Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Nov 2009 (Saturday) 14:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35L or 50L?

 
sf_loft
Member
Avatar
212 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Nov 28, 2009 14:50 |  #1

I'm trying to decide whether to get the 35L or 50L as my first prime. I already have a set of good zoom lenses with the 16-35L, 24-70L, and 70-200 f/4L IS. I need a fast prime for indoor, low light, and no flash purposes. I really like the 50L 1.2's focal length, but the pictures I have seen in the sample archives doesn't have the umph / pop that I see with the 35L 1.4. I also want to be able to use this prime as a walkabout lens at night to capture images off of natural / city lights.

I don't take a lot of portraits and when I do, it is mostly outdoors using my 70-200 f/4L IS. This is by far the SHARPEST lens I have ever used. I want my prime lens to be as tack sharp, if not sharper. I'll probably get the 135L at some point, but on the low end of the focal length, what should I be getting?

BTW: This will be used on my FF 5D MKII.

------ Append Edit --------

Made my decision and purchased the 35mm 1.4L:

All shots were taken at f/1.4 @ 100 ISO hand-held under fluorescent under counter kitchen light. No post processing except for the last where I added a little vignette. Can't believe how vibrant and sharp the colors come out.

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2666/4154308941_44cac51c74.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2543/4155070284_15ae5aeeaa.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4154309107_716cd9720c.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2788/4154309147_64ec209f36.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2594/4154309181_8b76c9ab0f.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2500/4154309243_780fcde20f.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2701/4155082532_c546a8bcb6.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2681/4154371365_692c9bf7f0.jpg

Canon EOS 5D Mark III & FUJIFILM X-T1 mirrorless

35mm f/1.4L | 85mm f/1.2L II |135mm f/2L | 16-35mm f/2.8L II | 24-70mm f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/4L IS | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro
Benro C2691T Travel Angel | GP-E2 GPS | EF 1.4x III
FUJINON 23mm 1.4 | FUJINON 35mm 1.4 | FUJINON 56mm 1.2

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Palna
Senior Member
Avatar
548 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 28, 2009 14:58 |  #2

I would say 35L. Its really sharp at 2.0, Look at the photozone test of the 50L.

Best Regards

Palna

sf_loft wrote in post #9097199 (external link)
I'm trying to decide whether to get the 35L or 50L as my first prime. I already have a set of good zoom lenses with the 16-35L, 24-70L, and 70-200 f/4L IS. I need a fast prime for indoor, low light, and no flash purposes. I really like the 50L 1.2's focal length, but the pictures I have seen in the sample archives doesn't have the umph / pop that I see with the 35L 1.4. I also want to be able to use this prime as a walkabout lens at night to capture images off of natural / city lights.

I don't take a lot of portraits and when I do, it is mostly outdoors using my 70-200 f/4L IS. This is by far the SHARPEST lens I have ever used. I want my prime lens to be as tack sharp, if not sharper. I'll probably get the 135L at some point, but on the low end of the focal length, what should I be getting?

BTW: This will be used on my FF 5D MKII.


Best Regards, Mikkel
BIGANDTfotografi.dk (external link)
Dyrefotografi.dk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
3,006 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Likes: 866
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Nov 28, 2009 15:00 |  #3

+1 on the 35 L.


Nikon Z6, 24-70mm f/4 S, 70-200mm f/4 G VR, 35mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S, FTZ, Flashpoint/Godox Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mxracer535
Goldmember
Avatar
1,140 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Denver, CO
     
Nov 28, 2009 15:05 |  #4

I also say the 35L. I had a 50 and i just like the 35 focal length better. Its also a vary sharp lens, even wide open


NADA...sold off my gear and bought a motorcycle. I might be back shooting someday...

Mi nombre es Jamey

Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Clean
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,002 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Olympia, Washington
     
Nov 28, 2009 15:18 |  #5

I think you need to decide which fl you want and buy it, If you like the 50 fl, get it. The 50L is a great lens and one of Canons best.
Oh and don't judge the lens till you use it :D


Mike
some shots @ Zenfolio (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MigsVuitton
Senior Member
Avatar
609 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Nov 28, 2009 15:40 |  #6

+1 for the 35L's focal length on a FF and +100 if you plan to get the 135L later down the line


instagram (external link) | blog (external link) | vsco (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marloon
Goldmember
4,323 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
     
Nov 28, 2009 15:42 as a reply to  @ Mr. Clean's post |  #7

you really need to decide for yourself what FL you prefer.

The 35L is an amazing lens! the pictures it produces SOOC are amazing and require Very Little PP - ultimately saving me from sitting in front of my computer and out in the world shooting.


I'm MARLON

Former Canon Platinum CPS member

5DII • 24L • 35L • 50L • 85L • 135L • 200LIS

Wordpress Blog (external link)Youtube Channel (external link)Twitter (external link)Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,698 posts
Likes: 38
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Nov 28, 2009 16:26 |  #8

I have gone through quite a few 50s, either owned or tested or both, and the one lens that came out tops for me is the 50L, with Sigma 50 second best, IQ-wise.

When shooting close, the 50L is probably less sharp towards the corners, but considering the types of subjects one shoots nearby, that generally is not a problem, IMO. Further away it is tack sharp everywhere. And amongst others I use it for landscapes. It is a true standard lens on FF: it is usable for any kind of photograpy you can point a stick at, including macro.

