Is an "L" better than a cheap prime?

Would anyone mind offering an opinion about whether my inexpensive 50mm 1.8 prime (~$80) would make a better portrait lens than my ridiculously expensive EF 35-350 L? I'm not asking about focal lengths, just whether a cheap prime is better than an expensive zoom.

In the cases of the lens you are comparing you have both of them , you tell me . As i understand it primes may be better at a given focal lenght. If i compare my own prime 50 1.4 with the zoom i have to say i prefer my L zoom for portraits , as normally i shoot beyond 50mm. As i said though for a side by side comparison of the technical strenghts of those two lenses you are in the best position ? I have not done a shoot out between my 50 and 24-105 at 50mm.

Well, I have the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 and both are used for portraits because they are tack sharp, and I'd challenge my 24-70 with either of them. But they are not cheap, just under $350.

Probably not... BUT... With what you would save between the price of the two, you could get a couple good lenses for the job. The 50mm would definately be easier to move around with than the 3 pound lens. I don't really know, but you *might* be able to get sharper images with the cheap prime. Of course there are quite a few primes that would cost A LOT less than your super-zoom. There is the 50mm f1.4, and the 85mm f1.8, not to mention the 35mm f2. Those might serve you well.

You have both, try them out. The real test of which is better will come from you.

If you are going for portrait lens.. and you dont want to spend massive ammount of money. Personally I would Pick up the 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8 (both NON L Versions)

I own the 50mm 1.8 and i really want to sell it for a 1.4 version. Personally I think its a good lens, but it also has its downfalls, such as AF motor accuracy. AND I sure as hell dont want to afford the L version of the 50mm or 85mm! For the price of one 85mm L I can get a 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100mm Macro, and lens hoods for all of them and still have few bucks left over for a pack of smokes and some beer =)

Other lenses I use for studio portraits are my 70-200 f/4 lens and I want to get a 100mm Macro for portrait and marco work too.

Depends on the prime, the zoom, and your specific needs. For portraits, on an APS-C, the 50's just the right f.l., and has a nice shallow DoF wide open that the 35-350 can't compete with. So in that specific case, yes. I could come up with counterexamples for other situations however. "Better" doesn't necessarily have to be strictly IQ, for instance. In a dynamic situation, a good zoom may be the preferred choice.

It also depends on how you define better. Sharper, better bokeh, etc...

The very thought of the 35-350 is crazy to take around. For portraits, I generally want a set up to use with a tripod or have it light enough to move around without feeling like I will move the camera and miss a sharp capture. If you are considering using the large lens for a long shoot, you will need to put it down.

It depends on just what you mean by "better" I suppose. Probably faster in a lot of cases, maybe sharper but not necessarily so. Certainly not as versatile and it's sometimes painful carrying a bag full of primes when you can get away with a couple of zooms. I can think of some pretty awful cheap primes that an expensive zoom would have no problem beating (and this is from a self confessed prime fan)!

cheers
Bill

Bill, nice group of lenses you've got there.

rklepper wrote in post #2169343
It also depends on how you define better. Sharper, better bokeh, etc...

You are exactly right. My question wasn't as clear as I thought. Originally I meant sharper, but obviously this prime has a distinct advantage over this L when it comes to bokeh. And to further clarify, I'm not looking to buy more lenses at the moment, and all of my practicing (I'm very new to portrait photography) is taking place in my basement with some new inexpensive lights, umbrellas, soft boxes, reflectors, etc. so packing the lenses up and carrying them to shoots is not an issue yet.

Since Ls have better glass, but primes are generally superior at a given focal length, I was just wondering which one some of you who have a lot of experience would reach for.

I sincerely appreciate all of the quick responses, thank you.

Thanks Suzie. I kept telling myself I'd finished buying them... of course

The Canon EF 50mm F1.8 produces excellent IQ results compared to my 100 - 400 L IS and 17- 40 L F4

Primes are just great.

The prime should have better colour reproduction, more important in portrait then speed in my books, just how thin do you want your DOF?

SuzyView wrote in post #2169308
But they are not cheap, just under $350.

Actually in terms of lenses they are extremely cheap.