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

Sounds like you have your mind pretty much made up, OP. But, having owned both, I'll give you my 2 cents fwiw.

They're different lenses. The 35 is built better with better AF and is slightly sharper, but if a 50 is what you need/want then you won't be entirely happy with the 35mm FL.

Probably the best thing is to try it. If you have the cash to do it without selling your 50 you can compare and see for yourself.

I had both. Personally, I don't like the color from 50 1.4 which I think muted. I prefer the 35L much more mainly for its color, contrast, and build quality.
I have sold them both and now use the Zeiss counterparts, which I think better for my needs (mainly static objects), and havent looked back since.

Btw, 35mm focal length works better for me. If I have to choose one, 35mm is way to go. YMMV.

50/1.4 is an okay lens but don't expect good color contrast there... sharpness is good when stopped down to f/2.8.

KenBPhotos wrote in post #14025277
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.

Since when the L is ever 4x more of a lens compared to the younger siblings? Is 50L 4x of a lens compared to 50 1.4? Or 85L 5x the lens of 85 1.8? What about 35L vs 35/2? Is the L 4x the lens?

You get the idea.....

Don't judge a lens based on price.....you always pay the premium for that slight increase when you want the best.

Don't have canon 50mm f1.4 but sigma 50mm f1.4 and 35L. Both are quite nice, colors look good from both to me. Prefer 35L focal length wise.

stillinamerica wrote in post #14025406
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.

Did they clean the blood spills from them for you?

Oh, and jokes apart, about the topic: I have had the 50 1.4 and now have the 35L. All I can say is: GET IT! You'll love it!

Much sharper wide open (and I mean it!)
Faster AF
Way better build
Better colors and contrast
Way better bokeh

You get what you pay for and this is clearly the case. Only downside IMHO of the 35L is more CA wide open and that's not really easy to fix in post...

Your Flickr site contain a lot of landscape shots and I didn't notice many shots where you were shooting wide open. If you plan on buying a 17-40 and you'll continue shooting mainly landscapes, I'd suggest buying the 17-40 first to see if you still need a 35L. I have both the 35L and the 50 f/1.4 and use the 50 more for studio work on both the 5D and 7D and the 35 more for landscapes and environmental portraits.

The 35 is a little sharper than the 50, but IMHO it's main advantages are the color and contrast.

I have both, but have not used the 50 since getting the 35. The main reason is that I really like the FL and rending the 35L provides. The 35L is definitely very sharp wide open. I must say my 50 is also very sharp, but the 35L is just so special.

I have the 35L and 70-200L in my bag most of the time. I think the 2 lenses make a grab combo for FF.

sebr wrote in post #14029106
I have the 35L and 70-200L in my bag most of the time. I think the 2 lenses make a grab combo for FF.

I'm just beginning to discover how much I like the 35L and 70-200L combination. These two are my best lens. My 85L is excellent, but, unless I'm doing f/1.2 portraits, the 70-200L does the job.

The 35L is better. But when you need 50mm, use a 50mm lens. They may sound "close enough" on paper, but the two lenses render very different images.

bpark42 wrote in post #14025240
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.

This x1,000,000. I have both lenses and this comment describes my experience. The 35L is acceptably sharp wide open, but it gets much better stopped down a bit.

bob_r wrote in post #14028171
Your Flickr site contain a lot of landscape shots and I didn't notice many shots where you were shooting wide open. If you plan on buying a 17-40 and you'll continue shooting mainly landscapes, I'd suggest buying the 17-40 first to see if you still need a 35L. I have both the 35L and the 50 f/1.4 and use the 50 more for studio work on both the 5D and 7D and the 35 more for landscapes and environmental portraits.

The 35 is a little sharper than the 50, but IMHO it's main advantages are the color and contrast.

I ordered the 17-40mm f4L yesterday. I KNEW I was getting that lens, but wasn't sure about the 35mm.

I am going to get the 35mm L. My mind is made up, especially after looking at more sample images and from some of the comments on this thread. If you were in my situation, I think you would too...

I bought the 5D mkII w 24-105 from B&H about a week ago, but I ended up paying tax on it (I'm in Jersey and could have gotten it shipped from the store with no tax). Then, I noticed the price of the 5D mkII's on B&H were just lowered $200 because of mkIII. So now I can just exchange the 5D mkII w 24-105mm for the 5D mkII body and 35mm f1.4L for the same exact price. Actually I think I get $25 back I also just purchased the 17-40 after selling my 100mm macro, so I think I'll be set with the 35mm L, 50mm 1.4 and 17-40mm f4L for now. I'm saving for the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II now. So hopefully that can join my Domke bag in about a month. Thanks for all the help!