Anyone who has had or has the 35mm f1.4L and Canon 50mm f1.4...

Do you think there is a huge difference in IQ from the 35L to the 50 1.4? I want to get the 35mm f1.4L, but I can't decide if it's worth it considering I have the 50 f1.4 already. I would like to have a lens that is sharp at f1.4 and the 50 is really only decently good wide open, so is it worth it to upgrade? Will I notice a large difference in IQ between the two?

Also, not sure if it's worth mentioning, but in a few months I plan on getting the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II and the 17-40mm f4L and I plan on selling the 50mm (if I go for the 35L that is..)

Don't judge these 2 lenses in terms of IQ but ask yourself what focal length you desire.....sharpness isn't everything.

kin2son wrote in post #14024852
sharpness isn't everything.

Oh, please!

kin2son wrote in post #14024852
Don't judge these 2 lenses in terms of IQ but ask yourself what focal length you desire.....sharpness isn't everything.

Sharpness isn't everything, but it's a huge factor. It can make or break a lens. If the lens isn't sharp wide-open, what's the point of paying for the wide aperture? The 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are close enough where I don't think I would miss the 50mm if I only had a 35mm, so that's why I am asking about IQ of the 35. If it's not that much better, why would I pay 4x more for the L? That's why I want to know.

cheezz wrote in post #14024888
Oh, please!

oh please what?

KenBPhotos wrote in post #14024928
Sharpness isn't everything, but it's a huge factor. It can make or break a lens. If the lens isn't sharp wide-open, what's the point of paying for the wide aperture? The 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are close enough where I don't think I would miss the 50mm if I only had a 35mm, so that's why I am asking about IQ of the 35. If it's not that much better, why would I pay 4x more for the L? That's why I want to know.

Well isn't it a little bit unfair to the 50 1.4 then? If you really have to compare, you should compare 35L and 50L.

Anyway, I'd say yes 35L is sharper than the 50 1.4 @ f1.4 that's for sure. Is that really a surprise to you? Like you said, you are paying 4X more in the end.

KenBPhotos wrote in post #14024501
Do you think there is a huge difference in IQ from the 35L to the 50 1.4? I want to get the 35mm f1.4L, but I can't decide if it's worth it considering I have the 50 f1.4 already. I would like to have a lens that is sharp at f1.4 and the 50 is really only decently good wide open, so is it worth it to upgrade? Will I notice a large difference in IQ between the two?

If you are defining IQ as sharpness, then you probably won't see a huge difference. The 35L is certainly sharper in the central portion of the frame wide open, but has to be stopped down some for the outer zones to sharpen up.

That said, IQ encompasses more than just sharpness, and the 35L is clearly the superior lens overall. The 50/1.4 has muddy colors with relatively poor tonal transitions and an abrupt transition from in-focus to out of focus that can be somewhat unappealing. Of course, if you aren't seeing these issues with the 50 and are just looking for pixel-peeping sharpness, then maybe the upgrade to the 35 isn't worth it for you.

kin2son wrote in post #14024972
Well isn't it a little bit unfair to the 50 1.4 then? If you really have to compare, you should compare 35L and 50L.

Anyway, I'd say yes 35L is sharper than the 50 1.4 @ f1.4 that's for sure. Is that really a surprise to you? Like you said, you are paying 4X more in the end.

I don't think I would compare the 35L and 50L. The 50L seems to do one thing, f1.2. It doesn't seem to be particularly sharp, especially across the corners, until f4. And even there it is not impressive for a prime. The DOF you can achieve with the 50 1.2 is pretty mind blowing, but it's too much of a specialty type lens. The 35L seems to be a great general use prime lens and is very sharp all over the range. This is based on tests and what I have read. I just wanted to confirm this from a few more people before I bite on the 35 L.

Also, even though the 35mm f1.4L lens is 4x more, I just don't see it performing 4x as good as the 50mm f1.4, so that's why it actually would be a huge surprise. The 50mm f1.4 performs very well, ESPECIALLY for the price. Probably the best bang for your buck lens going, but I would like to hear from a few more people that the 35mm L is really something special before I buy it.

I'm not trying to be defensive or sarcastic in any way. We're all entitled to our opinions. So again, this is from what I have heard and the tests that I have seen on the lenses.

kin2son wrote in post #14024963
oh please what?

Second this.

kin2son wrote in post #14024963
oh please what?

If I'm gonna pay that much money for an L lens it better be frickin' sharp.

cheezz wrote in post #14025325
If I'm gonna pay that much money for an L lens it better be frickin' sharp.

sharpness isn't everything does not imply sharpness is nothing (is not important)
I would be sad if I pay that much money for sharpness alone. You can get your kit lens pretty sharp if stop down.

And in fact, for comparing the two lens 50 1.4 and 35L, sharpness isn't really the priority, because we know for a fact they aren't that far away from each other in terms of sharpness wide open. It's all come down to focal length and image rendering (color, contrast, bokeh, and of course we can not exclude sharpness but it isn't the top priority in this sort of comparison.)

There's no doubt that the 35L is sharper than the 50 1.4. The 35L makes the subject in focus pop out more compared to the 50 1.4. And the 35L has more contrast.

So. I have the 50mm 1.2. I use it on the 5D mk2.
I bought a 35 1.4L a few weeks ago as I found a great deal and couldnt miss out (35L and 17-55 2.8 for $1150 combined). I was worried that the focal ranges would cross over.

They don't, the 35L will now be used indoors over the 501.2.

In terms of image quality, I have found the 35L to be as good as the 50L right now....So I would assume it is better than the 50 1.4.

FWIW, I use the 35/2 and 50/1.4. I borrowed a friend's 35L and decided it was worth buying. I like the color and contrast of the L better than non-L. The AF is nicer.

Is it worth 4x the price? Only if you want something better than the 50/1.4 and want to stick with Canon.

BTW, I wouldn't sell your 50/1.4. It's really light. I just picked up the 35L, 85L, and 70-200/2.8L IS II. Those three L lens plus 5D2 results in a 12lb camera bag.

There's times when I want to go light and having the light-weight standard primes are big pluses.

So Ken, I just read your comment. I was so impressed with the 35L that my most recent engagement session, I used the 35L about 95% of the time, over the 50L. I wont use the 35L for strict portraits, but environmental portraits, walk around, it is my go to now.