Is it worth getting a 50L when I have the 35L?

[sootyvrs]

I'm loving the 35L which I'm using on my 30D and just wanted to ask your opinion if a 50L is too close in focal length to the 35L to make it worthwhile?

I have thought about the 85L but I already have a 85/1.8 which produces very good pictures but on my 30D, it's just a little tight indoors which is why I'm thinking about the 50L (80mm equiv.)

Main use is portrait type shots. The 35L when close up does show some distortion for head and shoulder type shots on a crop.

[Jim G]

Have you considered a 50mm 1.4? It's pretty darn good in its own right and if you're happy with the 85/1.8 over the 85L you may well be happy with the 50/1.4 over the 50L... it's a darn sight cheaper and very good optically.

[sootyvrs]

I did consider the 50/1.4 but from what I have read, it's a little soft at the wider apetures. I know it's very sharp from f2.8 but I already have my 17-55 which I think is very good wide open.

I'm only looking at primes which are very good wide open or very close to wide open.

I think I have been spoilt with the 35L as it's very sharp @ f1.4.

[evan_d]

I think I have been spoilt with the 35L as it's very sharp @ f1.4.

Then walk a few feet closer. ;) And you won't need a 50.

Er, just read your original post about distortion. I don't know. That's a lot of money for a lens so similar in focal length... perhaps you could try to get a sharp copy of the 50/1.4?

[Jim G]

I did consider the 50/1.4 but from what I have read, it's a little soft at the wider apetures. I know it's very sharp from f2.8 but I already have my 17-55 which I think is very good wide open.

I'm only looking at primes which are very good wide open or very close to wide open.

I think I have been spoilt with the 35L as it's very sharp @ f1.4.

My 50 1.4 is very pleasingly sharp at f/2 and a little soft at 1.4. 1.4 is definitely usable - improves to quite sharp by 2 and is a little better again by 2.8.

Copy variation is always going to play a part, I suppose...

[radiohead]

How often do you plan on shooting headshots at f1.2? I'll wager hardly ever if only for the minute DOF. What exactly do your current lenses lack?

Is it needed when you have the 35 and 85mm's? Not really, IMO, especially when you have the 17-55.

Are you earning from photography and feel that you need to invest serious money at 50mm? If so then go for it. Do you simply have the money burning a hole in your pocket? If so, then go for it.

BTW, the 50/1.4 is very usable well below f2.8.

[sootyvrs]

Yes, I have some cash to spend and it's a hobby ;)

[tim]

35 is too short for portraits unless you want to show the environment, 50's ok but too close to the 35 to bother. 100mm F2.8 USM macro is great but a bit long. 70-200 is probably a good tradeoff, even the F4 if you can move the people away from the background. What do you hope to gain with the 50 F1.2 over the 1.4? You'd very very rarely use F1.2 for a portrait, even F2 is often too narrow a DOF if you're close to the subject IMHO.

[tim]

btw my 50 1.4 isn't very sharp at F1.4, is ok at F2, and is good at F2.8.

[radiohead]

35 is too short for portraits unless you want to show the environment, 50's ok but too close to the 35 to bother. 100mm F2.8 USM macro is great but a bit long. 70-200 is probably a good tradeoff, even the F4 if you can move the people away from the background. What do you hope to gain with the 50 F1.2 over the 1.4? You'd very very rarely use F1.2 for a portrait, even F2 is often too narrow a DOF if you're close to the subject IMHO.

This is what I'm driving at.

If you've got the money and want to spend it then do it - no-one else can decide for you. But ask yourself what you're getting over what you have.

IMO you've already got plenty of good glass.

[sootyvrs]

I think I'm just suffering from some L prime fever after getting my 35L.

I want to be a bit more creative with some of my photography, which is why I went for the 35L.

I want a lens that will give me the option to go wide open and still perform very well. Not a need but a want....

I also have the excellent zooms which does me fine for most purposes but the ability to play with very narrow DOF is opening a new window of creative photography for me.

I was going to get a 5D but have decided to spend it on glass instead, hence the question.

[tim]

I can't see that more lenses will help. I'd suggest investing your money in education - take classes with some of the best in the area you're most interested in, then purchase some lighting equipment. Books are cheap and a good way to improve, there are some recommended in a thread in my sig. Books bought through that thread get POTN referral dollars.

