Low-light lens dilemma...

I guess this is a question for the Prime shooters, as my question pertains to lenses faster than F2.

A couple months ago, I picked up a 35L to use in low-light situations as I prefer to shoot in available light rather than flash. While it's a great lens - is it overkill, considering that it stays home the most compared to my other lenses?

I guess my main question is: Should I keep the 35L or sell it and pick up a 50/1.4? Focal length means nothing to me in this case as it's the low-light ability I'm interested in. I considered the 50L and the 85L, but the slow AF's and the ratio of amount-of-use to $$$, made the 50/1.4 a better deal to me.

So if you've used or own/owned both, the 35L and 50/1.4 - what are you're thoughts?

thanks guys

35L is much better lens in terms of image quality.

Hangbot wrote in post #8146715
I guess my main question is: Should I keep the 35L or sell it and pick up a 50/1.4? Focal length means nothing to me in this case as it's the low-light ability I'm interested in.

Really? In that case, save your pennies and just get the 200/2.

"Low-light ability" is a very vague phrase. F-stops are not all created equal. Nor are focal lengths.

I see you are shooting full frame. I have owned and shot with 35 1.4, canon and sigma 50 1.4, 85 1.2, and 135 f2.
1. I find it very strange for anyone to say focal length is not important to them. It just makes no sense to me. The lenses serve very different function.
2. If I take your statement at its face value, for non moving objects, 35 1.4 is the most hand holdable, b/c of its focal length. Thats the reason I did not keep 135 f2, b/c I found I preferred the 70-200 2.8 IS.
3. Reports of 85 1.2 (at least mark II) being slow to focus are very much exaggerated.
4. I am quite happy with all 3 of my primes (35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.2). all are usuably sharp wide open, great color, contrast and good bokeh. I would tell you that the 35 gives me very different images from 85, and I use all 3 based on what fov I want.

depending on howwwww dark it is the 135L may just be a tad too slow, also depending on how high you are willing to set your ISO..

id say rent the 85/1.8 and 135L and decide between these two..

remember if you are taking a photo at 50mm in a dark locale, f1.4 may not serve you as well as 135mm @ f2...because the entire 50mm image will be darker than a tighter 135mm image that could be allowing in more light out of a tighter area...of course, if you are capable of taking tighter shots with a 50mm disregard this.

What are you talking about ?

because the entire 50mm image will be darker than a tighter 135mm image that could be allowing in more light out of a tighter area

Those lenses are good for different purposes. It's a little strange that focal length doesn't matter to you, because frankly, it should. Both lenses will work well in low light conditions, but which one I use depends on my subject. If the 35L is sitting in your bag a lot, and you're worried about whether its overkill for the use its getting, maybe it is. I sold the 35L and bought the sigma because I like the 50mm focal length better.

bohdank wrote in post #8147096
What are you talking about ?

because the entire 50mm image will be darker than a tighter 135mm image that could be allowing in more light out of a tighter area

take a photo in a large crowd where the central focus is on a person who is moderately well lit with a 50mm in a dark venue..the person on stage is somewhat far, the entire image allowed in will likely be darker than the person you are focused to. leading to either exposing the person properly while under exposing the rest of the image, or over exposing that person and properly exposing the rest of the image..

same spot with a 135mm, you can now likely frame a medium shot of just that person, expose him properly and not have to worry about all the darkness around your entire frame..

ive found myself with the 50/1.4 in venues just not being able to find good exposure for wider shots too many times, both the 85/1.8 and 135L have proven much more useful due to having an easier to work with distance while being able to get good exposures and tighter shots.

sort of like, whats going to take a better exposure of the moon at night an 85/1.2 or a 400/2.8?

MaliCali wrote in post #8147135
sort of like, whats going to take a better exposure of the moon at night an 85/1.2 or a 400/2.8?

If you expose the moon properly, it doesn't matter. If the correct exposure is ISO 100, 1/100, f/5.6, then the focal length is irrelevant. The difference is distance from the subject - the 400mm will make a better print, assuming the subject is, in fact, the moon.

well thats my point, you are going to get a higher quality image of what you are trying to shoot..crop the wider FL to be as tight as what that longer FL will give you, the longer will give you the better image..

i just found a 50mm too short in low light crowd situations other than when i am near enough the subject...taking shots from further away with the 50 and then trying to crop them later often ended with results, i hated haha..

Hangbot wrote in post #8146715
I guess this is a question for the Prime shooters, as my question pertains to lenses faster than F2.

A couple months ago, I picked up a 35L to use in low-light situations as I prefer to shoot in available light rather than flash. While it's a great lens - is it overkill, considering that it stays home the most compared to my other lenses?

I guess my main question is: Should I keep the 35L or sell it and pick up a 50/1.4? Focal length means nothing to me in this case as it's the low-light ability I'm interested in. I considered the 50L and the 85L, but the slow AF's and the ratio of amount-of-use to $$$, made the 50/1.4 a better deal to me.

So if you've used or own/owned both, the 35L and 50/1.4 - what are you're thoughts?

thanks guys

The 50L's AF is at least as fast as the 50 F/1.4, and it is more accurate too. This based on testing quite a few copies of each.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks guys - I think it's time to rent some lenses I knew you guys and gals would help!

Yes, I understand the importance of the focal length and varying differences of each in IQ, contrast, CA, AF speed,... In this case though, my needs are just for the low-light ability. I am amazed at how well the 5D2 handles high-ISO, and that my zooms cover a fair amount of focal length to the point where I would bump the ISO to 2000 in an indoor situation. Here, I was considering making the move from the 35L to the 50/1.4 because of their F1.4, and because they're both good focal lengths for limited room, indoor situations.

I have read posts and reviews on the 50L's AF speed, but it may be time to test it for myself. As I stated in the original post though, concerning the ratio of cost to amount of use, I'll have to re-assess how often it'll come out with me

Thanks again everyone!

Flash isn't always there so that you can expose properly, it also has important benefits in allowing you to get the light you want

You could have a 0.95 lens and a camera that can shoot cleanly at ISO 1,000,000 yet still require flash to clean up the light

Hangbot wrote in post #8147738
Thanks guys - I think it's time to rent some lenses I knew you guys and gals would help!

Yes, I understand the importance of the focal length and varying differences of each in IQ, contrast, CA, AF speed,... In this case though, my needs are just for the low-light ability. I am amazed at how well the 5D2 handles high-ISO, and that my zooms cover a fair amount of focal length to the point where I would bump the ISO to 2000 in an indoor situation. Here, I was considering making the move from the 35L to the 50/1.4 because of their F1.4, and because they're both good focal lengths for limited room, indoor situations.

I have read posts and reviews on the 50L's AF speed, but it may be time to test it for myself. As I stated in the original post though, concerning the ratio of cost to amount of use, I'll have to re-assess how often it'll come out with me

Thanks again everyone!

The 50L is glued to my 5D II, and only comes off if I really need a different FL, or specialist lens. On the 5D II it absolutely shines. BTW, forget iso 2000, just shoot at iso 3200. Same lack of noise anyway .

Kind regards, Wim

smorter wrote in post #8147764
Flash isn't always there so that you can expose properly, it also has important benefits in allowing you to get the light you want

You could have a 0.95 lens and a camera that can shoot cleanly at ISO 1,000,000 yet still require flash to clean up the light

Hi Dawei,

Honestly, try shooting the 5D II at 3200 iso. You might be amazed . No need for flash, unless you need some fill-in light.

Kind regards, Wim