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

[Viggo]

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

50L is a awesome lens. Am I the only one here who got a good copy? I prefer it over the 35mm for its classic focal length. I suppose ive always been a fan of Henri cartier bressons subtle painting like perspective of the 50mm. No tricks, just a normal view.

The normal view you get isn't about the 50 fov, it's about the compression you get at 50mm. But yeah, I love it too!

I think the 50 L is a great 50, but then again, I agree with what's being said, the Canon 50's suck (compared to 35 and 85)...

MY dream 50 is the same color and contrast and size+build of the current 50 L, but with the 24 L II AF, and the 35 wide open sharpness and way less CA. And get rid of the fact it's useless sharp at mfd, but great at 4 feet and beyond.

I disagree, I like all the canon 50mm's. I've used them all before and all have there strengths and weaknesses. The 50L is my favorite 50mm of all time currently and i've used tons of different 50mms on 35mm and medium format 80mm's.

Yeah well, I really like the 50 L too, but are you saying you're happy with sharpness at all distances and CA control? The focus is sluggish compared to the 85, but that's very slow and way too long focal for most of what I shoot, the 35 is precise and fast, but it lacks all the goodiness in color, contrast bokeh of the 50 L, and of course is wideangle with distortion.

To me the 50 focal is perfect for almost everything I shoot, but it's hard to use when I have both the 35 and 85 which are CLEARLY better IQ, in some ways over the 50.

Why can't they make a 50 that is as good as the 85 L or the 35 or the 24 or the 135 ?!

I don't care if it would cost the same as the 85 or if it was as heavy as the 85. I just want a 50 that can easily match the other L-primes, because all of the others are way better overall. And they should put some effort into the 50 as more and more people using FF and the 50 is such a great focal the 85 and 35 just aren't close too.

 

[risc32]

This thread has gone bonkers. Did someone just say the 85L is a good deal? The 35L can't really be improved? I really hope that's wrong as the cheap as can be samyang is much better. Are we still talking about the 50L's focus demons? i say get a 50mm1.8 and a 35mmL, and you shouldn't really be taking "portraits" with a 35mm lens. I'll also say that, then turn around and say it doesn't really matter. Your shooting distance matters.

-oh, and my 300mm2.8IS also had to be sent in for focus issues, and did someone really also recommend a 2k+$ as yet unreleased 24-70mm 2.8?

 

[bdunbar79]

Viggo, you triggered the comparison I wanted to make. No sane person would argue that the 50L lens is not better in bokeh and color rendition than the 50 f/1.4. Afterall, I have the 50L and even stopped down, the colors are very good. Having said that though, let's look at SHARPNESS ONLY. And let's look at 3 focal lengths. For the 35L, it is sharper at f/8 than the 35 f/2. Okay, so the 35L is a better overall lens. Now, let's look at the 85L. The 85L is sharper than the 85 f/1.8 at f/8. Again, the 85L is a better lens overall. That leaves the 50L. The 50L is NOT sharper than the 50 f/1.4 at f/8, in fact, the 1.4 is sharper. See Bryan Carnathan's Tools/Tests if you don't believe me. This is why the 50L leaves a lot to be desired. For maximum sharpness across all apertures, I have to have two 50mm prime lenses, in effect, and that is not so for the 35 and 85mm focal lengths. Would I get rid of my 50L? No. I like it wider than f/2.2. It's a very, very good night lens too for street shots. I like the saturation too. But again, my comparison was center sharpness, which does matter too.

If I were shooting weddings, I would NOT purchase this lens just because I was shooting weddings. Shoot your shots with the 50L, 50 1.4, load 'em onto your computer and compare. You'll see no difference at all in IQ at f/2.8 and narrower, which is where I spend all of my time even in wedding photography. So what would be the point in spending $1499 vs. $369? If you want the awesome bokeh effects for elsewhere outside of weddings, then yes it is worth it.

 

[wickidwombat]

I'd pay $5,000+ to get a 35-85 f1.4 zoom!

ditto

L series and weather sealed

I'm not sure if i could bring myself to remove that lens from my camera if it existed
for 5K it would be nice if they included IS too

There is a real market for a lens like this and people who want it would happily pay supertele price if it delivers the goods

 

[RLPhoto]

Viggo, you triggered the comparison I wanted to make. No sane person would argue that the 50L lens is not better in bokeh and color rendition than the 50 f/1.4. Afterall, I have the 50L and even stopped down, the colors are very good. Having said that though, let's look at SHARPNESS ONLY. And let's look at 3 focal lengths. For the 35L, it is sharper at f/8 than the 35 f/2. Okay, so the 35L is a better overall lens. Now, let's look at the 85L. The 85L is sharper than the 85 f/1.8 at f/8. Again, the 85L is a better lens overall. That leaves the 50L. The 50L is NOT sharper than the 50 f/1.4 at f/8, in fact, the 1.4 is sharper. See Bryan Carnathan's Tools/Tests if you don't believe me. This is why the 50L leaves a lot to be desired. For maximum sharpness across all apertures, I have to have two 50mm prime lenses, in effect, and that is not so for the 35 and 85mm focal lengths. Would I get rid of my 50L? No. I like it wider than f/2.2. It's a very, very good night lens too for street shots. I like the saturation too. But again, my comparison was center sharpness, which does matter too.