[shaunknee]

Sootyvrs,

I had the 50 1.4 and really enjoyed the focal length. It definitely produces different pictures to the 35. I didn’t like the softness at 1.4 with the 50.

The 85L seems to get better reviews then the 50L. The 50 seems to suffer from some focus issues within 3 feet. You might want to look hard at the 85.

The post above me is very true. I've taken a few courses and really benefited from them. My speedlight has made a world of difference.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=31&sort=7&cat=2&page=3

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=305&sort=7&cat=2&page=2

[sootyvrs]

I can't see that more lenses will help. I'd suggest investing your money in education - take classes with some of the best in the area you're most interested in, then purchase some lighting equipment.

It's already on the list to do, love to get involved in some glamour / studio work for fun although these aren't the type of shots I take. I don't plan to be make any money from this but just to take pictures, mainly of my kids, family and friends. Mainly candid, informal shots rather than regimented poses.

May thanks for your pointers re. books.

[nicksan]

sootyvrs,

So did you decide on the 50?

You know, I'm trying to set things up in a similar way as you are.
I've got my main zoom lenses for my 5D...24-105, 70-200(f2.8 IS but soon to be f4 IS), and the 100-400. I am going to sell my 16-35 since I don't go that wide too often.

I just bought a used 135L that I should get next week. I still have some cash left for more gear.

So I'm looking at a used 35L. (I guess I'll wait for a bargain like in the $800's...then snatch it up)

But then, I'm thinking, do I need my 50mm 1.4? Seems too close to the 35L. I have both a FF and crop body so actually the 35L would work out nicely on my 30D...

I already have a 100mm macro. So I'm thinking maybe I should get myself the 85 1.8 to kind of complete the picture like this:

35L
85 1.8
100 Macro
135L 2.0

I mean, I guess I can keep the 50 1.4 since it's like $250...

Well I guess you can make the same statement for the 85 1.8 and the 100 macro. They are also 15mm apart so...but I use the 100 Macro strictly for macro. It's a great lens, but that's my MACRO lens!

Man, this is killing me!!!

[sootyvrs]

I think the 50L might have to wait for now as I've recently pulled the plug on the 135L.

My plan so far is for a possible move to FF and the way I'm going, I need to slow down a little and be careful that I don't get too much equipment that just won't get used.

My style of photography is more close up than at distance and I'm seriously thinking about selling the 70-200/4 L IS. This lens is an absolute gem but I rarely take it out of the bag mainly because I sense the "White" lens draws too much attention that my subjects (kids in particular) feel a little uncomfortable when I take pics. I think 135mm is long enough, especially on a crop for what I need plus it has the magical bokeh we all know of.

I have thought about keeping the 30D to use with 17-55 and 70-200 for more general/travel use and maybe get a 5D to use Prime only as a specialist combo with 35L, 85/1.8, 135L and maybe slip in a 50L in between and/or get the 85L.

These are just ideas but like I said earlier, I need to slow down otherwise I will end up with equipment that simply won't get used.

All part of the fun ;)

[nicksan]

I think the 50L might have to wait for now as I've recently pulled the plug on the 135L.

My plan so far is for a possible move to FF and the way I'm going, I need to slow down a little and be careful that I don't get too much equipment that just won't get used.

My style of photography is more close up than at distance and I'm seriously thinking about selling the 70-200/4 L IS. This lens is an absolute gem but I rarely take it out of the bag mainly because I sense the "White" lens draws too much attention that my subjects (kids in particular) feel a little uncomfortable when I take pics. I think 135mm is long enough, especially on a crop for what I need plus it has the magical bokeh we all know of.

I have thought about keeping the 30D to use with 17-55 and 70-200 for more general/travel use and maybe get a 5D to use Prime only as a specialist combo with 35L, 85/1.8, 135L and maybe slip in a 50L in between and/or get the 85L.

These are just ideas but like I said earlier, I need to slow down otherwise I will end up with equipment that simply won't get used.

All part of the fun ;)

I hear ya!

35L, 85 1.8 135L sounds like a sweet lineup.
I've got the 100 Macro in there...but still trying to figure out whether keeping the 50 1.4 makes any sense...

