Advice: looking at 35L vs. others, please share experience.

I'll try to make this clear and brief.

I have a 5dmkii that I shoot with 99% of the time.

My favorite lens is my 85Lii (3 years now), I'd sell my kidney to keep it. I'd love a wider version of that lens.

Until recently, I had a Canon 28mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 as well. I'm considering replacing them. I was thinking about replacing the Canon 28mm, but getting a Sigma 50mm f1.4 instead of the Canon 50mm. I had a Sigma 30 years back and LOVED that lens, so I'd love the same quality in a 50mm. The Canon 50mm f1.4 was decent, but i found the bokeh busy sometimes, and the wide-open haze and low contrast annoying, and wonder if the Sigma would make me happy (i think it would). I really liked the Canon 50 above f2.0

However, as I was sitting down and looking at the money I've saved up to buy another 28mm and 50mm (whether canon or sigma), I found that I might be closer to a used 35L than I realized. So here is my situation:

-I like the 50mm as a general, one-lens walk around kit with my 5d. Or if I took a zoom, I could throw the 50 in the bag just for fun, if I want DOF, or a not-wide-not-tight low light lens.

-The 28mm was a good prime, and irreplaceable when I needed it. I found it sharper and better in CA than rumor says it is. I didn't use it as much as the 50mm though. I had it mainly because I wasn't happy with the 50mm being my widest low-light lens, so it was mostly a supplement to my most useful prime, my 50.

-I've never had a 35mm prime. I wonder if it's close enough to 50mm to satisfy that need, but also wide enough to satisfy my need to have a fast prime wider than 50mm, i.e. my 28mm. I have other wider lenses for things like landscapes and architecture shots.

So the question is, is it worth giving up a 50mm+28mm+some money to get a 35L? How bad is the 35L CA (I don't find my 85L or my previous 28f1.8 too annoying)? Is the 35 a good "one-lens" replacement for my 28+50? Maybe a 35L and then a 50mm f1.8 a little later so I have a tiny lens I can throw in the bag as a "just in case prime" when taking one zoom for lazy zoo/beach/snapshot pictures?

One more note I just thought of:

I walk around with just my 85L sometimes, but it really isn't wide enough to fit that role perfectly.

One reason I like walking around with the 50mm is because it was wide enough to include more in the picture (unlike my 85), but long enough to still diffuse the background and isolate the subject (which my 28 was too wide to do). As far as DOF and diffusing the background/foreground, does the 35L act like the 28mm, or can it isolate like the 50f1.4? Numerically, 35 is closer to 28 than it is to 50, so it makes me wonder.

If you want similar color/contrast/saturat​ion/lack of CA as the 85L II, you should look at the 24L II instead of the 35L.

would love too, but 1. might be just out reach financially, 2. I think it's definitely too wide for me.

I was dying for a 24L back when using a crop, but now, I think it would be too wide for me.

When I shot film, the 28 never was used. For travel, I used a zoom. For people shots, I'd use a longer lens when I used a prime (85f1.7). For macro, I used macro lenses.
My first camera was a Canon rangefinder with a 40mm lens. I used it for everything, but always preferred a little longer lens.
The 35 would be closer to an all purpose lens, but I wouldn't want to give up a normal focal length on any camera. If you can swing it, I'd try to keep the 50f1.4 and save up for the 35f1.4.
This is coming from someone who uses a Canon 35f2 on a crop....my favorite focal length.

bkdc wrote in post #10547169
If you want similar color/contrast/saturat​ion/lack of CA as the 85L II, you should look at the 24L II instead of the 35L.

This^ The 24L II is the very close to the 85 except I think it probably handles the CA better.

The 24L is a great lens, and I've definitely lusted over it in the past. The v.2 is just that much better than the first one was.

The problem is that I'm a 'little' worried that the 35L might be too wide for me already. The 28mm I had was usually too wide for me to use as a walk around lens, and the 24L is even wider.

I wonder also if the gap between 24L and my 85L might be too much and leave me wanting something for the middle. Unfortunately, my 50 f1.4 is gone already.

I loved my 35L on my 5DII and to me, to a certain extent it is a one lens solution. The only exception is landscapes, a 28/24 is great for landscape, the 35L is a bit long for my use. If you do a lot of walkaround general shooting, I'd ditch the 28 and 50 for the 35L in a heartbeat. To isolate like the 50 you'll have to move closer. Sometimes that's a good think though.

