35mm f1.4 -vs- 50mm 1.2

[bdunbar79]

Again, i know most everything about these lenses, except i have no first hand knowledge, and many of you do. Barring it all doesn't fall apart at smaller apertures(and i know it doesn't), i'm really only interested in stuff wide open to f2.8 or so. if i could get away with narrower i'd just use a zoom. how about if i ask this, is the IQ at f2 and below on both lenses crap, decent, good, or great? and that's without cutting any slack. i know f1.2 at 50mm and f1.4 at 35mm is tough, but i don't care. thanks

Here's my personal preference.  For the money, I'd buy the 35L and 50 f/1.4.  That's what I'd do.  The 35L is pretty sharp from 1.8 and narrower, but you have to be careful because of the razor thin DOF.  Same applies to the 50L.  The 50L is only superb from f/1.2-f/2 and beyond that the 1.4 is better.

[Random Orbits]

Again, i know most everything about these lenses, except i have no first hand knowledge, and many of you do. Barring it all doesn't fall apart at smaller apertures(and i know it doesn't), i'm really only interested in stuff wide open to f2.8 or so. if i could get away with narrower i'd just use a zoom. how about if i ask this, is the IQ at f2 and below on both lenses crap, decent, good, or great? and that's without cutting any slack. i know f1.2 at 50mm and f1.4 at 35mm is tough, but i don't care. thanks

For portraits, they both work fine wide open.  Keep the subject toward the center, because the corners will be softer with significant vignetting, but that is the nature of the beast.  With AF, nothing really beats Canon's 35L and 50L wide open. 

[jasonsim]

Again, i know most everything about these lenses, except i have no first hand knowledge, and many of you do. Barring it all doesn't fall apart at smaller apertures(and i know it doesn't), i'm really only interested in stuff wide open to f2.8 or so. if i could get away with narrower i'd just use a zoom. how about if i ask this, is the IQ at f2 and below on both lenses crap, decent, good, or great? and that's without cutting any slack. i know f1.2 at 50mm and f1.4 at 35mm is tough, but i don't care. thanks

For portraits, they both work fine wide open.  Keep the subject toward the center, because the corners will be softer with significant vignetting, but that is the nature of the beast.  With AF, nothing really beats Canon's 35L and 50L wide open.

In my experience the most accurate AF as far as L primes go has been the 35L and the 85L II.  The 50L got better on the 5D MK III.  These are not fast to AF though.  The 85mm II is sharpest of the three wide open. 

The bokeh is best on the 85mm L II and only challenged by my 200mm f/1.8L. 

I think, if you had plans to get an 85mm f/1.2L II, then it may be better complimented by a 35mm f/1.4L.

[Daniel Flather]

The 35L and 50L are very different.  The feel and look of the images.  The 35L is not as exotic as the 50L.  50mm at 1.2 at close range yields a low keeper rate.  With DOF so thin the camera's AF is guessing where to focus.  Looking at images with DPP I've shot with the 50L, I hit control J to view the AF point used on an image, the AF point covers an area much bigger the the DOF, so how can the camera focus exactly where you wanted it to?

[Daniel Flather]

Also, I've owned the 50/1.8 mrkI and the 50/1.4, and I can tell you that they don't come close to the 50L's image quality.  Yeah, the others might be a bit sharper, but there's more to it than sharpness.