If I were shooting weddings, I would NOT purchase this lens just because I was shooting weddings. Shoot your shots with the 50L, 50 1.4, load 'em onto your computer and compare. You'll see no difference at all in IQ at f/2.8 and narrower, which is where I spend all of my time even in wedding photography. So what would be the point in spending $1499 vs. $369? If you want the awesome bokeh effects for elsewhere outside of weddings, then yes it is worth it.

50L has a look to it. Its just AWESOME! Look! This is my change bank on my nightstand but the 50L and window light with a FF camera made it look Great!

Once I took my first 50L shot, I dropped and sold my other 50mm's.

5Dc - ISO 3200 - F1.6 - 1/60th

 

[SandyP]

Yeah, the 50L is definitely worth the money if you can afford it, I have no bad feelings about buying this lens, it's definitely the most used lens I have too, among quite a few nice ones. I still hope they release a new version soon that has a slightly different design. But, I must say, shooting with it on the 5D3 is far different (better) than shooting with it on the 5D2. But, I never had too many problems with the 5D2 either. It's a very dreamy lens, that the other Canon 50s cannot compare to really. It's sharp, plenty sharp enough at f/8, but you don't really buy this sort of f/1.2 lens to judge it at f/8, as it is, it's fine enough there. It's still the best at f/1.2 to f/2.2 or so. And that's like where I shoot with this lens about 99% of the time.

 

[Viggo]

Yeah, I agree with that, I absolutely think it's worth the money over the others and of course the only weathersealed.

And yeah, it came to life on the 5d3 compared to the 5d2, BUT it is the hardest canon lens to control. When mastered it still is difficult up close and really not killersharp. Fix the sharpness and af and I'll live with ca and shiftfocus. I don't think that's too much to ask when we compare to it's canon siblings.

 

[bdunbar79]

Again, we're talking WEDDINGS. There is no reason ever, to shoot at f/1.6 at a wedding, unless you want a person's nose in sharp focus and their face blurry. I've shot weddings and I cannot for the life of me remember when I shot wider than f/2.8. The ring shot maybe? Ok, maybe, but I sure as hell didn't use a 50mm lens for the ring shots, I used my 85L. For weddings it just doesn't make sense. The 24-70L or 50 f/1.4 is better for weddings.

 

[bdunbar79]

Yeah, the 50L is definitely worth the money if you can afford it, I have no bad feelings about buying this lens, it's definitely the most used lens I have too, among quite a few nice ones. I still hope they release a new version soon that has a slightly different design. But, I must say, shooting with it on the 5D3 is far different (better) than shooting with it on the 5D2. But, I never had too many problems with the 5D2 either. It's a very dreamy lens, that the other Canon 50s cannot compare to really. It's sharp, plenty sharp enough at f/8, but you don't really buy this sort of f/1.2 lens to judge it at f/8, as it is, it's fine enough there. It's still the best at f/1.2 to f/2.2 or so. And that's like where I shoot with this lens about 99% of the time.

Exactly. You have to buy TWO 50mm primes to get the best sharpness across all apertures, vs. ONE each at 35mm and 85mm. And why would you shoot at f/1.2 to f/2.2 at a wedding? Remember, this thread is about weddings. So judging it at f/8 is more than justified. If I need a sharp image f/2.8 and narrower, to get the BEST sharpness, I will not choose the 50L. I use my 50L for indoor close ups and night street shots. I use my 50 f/1.4 for outside daytime shots or any shot f/2.8 and narrower.

 

[wickidwombat]

looking at the bokeh from the 40 vs the 50 f1.4 I think the 40 might be a real winner of a wedding lens actually

 

[risc32]

I was wondering about that also, but i'm already reading the AF tracking isn't so good(photozone). I need that, even in poorly lit surrounding. If they could just take the 50L and make it's performance from around f2.8 or f4 and narrower the equal of the lowly 1.8, and squash all AF demons. I'd buy one in a second. I'd love to have access to dreamy ville at 1.2 + the across the frame sharpness of the much, much cheaper models. I refuse to carry or buy two 50's.