Canon 35mm f/1.4 L or Canon 50 mm f.1.2 L - for Weddings

[Viggo]

During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible.  Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck.  Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus.  When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations.  The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue.  Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.

How fair is that? If you had å copy at Max out MA, you haven't got a properly calibrated lens, and of course that won't work. I didn't get any stability or accuracy with my 50's before i used REIKAN software. But now, the 50 L is just fantastic, and as you can see from my bottom signature, I have the others to compare with. It isn't perfect, but it's what's closest in the 50 focal...

My experience is similar, and I probably should have my own sample calibrated. It's especially frustrating because I've never encountered any such problems with the 35L (two samples), 85L, 135L (three samples) or 50 f/1.4 (3 samples) for that matter. Slight MA needed, sure, but nothing like this.

Well, then I guess the 300 f2,8 L IS sucks bigtime, because mine missed by 30 meters aiming at 100 meters, and that was at +20.... It needed hardware calibration, and when it came back I adjusted it to +6 and it was dead on. Calibration doesn't have anything to do with "bad" or good lenses at all. It has to do with tolerance. And in my experience you can go 10 and 10 steps at the time and see no difference, heck both my 50's where very close, but not perfect (like my other lenses) until I ran the FoCal software, it only adjusted them 2 steps from where I was, but it made a HUGE difference in stabillity and accuracy. Farther and farther adjustment doesn't always make it better and better, it's the RIGHT adjustments you need.

Just checked, and it seems the 50 and 135 are the ones that are the least adjusted both on my 5d3 and my gf's 5d2. My 24 is at +16, but it hits perfect. I ran it through FoCal, and it gave me +16...

35 is at -11 but also hit perfect.

[Cosk]

Jasmine Star has a great blog entry on her favorite prime lenses for weddings.   (But she loves them all... so it's not going to give you a definite answer.)  Click the link below and scroll down half-way for her lens comments. 

http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?m=10&y=2011

I no longer shoot weddings professionally (working started to take the joy out of photography for me).  But - when I shoot weddings and events as favors, I only bring my prime kit (35/50/85/135) - and I always seem to grab the 35 and 85.  Those two deliver stunning results.  The 35 delivers low-light, journalistic shots with a 3D quality - and without a flash (getting ready, the reception).  The 85 delivers magical portraits that no zoom can match.  (The 1.8 and 1.2 are both incredible... I say start with the 1.8 ).  My poor 50 is neglected.   

Hope that helps...

[SambalOelek]

Well, then I guess the 300 f2,8 L IS sucks bigtime, because mine missed by 30 meters aiming at 100 meters, and that was at +20.... It needed hardware calibration, and when it came back I adjusted it to +6 and it was dead on. Calibration doesn't have anything to do with "bad" or good lenses at all. It has to do with tolerance. And in my experience you can go 10 and 10 steps at the time and see no difference, heck both my 50's where very close, but not perfect (like my other lenses) until I ran the FoCal software, it only adjusted them 2 steps from where I was, but it made a HUGE difference in stabillity and accuracy. Farther and farther adjustment doesn't always make it better and better, it's the RIGHT adjustments you need.

Just checked, and it seems the 50 and 135 are the ones that are the least adjusted both on my 5d3 and my gf's 5d2. My 24 is at +16, but it hits perfect. I ran it through FoCal, and it gave me +16...

35 is at -11 but also hit perfect.

That's a non-sequitur. The 50L focus shifts (a separate, but very related issue) is caused by the lens' undercorrection of spherical aberration, in other words a design flaw (or "feature", if you prefer).

[awinphoto]

During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible.  Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck.  Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus.  When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations.  The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue.  Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.

How fair is that? If you had å copy at Max out MA, you haven't got a properly calibrated lens, and of course that won't work. I didn't get any stability or accuracy with my 50's before i used REIKAN software. But now, the 50 L is just fantastic, and as you can see from my bottom signature, I have the others to compare with. It isn't perfect, but it's what's closest in the 50 focal...

