50mm f/1.2L vs 35mm f/1.4L

Something I personally did to determine what focal length to buy in a prime was open up a wedding I shot (since that's what I shoot the most of) and see what focal length I found myself shooting at the most. I had the 16-35 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8 as well as the 70-700 2.8 at the time and I found I shot the most around the 35mm focal length. Then weighed in practicality as to what I needed it for (shooting close to people in tight conditions and low light) and that was what led me to get the 35mm.

I agree with Jeffrey and TheHoff, but would like to extend the range a bit .

I prefer a combo of 24, 50 and 85 on APS-C, and would like to add a 135 on FF.
I think on APS-C 24-30, 50 and 85-100 makes for a great prime set, maybe add a 14, and on FF 24-28, 50 and 85-100, plus a 135-150 makes for a similarly great set.

A 35 could be added, to fill the relatively large gap between 24 and 50, but personally I find I don't need it.

Of course 50L and 85L are the only two F/1.2 lenses, and both have incredible bokeh. Since you indicate you really like 50 mm as a focal length, I'd suggest you do get the 50L. From the tests I carried out, which includes all Canon 50s except the 50 F/1.0L (50 F/2.5 macro, 50 F/1.8 Mk I, 50 F/1.8 Mk II, 50 F/1.5, 50 F/1.2L), plus a Zuiko 50 F/1.4 and a Zeiss Contax 50 F/1.4, I reckon the 50L has the best IQ and bokeh at any f-stop. The others only can get close, and only at f-stops of F/2.8 and beyond.

Just make sure you get a good one, without major close focusing issues at F/1.4 - F/2.8.

Kind regards, Wim

I thought about a 17-40L and a 24L for a long time. But I have yet to find a situation where I need a thinner DOF 24mm. My wides tend to look great at f2.8/f4 ect and I can't see any artistic merit in requiring the faster aperture (plus the extra hassel of lens swapping). So the advantage of a 24L over say a 24-70L or a 16-35L is 2 stops shooting ability, which is easily dialled in via ISO. For me, my journey with a 17-40L is about to come to an end and I'm about to pick up a 16-35 II L instead. I used a 24L for a weekend and it was a very enjoyable experience but it's a lens that I'm not sure that I would use that much. I have seen some great pics using this lens but mostly I can produce simular images with my existing kit.
The 35L is a different animal, but not every one "gets" the whole 35mm @ f1.4 thang.

Also the 24L is sharper, has better contrast and less barrel distortion than the zooms.
The 24, 35 and 85L are all great lenses. Sump'm about the 85L with the 5D, it my favorite lens but the 35 is the one I could shoot almost everything with and the 24, well its in a classs all its own. I really wouldn't want to give up any one of those lenses.

Consider the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 (its only $500!). From what early reviews show, it gives the Canon 50mm f1.2 a run for its money.

I own and use the 35L, 50L, 85L, and 135L.

Choosing whether to get the 50L or 35L is tough due to their similar image quality and focus speed. They are both great lenses. What your shooting style is and what you will be taking pictures of should determine which lens you get. The decision should totally depend on which focal length is best for you.

In my case…If I had only one of the four, I would pick the 50 1.2L on my full frame due to its versatile mid-range focal length for general all around use. If I had only two it would be the 50L and the 85L. Three; then add the 35L. This is due to my shooting style and what I take pictures of. I mainly use my primes for event/walk around use where I find the 35L to be a little to wide more often than the 50L to be a little too long, and portraiture where I find the 135L a little too long more often than the 85L to be a little too wide.

Good luck with whichever lens you choose. You can’t go wrong with any of the four lenses you are looking at.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #6153728
The 50L is weather sealed, none of the other fast primes are.
If a lens is white and weather sealed, it dosn't need a filter to finish the seal. If it's a black lens then yes it'll need a filter.
The only exception to this is the 14mm II L

The 24-70L (black lens - ok a zoom) doesn't need the filter to be weather sealed...