 03-03-2008, 8:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

h4rri - I've uploaded a few shots and put them in this thread:
I think I'm in Love

I'll try to put a few more there tomorrow when I have some time.

So far I'm very very impressed!

Just seen them, lovely shots there and helps me decide on the 35

salubrious_k · 03-03-2008, 9:42 AM

I really don't think you'll be disappointed, I'm loving it so far.

Although I seem to have already convinced you, I'll say one more thing, I think with the 35mm, not only do you have a more creative control of DOF, but you can fairly well mimic the portrait possibilities of the 50mm, just by getting a bit closer. Obviously this involves you getting very close, about 2 feet, so you'd have to know someone, but generally you only take close portraits of people who know you anyway, in the case of street photography portraits I think the 35mm would shine (if I had the courage to use it that way) as you'd be able to photograph the person head to toe in their environment.

Anyway, I think I'm arguing a won cause here

h4rri · 03-03-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

Anyway, I think I'm arguing a won cause here

LOL yep