Choosing a Lens (35L and 50L)

Ok first off i can get either one of these lenses.

I will be using it on a 5d Mark 2, i like what the 50mm does with the DoF on the FF body, will the 35L offer the same DoF Effects using a big apeture?

Which lens is going to be better, remember the DoF for me is of paramount importance.

If narrow DOF is the priority, you want the 50.

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

bacchanal wrote in post #10179758
If narrow DOF is the priority, you want the 50.

Ok great but a few things: why? is there any visual comparisons of the dof on the 35 versus the 50? also is it going to be noticably VAST difference between the two?

I say this because i see a lot of people trying to persuade me to go for the 35mm for the video (i will be doing some of interiors potentially), people also say how much sharper the 35 L is over the 50 as well.

SO much to consider!

I can't explain all the technical reasons, but with a longer focal length, you get less depth of field at the same aperture.

So 50mm at f/1.4 has less apparent dof than 35mm at f/1.4...and yes, it will be noticeably different (maybe not vastly), esp considering the 50 will do f/1.2.

I'm not sure why people are necessarily suggesting the 35mm. It's just a really nice focal length to use on the 5DII.

bacchanal wrote in post #10179827
I can't explain all the technical reasons, but with a longer focal length, you get less depth of field at the same aperture.

So 50mm at f/1.4 has less apparent dof than 35mm at f/1.4...and yes, it will be noticeably different (maybe not vastly), esp considering the 50 will do f/1.2.

I'm not sure why people are necessarily suggesting the 35mm. It's just a really nice focal length to use on the 5DII.

It has less DoF than the 35??

people saying the 35 is better for two reasons:

- its much sharper than the 50, and i mean MUCH
- the 35 is great for video over the 50, though few are able to explain why.

its thoroughly confused the hell out of me, i can tell you.

Dude, go read the difference between DoF and backgroud blur. You owe that to yourself before you buy an expensive lens like that.

setsuken wrote in post #10179850
It has less DoF than the 35??

people saying the 35 is better for two reasons:

- its much sharper than the 50, and i mean MUCH
- the 35 is great for video over the 50, though few are able to explain why.

its thoroughly confused the hell out of me, i can tell you.

The 50 will have less DoF (more background blur) than the 35 at the same subject distance. If you step forward with the 35 (to get the same framing as the 50), you will decrease your subject distance and get virtually the same DoF as you would with the 50 (at the same aperture). However, the perspective will have changed.

I'm not sure why people wouldn't recommend the 50 for video. You really don't need a super sharp lens for video (esp if you are shooting a very wide apertures). The 35 is a bit sharper, but it's not a huge difference honestly. The 50 has some known AF issues, but with video you generally use manual focus anyway. I've only shot with the 50L once or twice, but it is a fine lens (I own the 35L).

The major difference between these two focal lengths are field of view and perspective. That should probably be a factor in your decision (vs. just DoF and sharpness).

power_play21 wrote in post #10179865
Dude, go read the difference between DoF and Bokeh. You owe that to yourself before you buy an expensive lens like that.

i know the difference thanks. I just need to know as an all rounder, and for a good levels (narrow) fof DOF which is better, also which will be better when shooting video.

Thats all.

bacchanal wrote in post #10179902
The 50 will have less DoF (more background blur) than the 35 at the same subject distance. If you step forward with the 35 (to get the same framing as the 50), you will decrease your subject distance and get virtually the same DoF as you would with the 50 (at the same aperture). However, the perspective will have changed.

I'm not sure why people wouldn't recommend the 50 for video. You really don't need a super sharp lens for video (esp if you are shooting a very wide apertures). The 35 is a bit sharper, but it's not a huge difference honestly. The 50 has some known AF issues, but with video you generally use manual focus anyway. I've only shot with the 50L once or twice, but it is a fine lens (I own the 35L).

The major difference between these two focal lengths are field of view and perspective. That should probably be a factor in your decision (vs. just DoF and sharpness).

what he said.

I would vote for the 35L for walk around and full body portraits.

Enough budget for the 35L and the sigma 50?

ckc wrote in post #10180072
Enough budget for the 35L and the sigma 50?

I thought third party lenses wouldnt work on the 5dmk2?

setsuken wrote in post #10180123
I thought third party lenses wouldnt work on the 5dmk2?

Sure they will. They just have to be compatible with the EF (canon full frame) mount. The EF mount is actually very accepting of adapters and various manual focus glass too, which can be useful for video.

bacchanal wrote in post #10180157
Sure they will. They just have to be compatible with the EF (canon full frame) mount. The EF mount is actually very accepting of adapters and various manual focus glass, which can be useful for video.

how much is the mount? again ive been told by in store pro's that you cannot use anything other than canon lenses (except ef-s)

setsuken wrote in post #10180159
how much is the mount? again ive been told by in store pro's that you cannot use anything other than canon lenses (except ef-s)

The EF mount is the part of your camera that the lens attaches too.

The guy was feeding you some bs.

Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. make lenses that are compatible with Canon (just make sure they are made for Canon and are for full frame).