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

[RKK]

Hello,
Can you please suggest which lens is better for shooting Weddings (still pictures)?
Is it 35mm 1.4 more useful than 50mm 1.2 or the other way?
I am not able to decide. Have budget for only one lens.
I use Canon 5D Mark III. I will be using the lens primarily for shooting bride and/or groom and groups.
I have 70-200 2.8 and 24-105 4.0 lenses as well if it helps for you to make a better suggestion.
I am kind of leaning towards 35 mm but I am afraid that I may have to get too close for the individual shots.
Thank you for your suggestions in advance!
Regards.

 

[bdunbar79]

Well, I don't know for primes. For weddings I'd use 24-70L zoom lens mainly. Hmmm, I'd say I shoot at 50mm more than 35mm. 35 just isn't close enough for me for most situations.

 

[Liberty555]

I've been toying with the same proposition and whilst the 35mm is a stunning lens, you need to get closer and risk distortion - which for a wedding is not desireable. No bride wants her nose to appear bigger!

50mm provides a good field of view without the distortion effects.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

The 50mm is a super general-purpose focal length. Never used the Canon 50mm, but the 35mm I have. It's a gorgeous image but you gotta get really close to your subjects for portraits.

 

[Old Shooter]

If you can delay, I would see if the 24-70 II delivers the IQ that it is supposed to...

It has an awesome focal range for weddings!

 

[bloodstupid]

The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.

 

[SambalOelek]

The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.

The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with any AF sensor on any 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.

Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.

 

[Random Orbits]

The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with any AF sensor on any 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.

Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.

Looks like you should have the lens sent in to be calibrated. Mine works OK on a 5DII with AFMA.

 

[RLPhoto]

50mm > 35mm.

I just prefer the neutral perspective and it's look.

 

[bdunbar79]

The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.

The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with any AF sensor on any 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.

Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.

Really?? I just used it all day yesterday on a 5D Mark III and it worked great, except it was admittendly frustrating in AI Servo Mode.

 

[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.

 

[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.

I'm starting to think Canon has added a new layer of "skill" in using this lens: Whether they sold you a good copy or not

 

[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.

I'm starting to think Canon has added a new layer of "skill" in using this lens: Whether they sold you a good copy or not

I dont know what it is... when the 1.2 got good focus, it was magical, but for me to get consistent results, i had to shoot at 2.8 or lower... If i'm paying $1200 for a 1.2, I dont know, i kinda expect to be able to consistently use it for shallower aps that 2.8. Even my 1.4 50 does a decent job at 1.8 and 2.2, albeit iffy on AF from times to time and not so flattering at 1.4... The 35 1.4, it was hard to make that puppy miss.

 

[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...

 

[SambalOelek]

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.

 

[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.