I have both the 24L and the 35L. Of the two, the 35L is a much better focal range for an all around lens. That combined with the 85 are an excellent combination.

For weddings I like my 24L, 45TS and 50L combo because I like to stay wide and include a lot of context within my images. My wife uses the 35 and 85 though and loves it. So it partly depends on your preference, but I would strongly recommend the 35L as a great length and quality lens. Even though it is wider than the 85, it still gives terrific bokeh and image isolation when you want it.

Here's an example from the sample thread, you should browse it, but have you CC ready

when i was deciding on my line up, i went for a 50mm and 24mm, and left room there for a 35mm in the future. 35mm is a greal focal length, and it's a fair compromise between the 50mm and 24mm. i think the 35mm is the perfect walk around focal length.

i suggest going the sigma route. they have an excellent 50mm, also their 24mm f1.8 is great value as well. if you don't get the 28mm, that leaves room for a 35mm in the future.


later on i was deciding between the 35L and the zeiss 35mm ze. i ended up with the zeiss

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=868547

That's exactly what I shoot with. Sigma 24/50/150

There is no compromising with primes. 35mm will not replace 50.

Why don't you like 28mm very much? Do you not like wides that much, is it a little too short, too long, etc...

toxic wrote in post #10549122
There is no compromising with primes. 35mm will not replace 50.

Why don't you like 28mm very much? Do you not like wides that much, is it a little too short, too long, etc...

I thought the 28mm was a great lens when I had it before, and I recommend it to people looking in that range, but was usually not satisfied to have it as my only lens when walking around (though occasionally I only took it and had a great time), it was just a little too wide as an only lens.

I'm strongly leaning toward getting another 28f1.8 (just made an offer on one actually), and a Sigma 50; instead of a 35L.

I have the very wides covered, so I don't need a 28 to cover wide angles very often.

go 35L

I'd recommend the 35L. I had the exact dilemma. I have the 28f1.8 & 50f1.4 and was looking looking for something in the middle. The 50mm is much better at isolating subjects but not quite wide enough for my shooting style. The 28mm is wide but not great at isolating subjects. The 35L sits right in my sweet spot. It is sharp wide open and it gives your subjects a nice 'pop'. It's also got a much shorter MFD than the 50mm (30cm vs 50cm), this makes shooting the person sitting next to you much easier. The 35L is now stuck on my 5D2!

marcus riley wrote in post #10547050
I'll try to make this clear and brief.

I have a 5dmkii that I shoot with 99% of the time.

My favorite lens is my 85Lii (3 years now), I'd sell my kidney to keep it. I'd love a wider version of that lens.

Until recently, I had a Canon 28mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 as well. I'm considering replacing them. I was thinking about replacing the Canon 28mm, but getting a Sigma 50mm f1.4 instead of the Canon 50mm. I had a Sigma 30 years back and LOVED that lens, so I'd love the same quality in a 50mm. The Canon 50mm f1.4 was decent, but i found the bokeh busy sometimes, and the wide-open haze and low contrast annoying, and wonder if the Sigma would make me happy (i think it would). I really liked the Canon 50 above f2.0

However, as I was sitting down and looking at the money I've saved up to buy another 28mm and 50mm (whether canon or sigma), I found that I might be closer to a used 35L than I realized. So here is my situation:

-I like the 50mm as a general, one-lens walk around kit with my 5d. Or if I took a zoom, I could throw the 50 in the bag just for fun, if I want DOF, or a not-wide-not-tight low light lens.

-The 28mm was a good prime, and irreplaceable when I needed it. I found it sharper and better in CA than rumor says it is. I didn't use it as much as the 50mm though. I had it mainly because I wasn't happy with the 50mm being my widest low-light lens, so it was mostly a supplement to my most useful prime, my 50.

-I've never had a 35mm prime. I wonder if it's close enough to 50mm to satisfy that need, but also wide enough to satisfy my need to have a fast prime wider than 50mm, i.e. my 28mm. I have other wider lenses for things like landscapes and architecture shots.

So the question is, is it worth giving up a 50mm+28mm+some money to get a 35L? How bad is the 35L CA (I don't find my 85L or my previous 28f1.8 too annoying)? Is the 35 a good "one-lens" replacement for my 28+50? Maybe a 35L and then a 50mm f1.8 a little later so I have a tiny lens I can throw in the bag as a "just in case prime" when taking one zoom for lazy zoo/beach/snapshot pictures?