24L vs 35L vs 50L

nicksan wrote in post #6514097
I noticed that you've pretty much got everything between the 14L and 135L.

Do you find the 24L and 35L somewhat redundant? I know you are all primes in that range, but what if you had some L zooms, like the 16-35L and 24-70L or 24-105L.

Trying to figure out whether the 24L and 35L can be consolidate to just the 35L.

I personally don't find the 24L & 35L redundant, but I tend to use them for different things too. The 24L tends to be my go to lens for dark bars/restaurants/parti​es, anything where the space might be a little tight, or if I know I need a wide angle for something in particular. The 35L is really the one prime I feel like I could leave the house with and never need to change the lens. But that said, I usually won't leave the house with both the 24L & 35L--I try and guess what I'll need depending on what I'm going to be shooting, and make a choice. Usually I get it right.

I actually had a 24-105 that I sold when I sold my 5D, and when the 5D MKII's ship, I'll buy it with the kit again. I don't use it much, but there really is no better lens for touristy, all around kind of stuff.

After owning two of them, I've decided that I just don't like the 24-70. I bought one over the summer because I had a few events and things I was shooting and I thought it would be the perfect lens for it--but I wound up keeping it in the bag and just using the primes. So, off it went.

I recently sold my 16-35 MKII after getting the 14L. I mostly used my 16-35 @ 16 anyway, and I'm so impressed by the 14L I just decided I could do without. Maybe one day I'll add a 17-40 or something, but for now I'm really content with the 14L.

Oh, and to your point... I sold my 35L because I thought I could consolidate and just use my 24L on my crop body for the times I wanted the 35mm FL... but I shortly found out that I used my 35L a lot, and that I especially liked it on my FF body... so I bought another!

nicksan wrote in post #6513986
Yeah, but it's no where near as bad as the 50L and largely stays well within DoF limits. The problem is when it creeps outside of those limits, which is often times does, it's a complete nightmare.

When you get a soft 85L, which doesn't seem to be that often, you send it in to have it calibrated. Pretty simple.

When you get a bad 50L, you send can send it in 5 times, with or without the camera and chances are you'll get it in the same way as before...

Now being that there are some "good" copies of the 50L floating around so you would think that perhaps Canon would be able to adjust it. Not the case...

I can shoot with my 85L and 35L all day long and not have problems like the 50L has.

Interestingly, I have not had a single problem with my 50L and if I did, it was more likely user error. I get the same amount of in focus shots with my 50L as I do with my other lenses. My first 50L didn't have focus problems either, the problem with that lens was when I opened the box, I noticed that my brand new lens had chips in the lens coating.

Did you really send in your 50L 5 times? I think I would have sold it after the 2nd time and got another. If it's a dud, it's a dud.

nicksan wrote in post #6514001
Can't really put them in order because for instance the 85L pushes out better IQ/color/contrast/boke​h than the 35L IMO, but it's AF is dog slow and probably not as accurate as the 35L.

They are all good in their own way...even the 50L when the AF works properly!

I find the 85L to have much more accurate focus than the 35L, but the autofocus is slow in comparison to the 35. Fortunately, for headshots the slow autofocus is really not an issue.

t60p wrote in post #6514188
Interestingly, I have not had a single problem with my 50L and if I did, it was more likely user error. I get the same amount of in focus shots with my 50L as I do with my other lenses...

Same here. Got lucky, I guess, with my copy given all the reports of problems. It's a difficult lens to master shooting close given the shallow DOF wide open but very rewarding when you get it right.

This is a common response.
The focus shift only manifests itself between f2-f4 at distances within 4-5 ft, more typically around 2-3 ft.

A lot of folks tend to shoot the 50L between f1.2 and f2.0 and not so close to the subject so the shift wouldn't be so apparent. You can shoot at f1.2-f1.8 (and perhaps f2.0 if the problem isn't severe enough) all day long at any distance and you won't notice anything abnormal. If you are this person, then yeah, be content with your 50L. I would be. It's an awesome lens outside the "danger zone".

Unfortunately I shoot all over the place, sometimes at MFD and never only wide open. f2-f2.8 would be a common ground for me.

I sent my lens in 3 times, and it's in for the 4th time. I have also tried several other copies, one as recent as UW07xx with the same results. So I am not smoking dope and talking crazy!

It's not uncommon to find folks who have went through 2, 3, 4, or even 5 copies of this lens only to give up on it.

You suggest that I sell the lens? To who? Some poor unsuspecting schmuck? I would never purposely sell a "dud". I'll see this through and take it up with Canon...

t60p wrote in post #6514188
Interestingly, I have not had a single problem with my 50L and if I did, it was more likely user error. I get the same amount of in focus shots with my 50L as I do with my other lenses. My first 50L didn't have focus problems either, the problem with that lens was when I opened the box, I noticed that my brand new lens had chips in the lens coating.

Did you really send in your 50L 5 times? I think I would have sold it after the 2nd time and got another. If it's a dud, it's a dud.

nicksan wrote in post #6514015
The 50L generally does OK with the focus shift issue between f1.2 and f1.8, and begins to show up a little on f2 and at its worst around f2.8, so that makes sense.

Actually, at least on my copy, I hate how it looks wide open. There is ghosting effect and lots of CA that just doesn't do it for me.

I usually stop it down to f1.4 - f1.8.

