35L or 50L?

[Alexiumz]

Thanks for all your inputs, it's all exactly the sort of thing I wanted.

Couple of points raised in some of your comments; I'm aware that the 16-35 @35mm pales in comparison to a dedicated 35 prime. I'm also aware that the 50L is only superior to it's smaller siblings between 1.2 and about 2.8, beyond that, the other two are arguably better.

It appears that the general consensus seems to be not to get the 35L; my options seem to boil down to get either the 50L or the Sigma 35 and the 50 1.4...

Again thank you all for your feedback, it's really great. Keep posting and I'll keep reading, though we shall just have to wait and see what I end up deciding to get. Who knows? Not me! Not yet.

 

[RLPhoto]

Thanks for all your inputs, it's all exactly the sort of thing I wanted.

Couple of points raised in some of your comments; I'm aware that the 16-35 @35mm pales in comparison to a dedicated 35 prime. I'm also aware that the 50L is only superior to it's smaller siblings between 1.2 and about 2.8, beyond that, the other two are arguably better.

It appears that the general consensus seems to be not to get the 35L; my options seem to boil down to get either the 50L or the Sigma 35 and the 50 1.4...

Again thank you all for your feedback, it's really great. Keep posting and I'll keep reading, though we shall just have to wait and see what I end up deciding to get. Who knows? Not me! Not yet.

Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.

The 50L is really only for 50mm nuts who just like that focal length. Its heavy, It's expensive, It's IQ band is limited but I wouldn't trade for anything on the market currently.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.

Amen.

You're not going to get a better 35 than the Sigma. Different, yes, but not better.

And chances are negligible that you'll find the 50 f/1.4 lacking...and, if you do, you can sell it for nearly what you pay for it (and consider the difference your rental fee) and use the proceeds to buy a minuscule fraction of the 50L.

Cheers,

b&

 

[HawkinsT]

Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.

For a little extra money I really see no reason to get the Canon 50/1.4 instead of the Sigma 50/1.4. I've already said how I prefer Sigma's 50/1.4 to Canon's 50/1.2, which some people may disagree with, but honestly the Sigma produces so much more pleasing images than the Canon 50/1.4, the bokeh is a lot smoother and the colours and micro contrast better, plus the Canon 50/1.4 just feels cheap. The Canon 50/1.4 is not a lens I'd ever bother with and the only friend I have that has, traded it in for the Sigma 50/1.4 pretty quickly.

 

[RLPhoto]

Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.

For a little extra money I really see no reason to get the Canon 50/1.4 instead of the Sigma 50/1.4. I've already said how I prefer Sigma's 50/1.4 to Canon's 50/1.2, which some people may disagree with, but honestly the Sigma produces so much more pleasing images than the Canon 50/1.4, the bokeh is a lot smoother and the colours and micro contrast better, plus the Canon 50/1.4 just feels cheap. The Canon 50/1.4 is not a lens I'd ever bother with and the only friend I have that has, traded it in for the Sigma 50/1.4 pretty quickly.

I could never recommend the sigma 50mm because of its irratic AF behavior. It's IQ was good when it hit but I couldn't trust it. Maybe when they update it to an art series lens, I'll revisit it.

 

[HawkinsT]

Apparently some copies of the lens have issues with consistent af and so perhaps I've been lucky there (after considerable micro adjustment to the af) but there are great copies of this lens about and buying from a reputable retailer always allows you to swap your lens for another if you do indeed get a dud. Amazon are great in this regard.

 

[pierceography]

Apparently some copies of the lens have issues with consistent af and so perhaps I've been lucky there (after considerable micro adjustment to the af) but there are great copies of this lens about and buying from a reputable retailer always allows you to swap your lens for another if you do indeed get a dud. Amazon are great in this regard.

I own the Sigma f/1.4. Took me two copies, but I got one with decent AF. Being that it's still a 1.4, AF can be hard to nail, but when you do the results are outstanding. I had the Canon 1.4 and sold it for the Sigma. Real happy I did.

Here's a recent shot with the Sigma:

http://www.pierceography.com/31725

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Hmm, not a lot of love for the 35L here. I have one and I simply love it, I can't compare it to the 50L other than focal length wise. I like the 35mm focal length, even on my 24-105 I find myself often going to around 35mm.

In terms of CA and other, I am not skilled enough (or interested enough to check all details), but I've not noticed anything disturbing in processed pictures.

People are talking alot about the new Sigma, probably for the right reasons. But it is still untested in terms of build and how it will last over time. The 35L was introduced 1998 if I remember correct and as far as I understand holds well over time. I think that is also something to take into consideration. I have one Sigma lens that I used for my old 60D, I haven't sold it because it's not worth anything and the years have definitely taken it's toll on it.

I am sure you will be happy with the 50L though as many of the more experienced photographers here recommend.

 

[Ricku]

Sigma 35mm... I hope they can also produce a 21mm or 20mm that's as good and as cheap.

+1

And I hope they can produce a wide angle zoom that is sharp across the frame, so that we don't have to wait for Canon to do it.

 

[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