need advice on getting a prime L

I've had my 50 f/1.4 for about 5 years now, my 24-70L for about three, and 70-200 f2.8L for about two.
I'm looking to add another prime, especially since B&H is offering rebates through the end of January.

I don't really use my 50 all that often because I rely on the 24-70 about 90% of the time but I'm looking to change that.
The 70-200 is only used on trips or my kids activities.

The options I am considering are:
1) Sell my 50 and apply proceeds to a 50L
2) Sell my 50 and apply proceeds to a 35L

WWYD considering I use a 5DM2 body?

It should depend on your usage. More toward portraiture, get the 50, more toward landscape get the 35.

But then I have Zeiss lenses in 50 and 35, manual focus, but sharp.

I would definitely go for the 35L.

I have been told by pros and researched about the 50L previously that the 50/1.4 can generate sharper images than the 50L.

Remember that it also really depends what perspective you are looking for. 50mm is most true to what your eyes see.

I love my 50L, but it seems to be a love it or hate it lens around here.

I'd recommend going by the focal length you need. I once had the 35L, 85L and 135L because people gushed about the "holy trinity". What I learned from that is that 35mm isn't me in a prime, and I prefer 70-200 over a 135.

Now my primes are 24, 50 and 85mm.

I say 35L. I couldnt live without the 35mm focal length. Of course, rumors of a 35mm L mk2 are out there...

What about the 85 f/1.8? I know it's not an L but maybe I should hold onto my 50 and just add an 85 without breaking the bank.

I used to have a 17-35L that I used on my 20D/40D bodies but sold it since I rarely used it.

Considering the options that you wanted to look at in your original post, I picked the best of the two... 85 prime is an excellent lens - used to have it on my 40d when I had that body.

Thought you wanted to stay a bit wider than 85 though. When I had my 85, I also had the 50 1.8 and ended up selling the 50 because the 85 (IMO) is a much better lens and found myself using it more than the 50. I also stick to automotive photography. Depends on the subjects you primarily shoot.

I have the 3 lenses that you own......

Your focal range covers 24-200mm at f/2.8. Great that's 2 fast L zoom lenses.
I've kept my 50 f/1.4 because it is better IQ than the 50L. It's good to have a lens for low light so why not consider keeping it. For what you will get for it 2nd hand it's worth holding on to.

I certainly wouldn't sell the 50 and apply the proceeds to a 50L when you say you don't really use your 50 all that often.

If you are in the market for another lens then consider the 85 1.8 what someone else has already suggested. Its a wonderful lens and excellent value for money.

If you are not using your 50/1.4 much now, why do you think you would use the 50/1.2 enough to consider it at almost 5 times the cost of the 1.4?

Not using 50 much, no point getting an expensive version.

I would get the Sigma 35 over the 35L. Better build, IQ, cheaper. Focus is on par with my other Canon lenses, and in fact, better than some.

coeng wrote in post #17368913
I've had my 50 f/1.4 for about 5 years now, my 24-70L for about three, and 70-200 f2.8L for about two.
I'm looking to add another prime, especially since B&H is offering rebates through the end of January.

I don't really use my 50 all that often because I rely on the 24-70 about 90% of the time but I'm looking to change that.
The 70-200 is only used on trips or my kids activities.

The options I am considering are:
1) Sell my 50 and apply proceeds to a 50L
2) Sell my 50 and apply proceeds to a 35L

WWYD considering I use a 5DM2 body?

Heya,

Since you don't use the 50 all that often, and use the 24-70 90% of the time, I wouldn't really worry about getting another 50.

I would consider what you are shooting and what you want to have more of. For example, you seem to be ok with F2.8 in the 24-70 range. The F1.4 of the 50 doesn't pull you to it. So what does a prime offer you really, that a good recent L zoom cannot, if you're not too worried about things faster than F2.8?

What you shoot should dictate the focal length.

You have 24-70 & 70-200. But you don't fast fast wide angle. You have no ultrawide at all. Do you like anything on the wide end?

Are you opposed to manual glass?

End of the day, what do you want to shoot with a prime over your two zooms, and why?

Finally, is this just a chance to spend money due to rebates? GAS basically? (serious question as it really looks that way)

Very best,

I sold my 35L once, regretted it...repurchased it several months ago. It is my used lens. I think the 50 1.4 is a good lens to have along with my 35L.

I rented the Sigma 35...solid lens great pics but went with the Canon because of the name.

In the end you have to decide on the focal length you want to shoot when it comes to primes, everyone is different in that aspect.

My 2 cents.

coeng wrote in post #17368913
I've had my 50 f/1.4 for about 5 years now, my 24-70L for about three, and 70-200 f2.8L for about two.

Why is that important?

This is a classic question, 35mm or 50mm. I now have both the 35L and 50L, but got the 35L first. They actually have different purposes, and without knowing your shooting style and subjects any advice I might give regarding the choice would be useless.

I will say that I bought the 35L as one of my first EOS lenses, but if doing it again today I would probably buy a compact camera with a 35mm f/2 equivalent instead. I do actually own such a camera, but they weren't around, at least in Canon L quality, when I bought the EOS lens. At least two are now available.

I don't see a lot of value for my shooting in a 35mm lens faster thann f/2. I do see value in a fast 50mm, and the 50L is one of my favourite lenses. I can't comment on how much better it is than the f/1.4, but I did once own a "cult" 50mm f/1.4 from another brand, which I just coud not get on with due to the "halation" wide open. The 50L was one of the first lenses to do away with that.

One difference between the two is that the 35L has a floating element and does OK at closer focus, while the 50L doesn't and produces rather poor results as well as the infamous focus shift.

coeng wrote in post #17368913
The options I am considering are:
1) Sell my 50 and apply proceeds to a 50L
2) Sell my 50 and apply proceeds to a 35L

WWYD considering I use a 5DM2 body?

For use on a 5D2 the 35L is a great lens, it is very sharp, it makes a great landscape, portrait or general walkabout lens, mine did live on the 5D2/3, till I got a 24mm 1.4 II, if its more landscape your interested in then take a look at the 24mm 1.4 II its great, but the 35L is a brilliant all round lens, yes there are rumours of a mk2 version but I think the 35L now is perfection as it is.

Getting rid of a 24-70 for 1 prime is a big decision

Might I suggest you pick up a used or pancake 40mm 2.8 for $100. It is a great, cheap, value lens that I picked up with credit card points and I do use it and I am an L lens junkie. It is sharp at 2.8 - it may look like a toy but it is worth having in the bag - I call it my FF mirrorless setup.

Go to you camera store and rent it for a week if you can't find it used.

Shoot with it for a week and you will know if 35 or 50 is the answer - my guess is it is going to be 35. And then I would suggest either the 35 F2 or the Sigma 35 1.4.

The challenge I think you are then going to face is that if you carry one of these lens it will basically be the same weight as the 24-70 and then you are going to ask why?

To me 35 and 50 are completely different lenses - I grab my 35 when I think buildings street big groups - I never ever ever grab my 50 if that is what I'm thinking - 50 1.2 is art, b&w facial expressing - 50 is a hard lens I take it when I want to try and get a great image.

So - to me the non decision is the tiny light almost disposable 40mm - and it is 2.8 which is fantastic