Gear Talk > Lenses

50mm 1.2 vs 35mm 1.4

(1/3) > >>

hippoeater:
Well, I'm not sure what to do. I'm currently using only my 50mm 1.2 lens and I'm considering selling/trading it towards the 35mm 1.4. (and maybe repurchase the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8)

I want one of them for a kind of everyday lens for general walkaround use.

Looking for some opinions on people that have used/own both and which they lean more towards and why.

On top of that I'm not too sure if I maybe want to hold off and see what gets announced in the next months as the mark II of the 35 seems to be a pretty strong rumor for the past year or so - but who really knows.

Anywho, would love to hear some insight from everyone.

Thanks!

Random Orbits:
Used the 35 on a crop sensor, and then added a used 50 when I moved to FF.  The 35 is sharper wide open then the 50.  The 35 is not weatherized like the 50, but that's not a feature that I require.  I used to have a general purpose zoom (17-55) on the crop sensor, but I sold it to switch to FF and never replaced it with a 24-70/24-105 so I exclusively use primes for the midrange.  I tend to use the 50 more because it slots nicely between the wide angle and telephoto zooms.

If you're happy with the 50L, then stay with it.  It might be hard to downgrade to the 1.4 or 1.8.

If you prefer the 35mm FL, then go for the 35L now.  It's a great lens.  It's an older design but is still sharp.  The new Ziess is sharper according to TDP, but the Ziess is MF only and costs a bit more.  I expect that the 35L II will similarly cost more when it comes out.

Dylan777:

--- Quote from: hippoeater on August 05, 2012, 08:18:11 PM ---Well, I'm not sure what to do. I'm currently using only my 50mm 1.2 lens and I'm considering selling/trading it towards the 35mm 1.4. (and maybe repurchase the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8)

I want one of them for a kind of everyday lens for general walkaround use.

Looking for some opinions on people that have used/own both and which they lean more towards and why.

On top of that I'm not too sure if I maybe want to hold off and see what gets announced in the next months as the mark II of the 35 seems to be a pretty strong rumor for the past year or so - but who really knows.

Anywho, would love to hear some insight from everyone.

Thanks!

--- End quote ---

5-6 months ago, I tested both 50L and 1.4. At the end, I decided to go with 1.4.

Now...I'm thinking about 35L....this lens is SHARP and a bit wider than 50 :)

The Bad Duck:
Not knowing what kind of photographs you want to create this is an impossible question to answer. I think you need to settle for the focal length first. Do you know that 35mm is right for you? Also think about what f-stops you use. Are you doing a lot of work at f/1.2 - 1.8 and like the photographs you create at the moment then you might want to keep the 50 and buy a 35 /2.0 or a 28 /1.8 instead. The 28 is not as bad as its reputation. My 28 /1.8 seems as sharp as my 35 from what I can tell by looking at my photographs. Colors are warmer with the 35 though.
But if you find yourself at f/4 - f/11 all the time then there is no need for the fastest lens.

I own the 35 /1.4 and the 50 /1.4 (not the 1.2) and while the 35 is the cooler lens, I find the 50 is almost always easier to use for enviromental portraits (I´m using a 5d mkII). At events I am in peoples faces with a 35 while I can leave them be with a 50. They still know I am there photographing them, but it´s not as fearsome as with that big camera up their noses. For full body portraits with lots of enviroment in the frame I often go as wide as 24 mm but with caution of where I put the model in the frame to avoid problems from distortion. If I hit the streets with two primes for shooting people I use the 85 /1.8 and the 35 /1.4. If I only take one lens it´s the 50 /1.4.

As for image quality my 35 seems really sharp stopped down a little bit (f/2 or so) but as always remember short DOF is hard to work with on non-static subjects and of course I might have been sloppy when doing micro adjustment on the lens. But probably not.

If you are on a crop body then just get the sigma 30 /1.4.

As my uncle use to say - with a 50mm at smaller apetures you have no leverage from a technical point of view. If you create an image that really pops its because of your skill, not your gear. Think of that as a motivation.

Viggo:
I have them both, and I must say, they are not even close to each other in perspective and distortion on a FF sensor at least.

The 50 can be used for portraits and have completely different compression, much better bokeh and way more blur.

For sharpness wide open the 35 kills the 1,2. You do not buy the 50 L for sharpness over the 35 or 85. You buy it because the gorgeous 50mm focal and the compression it gives. It's seriously non dramatic lens, it gives you nothing, you have to rely on subject light and composition.

The 35 gives a cooler perspective for creative shots, VERY good AF and a lens I use A LOT for shooting my kids, not so wide and dramatic as the 24 1,4, but enough to get that connection with the subject, like they are IN your face, and the 35 is also very nice to give an extra lift to types of streetphoto.

The 50 is the bigger more mature brother that thinks and gives a more serious look, whilst the 35 is the younger brother that likes to break the rules and have fun.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page