35L or 50L?

[wayno]

I use my 35 a lot more than my 50 - I just find the focal length a lot more useful and practical.

[coryparris]

My 50 1.4 was a complete dog. Complete mush at anything below f2.8. I bought the Sigma on a whim with the intention of buying the 50 1.2 later. Later never arrived.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is very sharp and has good bokeh. It is usually good to focus, but occasionally stops before achieving complete focus. The focus action is a bit harsh compared to Canon lenses.

[Axilrod]

It depends how good, bad, or ugly the copy you received was. Mine is superior to any of my previous 50mm I've owned and TDP shows how terrible the 1.4 is with CA and Veiling haze. It mirrors my experience in the center where it matters most to me.

I wasn't talking about wide open, more from f/2 up.  I had a great copy and overall it is a better lens than the 50mm f/1.4 but it's not like it's crushing it in terms of sharpness.

[RS2021]

My 50 f/1.4 is sharp and is a well bahaved prime. It doesn't have the L's "look" but it is a straight shooter...not a fancy lens.

[WhoIreland]

I had a 50/1.4 which I loved on film & early digi's....
never thought it was up to scratch on full frame digi bodies

tried 50/1.2 and was much better

but bought and kept 35/1.4L - superb lens....
i upgraded 28-70L to 24-70L, and then went to 24-70L II

but nothing replaces 35L - it's a fantastic piece of kit