Fair or not, canon loaned me the lens for a 2 week period so sending my camera to be calibrated with it was out of the question. It is what it is. When I did the MA, it was good, but the AF motor or whatever just couldn't keep up. My results were far from scientific nor fair, but 2 lenses, both sent to me direct from canon, and my results are what they are.

[bdunbar79]

During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible.  Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck.  Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus.  When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations.  The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue.  Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.

How fair is that? If you had å copy at Max out MA, you haven't got a properly calibrated lens, and of course that won't work. I didn't get any stability or accuracy with my 50's before i used REIKAN software. But now, the 50 L is just fantastic, and as you can see from my bottom signature, I have the others to compare with. It isn't perfect, but it's what's closest in the 50 focal...

My experience is similar, and I probably should have my own sample calibrated. It's especially frustrating because I've never encountered any such problems with the 35L (two samples), 85L, 135L (three samples) or 50 f/1.4 (3 samples) for that matter. Slight MA needed, sure, but nothing like this.

Which is exactly why it's not a good value lens like the 35L or 85L, and especially the 50 f/1.4.  Okay so you have to microadjust the lens.  Why should I have to do that when I paid $1699??  Some have said, "Oh well that's just how lenses are."  Ok, well I didn't have to do that for ANY OTHER LENS I bought, but ok.

[RKK]

Jasmine Star has a great blog entry on her favorite prime lenses for weddings.   (But she loves them all... so it's not going to give you a definite answer.)  Click the link below and scroll down half-way for her lens comments. 

http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?m=10&y=2011

I no longer shoot weddings professionally (working started to take the joy out of photography for me).  But - when I shoot weddings and events as favors, I only bring my prime kit (35/50/85/135) - and I always seem to grab the 35 and 85.  Those two deliver stunning results.  The 35 delivers low-light, journalistic shots with a 3D quality - and without a flash (getting ready, the reception).  The 85 delivers magical portraits that no zoom can match.  (The 1.8 and 1.2 are both incredible... I say start with the 1..  My poor 50 is neglected.   

Hope that helps...

Thank you for the link. There is a lot of interesting information and beautiful pictures in it. Thank you, again!

[RKK]

It looks like 50 mm is not liked by many people. It is still a tough choice for me to make a decision on. I hate to spend money on rentals but I guess I should rent these two lenses and try. Thank you everyone for your responses, I appreciate it!

[bdunbar79]

It looks like 50 mm is not liked by many people. It is still a tough choice for me to make a decision on. I hate to spend money on rentals but I guess I should rent these two lenses and try. Thank you everyone for your responses, I appreciate it!

When I shot weddings I used the Canon 50mm f/1.4.  It is fantastic!

[RKK]

It looks like 50 mm is not liked by many people. It is still a tough choice for me to make a decision on. I hate to spend money on rentals but I guess I should rent these two lenses and try. Thank you everyone for your responses, I appreciate it!

When I shot weddings I used the Canon 50mm f/1.4.  It is fantastic!

Do you use 50 mm for groups or for just bride/groom portraits? Is there a way you can share some sample pictures?
Have you ever used 35mm too? If so, which one did you find more useful?
Thank you for your response!

[psolberg]

50 1.8 or 50 1.4 

CA on both 1.2 canon lenses at 1.2 along is HORRENDOUS and both suffer of low contrast and very soft output. This makes the cost not worth the benefits IMO. At f/1.4 the 50mm cleans up a little but to get acceptably sharp images you need to go down to f/1.8 or f/2. Any more open than that and the lenses just can't keep up with the sensor. The difference in the look of an image of the 1.4 vs 1.2 is minimal at best and won't really have the wow factor that you'd get with some of the truly exotic 50's out there that push things to f/0.95. That you WILL notice ....but good luck affording that. 

so save your money. As hyped as the f/1.2 lenses are the reality is that to make them shine at that aperture, canon would have to charge 3x more. Consider these lenses to be f/1.4 for all intents and purposes which can be pushed to 1.2 if you can live with the fall in quality. I never could.

