35mm vs 50mm

i am greatly debating if i should sell my 50 f/1.4 and pick up a 35 1.4L. i find the 50mm to be way too tight on my 30D. i really want to pick up the 35L but how much would i gain comparing that to the 50mm? sharpness, color, CA? is it that much better to drop over a grand instead of keepin my 50mm? keep in mind that i am tight on a budget...help

Why not try a 35/2? It's a lot cheaper, and the older non-usm lenses tend to not be as bad as people make them out to be, build and af wise.

Or maybe the Sigma 30-f/1.4?

The Sigma 30 1.4 is alright, and a worthy opponent, but the 35L is in a league all its own.

The 35L is a simply outstanding piece of glass. Every attribute of it blows the 50 away. It's so sharp and colorful, that PP is sometimes not even necessary. Also, the field of view is right around what 50 would be on FF, making it a perfect walkaround length.

You'll be very happy with one. I'd know.

My vote goes to keeping the 50, and waiting a little longer (if need be) till you can buy the lens outright.

um, i agree with Ronald, the 35L is in a leauge of its own, one of the best lenses i have used.

I tried the 35/2 and the sigma 30/1.4

I _much_ prefer the handling of the 30/1.4. Tho, there's a significant size issue as well. the 35/2 is small and unubtrusive. The 30/1.4 is much chunkier.

I tried out the 35 f/2 at B&H... it's a noisy little bugger - especially when you're spoiled by near-silent USM. Drooling over the 35 f/1.4 (I didn't even try it at B&H for fear I might actually pull the trigger lol... no self control here).

The Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM is worth a deep look. Assuming a properly focusing copy, you won't look back on a 1.6x body.

if some of u say that it blows away the 50mm...then it should be worth the wait. ill try to find one to try out and see what my options. i love my 50mm, the bokeh is sooo creamy and smooth. i just wish it had better saturation and color to it. but idk...im loving primes like crazy but theyre so expensive. especially being a student, i always got the fast zooms because of $$.

I own both the 35mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/1.4L lenses, along with a 50mm f/1.8.

On a crop body, it's all about the 35mm. The nifty is nice, but more limited IMO.

Either the f/2.0 or f/1.4L version of the 35mm will give you sharper images anyway and more closely match your "standard 50mm lens" on a crop body. The f/2.0 has the old arc form drive AF motor so it's a little "buzzy" but it works just fine. The f/1.4L is an improvement on everything you already love about the f/2.0.

jojohohanon wrote in post #2049160
I tried the 35/2 and the sigma 30/1.4

I _much_ prefer the handling of the 30/1.4. Tho, there's a significant size issue as well. the 35/2 is small and unubtrusive. The 30/1.4 is much chunkier.

Yes. The Sigma weighs more than twice as much as the Canon f/2.0 and is larger in every dimension

Canon .46 lb./209g 1.7in./43mm long 2.6in./66mm diameter 52mm filter
Sigma .94lb./426g 2.3in./54mm long 3in./76mm diameter 62 mm filter

Sigma is $355 at Sigma4Less, Canon is $254 at B&H.

Double Negative wrote in post #2049679
I own both the 35mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/1.4L lenses, along with a 50mm f/1.8.

On a crop body, it's all about the 35mm. The nifty is nice, but more limited IMO.

Either the f/2.0 or f/1.4L version of the 35mm will give you sharper images anyway and more closely match your "standard 50mm lens" on a crop body. The f/2.0 has the old arc form drive AF motor so it's a little "buzzy" but it works just fine. The f/1.4L is an improvement on everything you already love about the f/2.0.

is it worth spending a ton more for the 1.4L? or does the 2.0 suffice? price difference is soo huge..i cant decide if its worth it or not

If I had the cash, I'd grab the 35 f/1.4 L so fast my credit card wouldn't feel a thing!

But I don't, so I'll be eyeing up the sigma 30mm f/1.4 at Christmas.

But if I were you I'd keep the 50mm lens - it has its place in anyone's bag as an excellent portrait lens.

Both lenses take similar pictures, going by resolution alone. In the end, you'll be hard pressed to tell which lens shot which picture. The bokeh will be different, as will the DoF because of the brighter aperture and increased number of blades on the f/1.4L - so it will have an edge.

The f/1.4L improves on the f/2.0 lens in several ways:

- L build and quality
- Brighter aperture
- USM vs. AFD AF
- 8 blade aperture vs. 5

If those points are important to you, then yes it's worth it. Otherwise I'd say no.

I'd almost call the 35L the perfect lens, but I'll leave that for the Mark II... When it's weathersealed and offers focus distance info like all the new/refreshed L lenses. The CA could be handled a little better too, but all things considered it is what it is.