This decision is 'L

[steve-o UK]

Hi all. I'm a long time lurker, really enjoy this forum and have now registered finally :)

After weeks and weeks of deliberation I'm about to get a 35mm f1.4L to go with my 85mm f1.2L for low-light weddings (I use a 5D). Please can you convince me this is the best decision I've ever made and worth every penny?!

Thanks!

[Woolburr]

Welcome to the forum....Sorry...but a 24-70 would be a better choice in my book...35 isn't a focal length that sees a lot of use on my FF bodies.

[dave.richards]

Or if you want to stick with primes I would recommend the 24mm 1.4L over the 35mm, especially on a full frame body.

[steve-o UK]

Thanks both. I've also got a 24-105mm f4L - I just need something at the wide end that's faster than f4 (and has less distortion for the formals). I thought about the 24-70 but didn't think one stop would be a big enough improvement...the 24mm appeals too though. I may get a 30D as a backup which would make the 24mm a lot more versatile than the 35mm...hmmm...going in circles again!

[Woolburr]

The 24-70 is one of the most popular wedding lenses out there. Check over in the wedding forum. Lots of happy campers....

[spooney]

Thanks both. I've also got a 24-105mm f4L - I just need something at the wide end that's faster than f4 (and has less distortion for the formals). I thought about the 24-70 but didn't think one stop would be a big enough improvement...the 24mm appeals too though. I may get a 30D as a backup which would make the 24mm a lot more versatile than the 35mm...hmmm...going in circles again!

That's exactly why I'm getting the 35L next week - I have considered the 24-70L but in low light f/2.8 often still isn't enough. On the other hand f/1.4 gives you three stops more light, a big difference. At to 24 vs 35, I find 35mm to be a reasonably wide focal length on full-frame that doesn't give that "wide-angle look" you start to get at 24mm especially when shooting close up.

[steve-o UK]

Thanks Spooney, looks like we have a similar logic. I used to shoot a lot of 35mm focal length with film SLR's, went rangefinder and found I preferred 50mm (no idea why) but am now getting back into 35mm with my DSLR. With the 24-105mm most of my shots are either at the 30-40mm end or the 80-100mm end - very little wider or inbetween so I think I could do a whole wedding with primes (as long as I had the zoom in the bag just in case).

[Woolburr]

That's exactly why I'm getting the 35L next week - I have considered the 24-70L but in low light f/2.8 often still isn't enough. On the other hand f/1.4 gives you three stops more light, a big difference. At to 24 vs 35, I find 35mm to be a reasonably wide focal length on full-frame that doesn't give that "wide-angle look" you start to get at 24mm especially when shooting close up.

Actually...f/1.4 to f/2.8 is a difference of two full stops...not three.

1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 is the full stop progression.

[spooney]

Actually...f/1.4 to f/2.8 is a difference of two full stops...not three.

1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 is the full stop progression.

Sorry I should have been a little clearer - I was comparing both the 24-70 and the 35 to the 24-105, hence one stop advantage with the 24-70 and three stops with the 35. :)

[Tincam]

The 35L will give you better results than any zoom that covers this focal length, and is more versatile in more lighting conditions. It's one of Canon's very best lenses and definitely worth every penny.

[cdifoto]

Please can you convince me this is the best decision I've ever made and worth every penny?!

Thanks!

You havva casha? You getta lensa! Capeesh?


How'd I do? :)

[Bill Roberts]

You'll love it! the 35mm f/1.4 is a superb lens.

[Dorman]

Those two primes would be great if they were coupled with a fast zoom as well.

What about doing something like, 35 or 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and the 24-70 F/2.8 L?

[ayotnoms]

You will find little to be disappointed with using the 35L. It will give that extra width when you need it on the 5D and will be a good fit if you get a 30D later.

If you decide a zoom will be more versatile, you can't go wrong with a 24-70mm either....

Decisions Decisions Decisions

:)

[Mark_Cohran]

The 35 L is one of my favorite lenses. I doubt you'll have any complaints.

Mark

[Steiglitz]

Welcome to the forum....Sorry...but a 24-70 would be a better choice in my book...35 isn't a focal length that sees a lot of use on my FF bodies.


You could not be more wrong.....I have those three lensess and the 35L is ideal for weddings, as is the the 85L...in fact I could shoot an entire wedding with just those two lenses. The 35L is often used on full frame cameras.

The 24-70L is too slow, F2.8 too slow for indoor events especially available light shots...for indoor events, weddings best to go fast wide and standard primes. The 85L is perhaps the longest I often go with primes for weddings.

[Steiglitz]

Or if you want to stick with primes I would recommend the 24mm 1.4L over the 35mm, especially on a full frame body.

I have the 24L and 35L and let me tell you the 24L is not half the lense of the 35L...the 24L is not as sharp...and wide open it is bearly okay...even after two calibrations... the 24L is perhaps the most disappointing L prime Canon makes, maybe only 2nd to the 14L. On the other hand, the 35L is perhaps in the top 3 L primes Canon makes.

[jdos2]

The 35 is one of the nicest Canon lenses I've ever used. I'd have no problem sticking it on a body and using it for a wedding. It'd be for those common bride-and-friends/family shots-full body (on a 135-film sized sensor) or a head and shoulders portrait lens.

Image quality is very, very good. Color is nice.

It's a pleasing drawing.

[steve-o UK]

Thanks all for your comments - much appreciated.