[bdunbar79]

50 1.8 or 50 1.4 

CA on both 1.2 canon lenses at 1.2 along is HORRENDOUS and both suffer of low contrast and very soft output. This makes the cost not worth the benefits IMO. At f/1.4 the 50mm cleans up a little but to get acceptably sharp images you need to go down to f/1.8 or f/2. Any more open than that and the lenses just can't keep up with the sensor. The difference in the look of an image of the 1.4 vs 1.2 is minimal at best and won't really have the wow factor that you'd get with some of the truly exotic 50's out there that push things to f/0.95. That you WILL notice ....but good luck affording that. 

so save your money. As hyped as the f/1.2 lenses are the reality is that to make them shine at that aperture, canon would have to charge 3x more. Consider these lenses to be f/1.4 for all intents and purposes which can be pushed to 1.2 if you can live with the fall in quality. I never could.

I'm sorry, I've read your post twice and I can't figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Anyways, if you use the 50 f/1.4, you can use it for both group and distant portrait as I like to call it.  The 50 f/1.4 is really useful for a group shot of about more than say, 5 people.  But for group wedding shots at the front of the church I used the 85.  I used the 85 f/1.2L II for bride down the aisle and close up bride/groom portraits on a FULL FRAME.  50mm on APS-C would be good, at 80mm.  I had 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2, and 135 f/2 for primes.  They can be used for everything.  Furthermore, I had a 24-70L and 70-200L zoom lenses in the bag.  Be creative.

[bdunbar79]

It looks like 50 mm is not liked by many people. It is still a tough choice for me to make a decision on. I hate to spend money on rentals but I guess I should rent these two lenses and try. Thank you everyone for your responses, I appreciate it!

When I shot weddings I used the Canon 50mm f/1.4.  It is fantastic!

Do you use 50 mm for groups or for just bride/groom portraits? Is there a way you can share some sample pictures?
Have you ever used 35mm too? If so, which one did you find more useful?
Thank you for your response!

If you are unsure of focal length, another good tip is just put the 24-70 zoom on if you have it.  I did shoot at 35mm but using the 24-70L zoom lens.  50 f/1.4 for groups of more than 5, scene shot, 85 for bride up the aisle and front of the church group shots, everything else I used as I saw fit, such as many shots in the church and reception.  Be creative from 24 to 200mm!

[MarkWebbPhoto]

I have just about every current AF Canon L prime between 24mm and 300mm. The 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L II are the best for weddings and stay on my cameras as much as possible. I have several friends who have sent their 50mm f/1.2L's back because the autofocus was so inconsistent and it was recommended to me to not purchase that lens so I'm going to pass that recommendation to you. At the moment I just use the 35mm prime and can crop it to around 50mm easily. If I need the extra focal length I just pull out my 85mm f/1.2L II and skip over the 50mm focal length (recommended if you are on full-frame).

I'm anxiously waiting for Canon to come out with a good 50mm lens. This is the weakest focal length in their line up if you ask me.

Also, if the 35mm f/1.4L gets updated with less CA and weather proofing (why does this lens not have this in the first place?) then I'd say the 35mm f/1.4L II is going to be as close to a perfect prime lens as you can get. Image quality is already amazing.

I've been wanting to pull out all of my primes and do a comparison at night time, maybe that can be my next blog entry. Till then here are some samples:

85mm f/1.2L II at f/2.0 http://markwebbphoto.com/weddingportfolio/h3401c75e#h3401c75e

35mm f/1.4L at f/2.5 http://markwebbphoto.com/weddingportfolio/h2027ab87#h2027ab87

[wickidwombat]

I'm anxiously waiting for Canon to come out with a good 50mm lens. This is the weakest focal length in their line up if you ask me.

yep thats the truth, for now for me the 50 f1.4 is the best bang for buck

[MarkWebbPhoto]

I'm anxiously waiting for Canon to come out with a good 50mm lens. This is the weakest focal length in their line up if you ask me.

yep thats the truth, for now for me the 50 f1.4 is the best bang for buck

Yep I went with the 50 f/1.4 too but note that mine fell apart sitting in a lens case once. The rear element fell out so I had to sent it to Canon for repairs. I guess the rear element just screws in so just check on it every so often.