Is the 35mm 2.0 or the 50mm 1.4 better in low light in your experience?

I find 50mn to be almost useless on my T1i. Way too narrow even for outdoors.
Flash and Rebel kit lens will outperform 50 1.4 no flash in low light.
24-105, 18-55 and flash will do.
This is 35mm F4 and flash in total darkness..

The second picture is, IMO, very unflattering.
The perspective of the 30 makes her nose look huge, and the flash makes every skin defect very apparent.
I would have used my 50, stepped back a bit, used a 2.0 aperture or so, and pushed ISO enough to get sufficient shutter speed. The picture would maybe have been a bit noisy, but with a lot more atmosphere.

The difference in maximum aperture doesn't mean as much as you might think. It is usually OK to hold the 35 at 1/60 and the 50mm lens requires at least 1/80 to avoid the effects of hand movement while holding the lens. Also, many people don't want to shoot the 50 at f1.4, since their copies are a little soft there. Mine is pretty good at f1.4, but indoors, I like larger f stops with the 50 - like f1.8 to increase depth of field. Even if you want to shoot the 50 at f1.4, the difference is not a full stop, because of the need for most people for higher shutte speeds with the 50.
Focal length does matter here. The 50 is now in a lens case, but often winds up on a second body, while the camera I often reach for has the 35 on it.
My answer to the original question is still that they are both very good in low light, but I use my 35f2 more.
Now, the 35f1.4 - that is a different issue entirely.

artyH wrote in post #13497484
The difference in maximum aperture doesn't mean as much as you might think. It is usually OK to hold the 35 at 1/60 and the 50mm lens requires at least 1/80 to avoid the effects of hand movement while holding the lens. Also, many people don't want to shoot the 50 at f1.4, since their copies are a little soft there. Mine is pretty good at f1.4, but indoors, I like larger f stops with the 50 - like f1.8 to increase depth of field. Even if you want to shoot the 50 at f1.4, the difference is not a full stop, because of the need for most people for higher shutte speeds with the 50.
Focal length does matter here. The 50 is now in a lens case, but often winds up on a second body, while the camera I often reach for has the 35 on it.
My answer to the original question is still that they are both very good in low light, but I use my 35f2 more.
Now, the 35f1.4 - that is a different issue entirely.

What is the different issue with the 35mm 1.4 ArtyH?