Canon 50mm f1.2 vs Canon 35mm f1.4

I've been contemplating whether I should go up to the 1.2 and part with my 1.4 for multiple reasons,I'm almost at that decision... However,I am also considering the 35 for one reason only ::video:: I've never used it for Portraits,but heard great things about it, just curious what are some people opinions?

If you had the money,which would you choose between the two?
Feedback is greatly welcomed.

35L. ill give u my reasons in the morning. im going sleep

if i have to choose my prime L.. i think i will go for 85L and just settle down with 35/2 and 50/1.4 or even 50/1.8

wazzupbeckham wrote in post #9530458
if i have to choose my prime L.. i think i will go for 85L and just settle down with 35/2 and 50/1.4 or even 50/1.8

Why the 85?

since you have 5D2, 50L makes better general purpose lens where 35L may be too wide, but not wide enough for landscape etc. Hard choice for sure since both are fantastic lenses, but if have to choose one, 50L would be my pick.

ast wrote in post #9530629
since you have 5D2, 50L makes better general purpose lens where 35L may be too wide, but not wide enough for landscape etc. Hard choice for sure since both are fantastic lenses, but if have to choose one, 50L would be my pick.

Would you think the 35 has an advantage over the 50 for the video ?

ast wrote in post #9530629
since you have 5D2, 50L makes better general purpose lens where 35L may be too wide, but not wide enough for landscape etc. Hard choice for sure since both are fantastic lenses, but if have to choose one, 50L would be my pick.

Landscapes do not require an ultra-wide. They are not preferred and they have no distinct advantage like short telephotos do for portraiture.

Moreover, the "classic" walkaround primes were historically either 35mm or 50mm on 35mm film - some find 50mm too boring and others, like you said, find the 35mm too wide.

Anyways, I would choose the 50. I'm not very enamored with the 35's IQ, or large (non-telephoto) primes...the 50L is already pushing it in terms of size, for me.

If your primary gig is video get the 24 or the 35 but for general purpose go with the 50 1.4 and get the 85 1.2 for portraits as that is a fantastic lens on the 5DmarkII.

I think you you should take advantage of the L lense's ability to retain it's value. Find a great price on the 35, 50 or 85L and add it to your bag. Find you're not satisfied after a few months...sell and start over. That's my plan

If you like video the 35L is nice. I'm biased though because 1) I have a 35L and 2) 35mm is my preferred range. However, I am currently saving up the pennies to get a 50L

tunin wrote in post #9530738
If your primary gig is video get the 24 or the 35 but for general purpose go with the 50 1.4 and get the 85 1.2 for portraits as that is a fantastic lens on the 5DmarkII.

Why so much hype over the 85mm ? I've heard that from local photogs the past few weeks.
I like my 50 without a doubt, but truth be told never used the 85mm.
Anything specifically?

bsaber wrote in post #9530828
If you like video the 35L is nice. I'm biased though because 1) I have a 35L and 2) 35mm is my preferred range. However, I am currently saving up the pennies to get a 50L

A buddy of mine has the 50 L and every time I see him, I manage to get to use it briefly. Just brings a happy feeling I'm really thinking about it.
I wish I had the flow to pick up both the 35 and the 50. Unfortunately.
It will only be one or the other.

Both are nice lenses, which focal length suits your needs better?

Eiro wrote in post #9530401
I've been contemplating whether I should go up to the 1.2 and part with my 1.4 for multiple reasons,I'm almost at that decision... However,I am also considering the 35 for one reason only ::video:: I've never used it for Portraits,but heard great things about it, just curious what are some people opinions?

If you had the money,which would you choose between the two?
Feedback is greatly welcomed.

Just as I have said above, i love my 35L. I can't see myself letting it go even if they have a mark II version of it coming out. I bought it for 950, but it had a chip in the front element. It's equivalent to the size of a dust particle. It's sharp at f1.4 and it just gets sharper as you stop it down. It's a wonderful focal length for a walk around as it is a compromise between the 24mm and 50mm focal length. And the only way that it'd replace it is if i buy a 24L II and a 50L. Seeing as how the 24L II and the 24L I are within hundreds of dollars in difference, it only makes sense to buy the 24L II.

The reason as to why I opted out of the 50L is because there are issues that plague the 50mm f1.2L. The main one being focus hunting. That's the only reason why i am waiting for canon's design to get much better. Even the sigma and the canon f1.4 has issues. Too bad there is no perfect 50mm prime out there. For now, i'll live with the 35 mounted onto a 7D though it's really not the same as a 50 f1.4 on a 5DII.

Eiro wrote in post #9530996
A buddy of mine has the 50 L and every time I see him, I manage to get to use it briefly. Just brings a happy feeling I'm really thinking about it.
I wish I had the flow to pick up both the 35 and the 50. Unfortunately.
It will only be one or the other.

Then get the flow by selling those lenses that you no longer want/need. Would you be daring enough to leave your love for zooms (ie. 24-70) for a 35L or a 50L?