The 85L looks pretty great wide open. The 35L just simply kicks arse!

I haven't seen any ghosting (or maybe just didn't pay attention to it) wide open on the 50L, but frankly both the 50 & 85 aren't the greatest with handling CA when used wide open.

Sure it's difficult. But pretty easy to chalk problems up to user error eh?
Sometimes it's true. Sometimes it's not.

Can you explain why I can nail the AF on a VERY consistent basis on my 24L, 35L, 85L, 135L and NOT my 50L? Probably not?

Neither can Canon.

I am not bashing the 50L. The potential buyer should know all the facts and potential problems with this lens. I would say that with anything significant that anyone buys be it a $1400 lens or a $40,000 vehicle. Go for it. Try it out. If the buyer likes the lens, that's all that matters!

paddycook wrote in post #6514221
Same here. Got lucky, I guess, with my copy given all the reports of problems. It's a difficult lens to master shooting close given the shallow DOF wide open but very rewarding when you get it right.

timnosenzo wrote in post #6514017
I know, it's just not everyday you see someone put the 50L over the 85L! I like my 50L and I think I must have a pretty good one, but 85L is really an amazing lens.

I put the 50L over the 85L every day. I guess you are right though, it is a rarity. Then again, I guess it's also a rarity to find someone who doesn't like the 24-70... I'm in that camp too.

nicksan wrote in post #6514030
Absolute agree!
The 85L is just in a different league than the other non-tele primes...

this is a common response. ha ha....

I think the 50L has better bokeh and colors, also the 50L is more versatile because of its close mfd. Again, I use most of my lenses wide open to f/2.

Here's an example.
Shot wide open.
Actually some folks have asked me whether there was some kind of soft focus effect applied.

Don't get me wrong. I kinda like how it came out. But it wasn't exactly what I was going for when I took the shot.

t60p wrote in post #6514243
I haven't seen any ghosting (or maybe just didn't pay attention to it) wide open on the 50L, but frankly both the 50 & 85 aren't the greatest with handling CA when used wide open.

Whatever floats your boat....

t60p wrote in post #6514291
this is a common response. ha ha....

I think the 50L has better bokeh and colors, also the 50L is more versatile because of its close mfd. Again, I use most of my lenses wide open to f/2.

Ok this thread makes me want all the L primes. Ha ha. if the 35 is capable of head shots I think that's what ill go with. However I might wait to see if a revision comes out

You can't go wrong with the 35L. I don't think there is any room for argument there. In fact with all the fuss I have been going through with the 50L, it made me appreciate my other primes that much more!

While I am sure they will eventually come out with a revision, the 35L is great as it is. The only thing they can really do is to improve the IQ slightly and change the build so that it is more weather resistant.

You'd be hard pressed to find anything bad being said about the 35L!

They did this with the 24L MKII...well also flare control, since the original was flare prone.

milenko11 wrote in post #6514328
Ok this thread makes me want all the L primes. Ha ha. if the 35 is capable of head shots I think that's what ill go with. However I might wait to see if a revision comes out

nicksan wrote in post #6514161
I am not usually into flaming, and I try to refrain from that even when discussing the 50L.

I think I've been pretty objective with the 50L. I give credit where credit is due. I consistently mention that when the AF is on, the 50L can be as good as the 85L and that there ARE indeed good copies out there.

But the reality is, this is a design issue with the lens and the shifting cannot be avoided. It's the fact of life with the 50L. Deny it all you want.
I've tested a copy with UV date codes, and UW dates codes and the problem still exists. It's the luck of the draw.

That said, what the OP can do now armed with this information is be able to make a more educated decision and know what to look for. This is more helpful than harmful in my opinion. You buy and exchange it hoping for a good copy. The OP knows what to expect now. Some of us never had that benefit.

Yes, looking at galleries is helpful to an extent. However remember that folks don't usually post out of focus photos up in those galleries. I certainly don't. I can easily cherry pick and post up 50L pics that look fantastic. The problem is consistency and situation specific problems that are very real and can lead to endless frustration.

I agree it's a design issue. I have not denied anything. In my post I clearly stated that a great benefit of this forum is the ability to hear the experiences of different people. I hope the OP does benefit from this exchange. True, most people don't post out of focus photos, but that was not my point in suggesting that the OP look at these websites. My point is that it is a good idea to get an idea of what CAN be created with each of the lenses that the OP is interested. Talk is one thing, but as you know, for every word we post, 1 picture = 1000 words.

Agreed.

I think as long as things don't go out of hand it is only helpful.
50mm is a very useful focal length for me. That's why I am passionate about the 50L. I'm still fighting the fight, so-to-speak in the hopes of getting my 50L within reasonable parameters where I can actually enjoy it!

You know, I am almost tempted to go to B&H, buy a copy, and exchange it until I find an acceptable copy. But then what would I do with my current one?!?

t60p wrote in post #6514358
I agree it's a design issue. I have not denied anything. In my post I clearly stated that a great benefit of this forum is the ability to hear the experiences of different people. I hope the OP does benefit from this exchange. True, most people don't post out of focus photos, but that was not my point in suggesting that the OP look at these websites. My point is that it is a good idea to get an idea of what CAN be created with each of the lenses that the OP is interested. Talk is one thing, but as you know, for every word we post, 1 picture = 1000 words.