[tmr]

I think the 50L might have to wait for now as I've recently pulled the plug on the 135L.

I have thought about keeping the 30D to use with 17-55 and 70-200 for more general/travel use and maybe get a 5D to use Prime only as a specialist combo with 35L, 85/1.8, 135L and maybe slip in a 50L in between and/or get the 85L.


I think 50mm would fit a gap for your indoor portrait. I didn't care for the 35L for that. When you get a 50 I'd see if you like the 50/1.4 first. If it suits your needs then you save some $. If not you can get the 50L and do whatever with the 1.4 (it only a couple hundred bucks). That's what I should have done but I got the 50L because the reports on the 1.4 are all over the place. I think I'm happier with the 50L than the 1.4 even though my copy has the close focus issue, but of course I'll never know. I did the reverse with the 85, getting the 1.8 over the L. In that case I didn't think the advantages of the L justified the price over the 1.8. I've been very happy with the 1.8 and doubt I'll ever spring for the L.

[mebailey]

I have both so obviously I would say yes to your question. I actually use the 50L much more than the 35L on my 5D.

[incendy]

The bokeh from the 50L is a lot better than the 35L and the 50 1.4 if that helps at all

[Pasukun]

sootyvrs,

Most of your lenses are newly bought, and you bought several of them.
So why don't you give them a good workout 1st?
By then you should know clearly if you need or not need the 50L.

[Quad]

I have both so obviously I would say yes to your question. I actually use the 50L much more than the 35L on my 5D.


Ahh but which one gives you more keepers and A1 shots? Is there a difference there or are good shots in direct proportion to the use?

[mebailey]

Ahh but which one gives you more keepers and A1 shots? Is there a difference there or are good shots in direct proportion to the use?

Tough question for me to answer because I have messed up shots with both lenses! If pressed I would say I get more keepers with the 35L but my shooting habits dont lead me to use it as much as I should...If that makes any sense!??:oops:

[Quad]

Tough question for me to answer because I have messed up shots with both lenses! If pressed I would say I get more keepers with the 35L but my shooting habits dont lead me to use it as much as I should...If that makes any sense!??:oops:

Makes total sense but it does not make choosing lenses any easier.

I suspect if someone found a lens with which they never messed up shots they would never want any other lens. A magic lens is hard to refuse.

[sootyvrs]

sootyvrs,

Most of your lenses are newly bought, and you bought several of them.
So why don't you give them a good workout 1st?
By then you should know clearly if you need or not need the 50L.

Thanks Pakusun, as I mentioned above. I have got a little carried away with L prime fever of late. It doesn't help getting such an excellent copy of the 35L but like you said. Time to start giving my new lenses a good workout. It's not that I haven't got 50mm covered with the not so bad 17-55 ;)

I blame it on these forums :lol:

[blue_max]

I have a 135L and sold my 70-200 zoom and have never looked back. But the prime does take both the 1.4x and 2x extenders very well, so that is worth considering if you need extra (oops, I see you have the 1.4x, but the 2x is useful too - and it can be stacked for fun).

I have the 50f1.4 as it's a little gem. Light, relatively inexpensive, fast and sharp.

I also had the 85f1.5, but sold it as it was just as easy to use the 50 or 135L (in fact you look for reasons to use the 135). The 85mm came even before the 50 and I used it a whole lot more then. It's a great lens, but on a 1.6x crop camera, it's a little long for indoors (unless you are going for head/shoulders).

Graham

[Double Negative]

I have the 35mm f/1.4L and the ol' standby 50mm f/1.8 Mark I. Having used a 1.6x body and now a 1.3x body - quite honestly, I just about never use the 50mm.

If I were shooting full frame, I'd be much more interested in the 50mm.

[Pasukun]

Yeah 17-55 IS is a sweet lens.
70-200 f/4 IS is even sweeter. :)

Enjoy them.

Thanks Pakusun, as I mentioned above. I have got a little carried away with L prime fever of late. It doesn't help getting such an excellent copy of the 35L but like you said. Time to start giving my new lenses a good workout. It's not that I haven't got 50mm covered with the not so bad 17-55 ;)

I blame it on these forums :lol: