[crop + 35L] versus [FF + 50 f/1.4]

[Eneade]

Hi there !

I've been using my T3i for a year now and I am bored by the AF and ISO abilities of the camera.
My gear consists in the 18-55 kit lens // 35L // 50 f/1.4 // 85 f/1.8 // 70-200 f/4L IS and I'm mainly doing "street photography".

I'm considering going FF with a 5D3, I am convinced the AF and ISO performance are all I will need for some time.

My concern is that my main lens currently is the 35L (FF equivalent of 56mm) so my main lens with a FF camera would be my 50 f/1.4, which is definitely not as good as my 35L (sharpness at f/1.4 on the 35 blows the 50 until about f/2.5).

How will the 50 f/1.4 on a FF body compare to the 35L on a crop sensor (giving that I shoot a lot wide open) ?
I hope people here have been on the same boat and can give me some advice ;-)

[Drizzt321]

The other thing about moving to FF and the 5d3 is you may be able to simply crop to close to the FoV you are used to, while still being equal or better quality. Especially better quality at higher ISO's.

I'd say try using the 35L when you get the 5d3, see if it still suits you and your style, or if a 50mm really is more for you. In which case, try the 50 f/1.4 for a while and see if that length is better for you.

[bholliman]

I have a similar situation.  I currently own a 7D and am seriously looking at upgrading to a FF camera, either a 5D MkIII or 6D, I haven't decided yet. 

I also have a 35mm 1.4 L, which I use extensively for pictures of the kids, mostly indoors with natural light, but also outside.  However, I don't own a 50mm lens yet or a zoom that covers the "normal" range for a FF camera.  My other lenses are:  70-200mm 2.8 II and EF-S 15-85mm.  I'll sell the EF-S lens with the 7D, so I need to decide between buying a 50mm or maybe a 24-70mm or 24-105mm zoom to give me more focal length versatility in the wide to normal range.  I'm not real impressed with the reviews of Canon's current 50mm options, so I would probably lean towards a zoom right now.  However, I realize I will give up quite a bit of low light capability going from the 35mm 1.4 to a zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 or 4.0.

I agree with the other response that maybe you should wait and try the 35mm with the new camera and see if you are still happy with the results.  I think I'll do that (just use the 35 and 70-200), for a few months and decide if that is working or if I need to add a 50 prime or one of the zooms mentioned above.  Good luck with your decision.

[seta666]

If you are mainly interested in street photography I would suggest moving to other system.
I would suggest two option:

Fuji  XE-1/ x-pro1 + 351.4
NEX-6 + 35 1.8 OSS

Image quality of both would be higher than on the 7D and the cameras are more discrete so subjects would not reats in the same way to the camera

I like the nex option because the quality of the sensor is very high and the 35mm f1.8 has IS
The fuji quality is on par with FF cameras because of lack of A filter on the sensor, still 3rd party RAW software does not fully support it

I would not use a reflex for street photography but that is only an opinion

[RS2021]

Embarrassment of riches...on FF, the 35L is a quintessential street photography lens. It hasn't seen much camera time recently with me, but only because I have moved to even wider still. I also think 35L direly needs an update...hopefully the new sigma will light a fire under canon's rear end... But as for the field of view itself, absolutely nothing wrong with 35mm for street photography.

[TexasBadger]

I would suggest finding a 5DC for around $500.  You will get the greatness of the FF and great image files.  You can also get a 50mm 1.8 for ~$100 and have everything for a lot less money.  You can always upgrade your 5DC later on if you desire and have a great backup body. 

[Botts]

I also have a 35mm 1.4 L, which I use extensively for pictures of the kids, mostly indoors with natural light, but also outside.  However, I don't own a 50mm lens yet or a zoom that covers the "normal" range for a FF camera.  My other lenses are:  70-200mm 2.8 II and EF-S 15-85mm.  I'll sell the EF-S lens with the 7D, so I need to decide between buying a 50mm or maybe a 24-70mm or 24-105mm zoom to give me more focal length versatility in the wide to normal range.  I'm not real impressed with the reviews of Canon's current 50mm options, so I would probably lean towards a zoom right now.  However, I realize I will give up quite a bit of low light capability going from the 35mm 1.4 to a zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 or 4.0.

Why not keep the 35L and crop the image if needed for low light?  And consider something like a 40STM for the more "normal range".  At $150 it's hard to go wrong, and you can always sell it if it isn't for you.

I find use for both the fast 35L and the 40STM.  If I'm stopped down to the f/4 range, I'd rather have the 40STM on the body.  For weight and IQ, at least to my eyes..

[sagittariansrock]

Considering you have already decided to get the 5DIII and that you already have the 35L and the 50 1.4- why not run through all your combinations and see what suits you best? I am sure that will be more informative that what anyone here can advise...
I am not being snarky here- just telling you from personal experience that I often relied on second-hand theoretical information when first-hand experience turned out to be more informative (well, it always is, of course

[myone]

I was in a similar situation until a few months ago. I upgraded to 5D3 from a 40D, and I also own a 50/1.4 and 35L at that time.

When paired with 35L on the 5D3, sometimes, it gets a little short for street photography. But at a same time, you gain more information on the wide side. Packing more information into frames is more appealing to me. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. I ended up selling my 50/1.4 and keeping the 35L, because with 35L, I use it to shoot wide open. The 35L beats the 50/1.4 hands down at aperture 2.2 and below.

Even though the 35L urgently need an update, I still don't understand why people are bashing it so greatly. After all, it is still a very good lens, at least to me and my shooting style. If you love doing fancy dining and taking food pictures, it is very hard to do that with the 50/1.4 due to the 1.5' MFD. I initially bought the 50/1.4 for this purpose, but noticed focusing is hard when you are sitting at the table, and you have to stretch far away from the table to get shots. The 35L is the answer for this, works perfectly on the 40D and now the 5D3 with only 0.98' MFD.

For wide open, you will love the 35L. It is an old lens, but why look at the age of your tool if it is able to give you results that you love?

[bycostello]

honestly, away from lens targets, do you really think you can tell the difference?

[AudioGlenn]

without knowing much about you and your shooting, I'd advise you to keep the 35L.  I recently made the jump to a 5D mkiii from a 60D.  I just sold my 50 1.4 today.  One of the main uses of a prime lens is to use it wide open (or close to wide open).  I was having to stop down my aperture to f/4 or f/5.6 to get really sharp images.  at 1.4, it was so so.  The 35L looks much better wide open...well, at least when stopped down to about 1.8-2.8, but still nice enough for my style at 1.4.  I'll be saving for the 50L eventually.