The main difference between the 50L and the SIgma, apart from the aperture, is the "AF experience". I've tested only 2 Sigmas, vs 5 50Ls, but generally the focus of the 50L is very accurate, and the Sigma's just isn't. Both have focus shift in the nearby area, based on the two Sigmas I tested the SIgma has it a little less when it is most pronounced (3 50Ls with visible focus shift had it worse), but the Sigma has general focusing problems. It appears about 1 out of 3 is fine, from comments here and on other forums.

With the 50L the situation is probably not so much different, except that focus shift is the main problem, unless it is contained well within the AF limit of the body with a fast lens (1/3 of DoF), like it is with my specimen (actually, 1/6 of DoF). Occasionally there may be other problems with the 50L, but those don't seem to occur very often. Focus shift is something you can work around, to a degree, but I do generally recommend people to get a specimen from a retailer with a good return policy, in order to be able to exchange it for a good one, just in case. But then, I guess the same can be said about the Sigma.

And no, other lenses are not better, between F/1.2-F/2.8, unless you want to go F/1.7 or slower, and/or MF and/or alt lenses.

In short, in order to get a 50 mm lens with AF which is good between F/1.2 or F/1.4 and F/2.8, you may need a lot of patience.

With 35 mm it probably is a lot simpler. However, I for one do not gel with 35 mm, and i have heard the same from other people. I find 35 mm too short for a standard lens on FF, and too long to be a WA, and I just don't "see" the 35 mm FL. Similar things are true for me on APS-C, too long to be a standard lens, and too short to be a short tele. Neither fish, nor flesh. This is a rather personal thing, however. So if you want the easy way out, i.e., get a 35 mm, and since you say you like the 50 mm FL, I'd suggest you really try this out for a slightly longer period, like a week on end. Set your 24-70 to 35 mm for one week, and to 50 mm for the next, and base your final decision on how you get on with either.

If it is 50 mm, just get one, and return it if it has excessive focus shift, excessive for you that is, and get another one. It took me 5 specimens, two recalibrations, and about 18 months or so in total, including recalibrations, to get the one that I own in a condition that I am (very) happy with. And it is my most used lens now.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 2 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,529 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 601
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 28, 2009 16:33 |  #9

wimg wrote in post #9097613 (external link)
With 35 mm it probably is a lot simpler. However, I for one do not gel with 35 mm, and i have heard the same from other people. I find 35 mm too short for a standard lens on FF, and too long to be a WA, and I just don't "see" the 35 mm FL. Similar things are true for me on APS-C, too long to be a standard lens, and too short to be a short tele.

I didn't gel with the 35mm FL on my 5D either, and I think I would have sold the 35L had I not picked up a 1D Mark III.

I really like the 35mm focal length on the 1.3X sensor. Just a touch wider than 50mm on FF, it is almost perfect for me.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
myjunk
Senior Member
269 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Nov 28, 2009 18:21 |  #10

most reviews on the 50L sounds like it isn't worth the cost of it. the 35L on the other hand, worth every penny is what I hear. (but that's really a LOT of pennies though)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agphotography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,726 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Nov 28, 2009 18:35 |  #11

From personal experience I've owned both of these lenses, and I think they are both fantastic.

When I originally got the 35L I had a 5D and it was practically welded to the front of it. I used it all the time! When I eventually got a 1DmkIII, I felt like the 35mm FL and 1.3x just didn't work for me so I traded it for a 50L, which I wound up falling in love with. Then I came back to a 5DmkII and for some reason traded the 50L for other lenses, about 6 months later (a week ago) I decided that was stupid and sold those lenses and re-bought the 50L. I could have just as easily purchased a 35L instead, but I didn't, here's why:

I find the 50mm to truly be a "natural" lens for any full-frame camera. Call me old fashioned or what-ever but when I shot film I almost ALWAYS used a 50mm. It just worked, for almost everything. Fast-forward 8 or 9 years and with the digital era going the way it is I found that 50mm lenses still sing on FF digital bodies. It's even great on a 1.6x body too! (40D)

I am absolutely pleased with my 50L, and I do not plan on selling this one like I did the last one. For me and my photography it DOES give me that "pop" in my images that make me and my clients smile.

I am fully aware of it's focusing limitations but I hardly believe that it prevents one from taking great photos with it, I think the internet has HUGELY blown the issue out of proportion. Yes the photozone review destroyed that lens, but honestly, my experiences with it on a full-frame camera have been quite the opposite. I am totally happy with it.


-Abram-
www.goglanianphoto.com (external link)
500px (external link) / Flickr (external link)
Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fodowsky
Senior Member
Avatar
590 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Nov 28, 2009 18:36 |  #12

I had a similar decision and ordered the 35L. It is a great lens on the 5D.


Gear and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ray_stinger
Member
102 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Bay area, CA
     
Nov 28, 2009 19:18 |  #13

I have the 35L and its my go-to lens on the 5D...I've recently added the 85L back to my arsenal and I can't be happier with the combo. Next lens will be the 135L. :)


A peek into my photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
5,160 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Jun 2005
Location: san jose
     
Nov 28, 2009 23:27 |  #14

JeffreyG wrote in post #9097636 (external link)
I didn't gel with the 35mm FL on my 5D either, and I think I would have sold the 35L had I not picked up a 1D Mark III.

Same here, I used it on the 5D and didn't really like the FL either. The color and sharpeness are great but for some reason that FL is too "in between" for me.

The 50, on the other hand got used alot on the 5D.


Sonny
website (external link)|Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Nov 28, 2009 23:54 |  #15

For me, it's the 50L.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,656 views & 0 likes for this thread
35L or 50L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is maalikko
1007 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.