Prime Lenses

[Loswr]

What I'm reading from you guys is that I'd be buying myself a few aperture stops and not a bunch more. Knowing that I think that I'll experiment with the improved ISO on the 5D versus my 40D and see if I'll even need more than that.

It's true that at comparable apertures, there's not much real-world difference between the 70-200 II and the primes (same for the 135L). So in that sense, you are just getting a few aperture stops (and smaller, lighter lenses, but less versatile, too).

Those few stops of aperture mean more light, for which as you state, an ISO bump can substitute. But a wider aperture also means a shallower DoF - I'd argue that for the 50L and 85L, at least, that's the primary motivation. Still, I think it's not a bad idea to try FF with the lenses you have - after all, your f/2.8 zooms will give you DoF on FF equivalent to f/1.8 on your 40D. The 35L can deliver shallow DoF, too, with close subjects...but being a wide angle lens (on FF), low-light situational shooting is a common use.

To your original question, there's little to distinguish the three lenses you mention from an IQ standpoint, although the 50L is a little weaker on sharpness (it's a portrait lens, and intentional sacrifice of sharpness was made to improve the bokeh). The 50L also has focus shift, which makes it more challenging to work with between f/1.4 and f/4. The 85L focuses slooowwwwwly. It takes some getting used to. The 35L has no quirks, just goodness.

Personally, I don't have the 50L, but I have the 'holy trinity' of primes - 35L, 85L II, 135L. My 24-105mm and 70-200mm II see much more use, but the primes are wonderful in certain situations. 35L for indoor family shooting in ambient light and nighttime walkaround/street shooting (on 5DII), 85L for portraits (on 5DII), 135L for tight portraits (on 5DII) and indoor sports (e.g. swimming, on 7D).

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I've heard nothing but glowing reviews of the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2, and the 85mm 1.2. But besides the 35 being a bit faster is there much difference between these lenses? Would I simply be picking one based on how close I predict being from my subjects or do the lenses actually perform better/worse?

Minimum focus distances and maximum magnifications, borrowed from The-Digital-Picture:

35mm: .3m / 0.18x (0.97x with 25mm extension tube)
50mm: .45m / 0.15x (the author notes some barrel distortion focused closer than about 1m)
85mm: .95m / 0.11x (0.42x to 0.33x with 25mm extension tube)

 

[Cosk]

I'll revise my earlier post now that I know you already have some good glass.

When I had a cropped body, I had the following:
24/2.8 (street)
50/1.4 (candid/children/pets)
85/1.8 (portrait)

The 50 and 85 are awesome - and great value. I strongly recommend getting those two lenses.

The 24/2.8 is annoying - it has an old micro motor focus and sounds like an electric shaver. Although I hated using that lens and rarely put it on my camera, a very high percentage of the images that ever came through that piece of glass are now framed on my wall.

When I moved to a 5D, I sold the 24/2.8 and bought the 35/1.4, and I love it... amazing image quality and it just feels right.

I also bought the 50/1.2, 85/1.2, and the 135/2. I returned the 50/1.2 - I like the 1.4 better. I kept both 85s - the 1.2 is more magical than the 1.8, but only about $500 more magical, which annoys me. And the 135 is new... I'm still learning it.


I'd say start with a 50mm 1.4 the add the 85 1.8. Next, add the 24L if you still have a cropped body or 35L if you have a FF by then.

And those "couple stops" make all the difference. It add a level of three-dimensionality to your images that is really challenging with even a 2.8 lens.

 

[Axilrod]

I think that Flake and PWP misunderstood the nature of my question. I own the 40D, 70-200 L 2.8 IS II, 24-70 L 2.8, and 50 1.4. I'm looking to upgrade my camera to the 5DM3 once it's available and then upgrade my APS-C to the 7D. I have several years of experience with this equipment (70-200 since it's release) and a great deal of technical knowledge regarding the features of my camera and lenses. Since I do not own the primes I mentioned I was asking about the performance of those lenses against one another. I understand my style and how close I'd like to be to my subjects.

Nobody misunderstood anything, you left that information out completely. There wasnt any mention of you owning any gear in your first post. The information you gave would lead most to believe that youre new to photography and tryin to pick some lenses. It just seems like someone that already owned a 24-70, 70-200 ii, and 50 1.4 wouldnt be asking such basic questions....