Which Prime: 50L or 35L?

[Random Orbits]

35L. It's a nice focal length for environmental portraits (esp. at night) and for use indoors, where there is typically less space. You can always crop the images a bit in post. If I'm outside where space isn't an issue, I'm usually using longer lenses than the 35 or 50 anyway, especially for children who tend to move a lot.

Both 35 and 50 are sharp enough for portraits. For use stopped down, your 24-70 II is going to be able to match the 35 and will be sharper than the 50, so the instances where you'd use a fast prime would be for shallow DOF or in low light, where corner sharpness is not an issue.

 

[AudioGlenn]

35L. It's a nice focal length for environmental portraits (esp. at night) and for use indoors, where there is typically less space. You can always crop the images a bit in post. If I'm outside where space isn't an issue, I'm usually using longer lenses than the 35 or 50 anyway, especially for children who tend to move a lot.

Both 35 and 50 are sharp enough for portraits. For use stopped down, your 24-70 II is going to be able to match the 35 and will be sharper than the 50, so the instances where you'd use a fast prime would be for shallow DOF or in low light, where corner sharpness is not an issue.

+1

 

[Jamesy]

I have lots of razor sharp shots with my 50L. It takes some AFMA tweaking though. It is well documented that the focal plane of this lens is curved. Therefore I suggest adjusting using the focal point you use most. If you dial in the center point your shots focused with outer points are going to be off miserably. With my copy I found my center point to be a 14 step difference than the next-to-outer-most points. It went from -7 at center to +7 on the outer.

I have always heard of focus shift on the 50L but never bothered to research what it meant - your explanation makes total sense - thank you!

 

[kbmelb]

Did you try it with new focusing mechanism of 1D X / 5D Mk III?

Yes, on my 5DIII. That is where I really noticed it. I tried some AFMA tutorial I found on the web and it used the center point to determine the adjustment. Then I went out on a job thinking the lens would be locked in and I missed every shot badly. So I switched up to my mkII, I had it dialed in and I realized later it was because I used outer points when I did the adjustments. So I went back and did that to mkIII and now they are sharp.

I have always heard of focus shift on the 50L but never bothered to research what it meant - your explanation makes total sense - thank you!

I think the focus shift and curved focal plane may be two different issues. I don't know, but since I don't notice it maybe they are related. From what I understand though, focus shift is because the lens focuses wide open at 1.2 then during actuation squints down to whatever f/stop and for whatever reason focus is off.

How great would it be to set AFMA for multiple AF points and f/stops? Like you can for range on a zoom lens. It would take some time to set up but man the results would be so worth it.

 

[robbymack]

Hi guys,
I decided to upgrade all my lenses to “L”. Early this week, I sold my last non-L 50mm f1.4 on CL for $290. That wasn’t an easy decision, but I did it.

I currently have 16-35 II, 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II (5D III body). As you can see, I’m pretty much covered from 16 to 200mm at 2.8 straight. It’s time to add a prime to my bag.

Question is which prime? I’m leaning toward to 50L or 35L – my feeling right now is 55% on 50L and 45% on 35L.

So, which prime will deliver best sharpness at wide open for portrait general shooting & portrait? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Dylan

with the f2.8 zoom trinity do you really need a prime? Ok I jest we all need new (more) gear. Since this will obviously be a costly decision, i say rent the 35, 50, 85, and 135 L and see what floats your boat. Or simply set your zooms to those FL and go shooting for a day to see what fits your eye best. I suspect with the gear you already have there is a good chance you already know what FL you want the most. My $0.02: I spent a brief weekend with the 24-70ii and that tells me you won't see a vast improvement over the zoom with the 35 or 50L unless you really need the extra stops, so maybe lean towards the 85 or 135L.

 

[Caps18]

I would go with the 50mm f/1.2, but that is me. It will be my next lens, although the 35mm f/1.4 & 24mm f/1.4 are tempting for the photos I take.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks guys for all your wonderful thoughts.

I'm going to enjoy my KILLER-COMBO 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II for now. Both handle in low light very well with 5D III. I really like the 50L, but I'm going to wait for version II. Current version seems to have too many issues.

 

[Chris_prophotographic]

24 mk II on a 7D is gold, 35 L is better for the 1D X is good at 2.0(still ver very good at 1.4 but thats me) 70 - 200 MKII does allot of the portrait work less distortion.


24 on the 1 D X feels a bit too wide or high distortion up close but neat for rock and close work.

So many sexy options i dont think you can miss wit a newer prime just the question is, what do you want to achieve/shoot.

 

[SJTstudios]

I always break it down to how you shoot. If you shoot a lot of natural oriented/horizontal shots go 35. If you shoot vertical/portrait oriented shots go 50.

I have lots of razor sharp shots with my 50L. It takes some AFMA tweaking though. It is well documented that the focal plane of this lens is curved. Therefore I suggest adjusting using the focal point you use most. If you dial in the center point your shots focused with outer points are going to be off miserably. With my copy I found my center point to be a 14 step difference than the next-to-outer-most points. It went from -7 at center to +7 on the outer.

This guy has the right idea.

 

[jdramirez]

It's always been my understanding that the 50mm f/1.4 actually outperforms the f/1.2 at practically every aperture... which is why I can't understand why someone would upgrade when it is technically a downgrade. So my vote would be the 35L.

Maybe that is just rumor and innuendo, but it's a tale I choose to believe.

 

[RLPhoto]

It's always been my understanding that the 50mm f/1.4 actually outperforms the f/1.2 at practically every aperture... which is why I can't understand why someone would upgrade when it is technically a downgrade. So my vote would be the 35L.

Maybe that is just rumor and innuendo, but it's a tale I choose to believe.

The 50L is better from f/1.2 - f/2.8. After that the 1.4 Is sharper.

 

[AmbientLight]

In case you are going to shoot a lot wide open for portraits or night shots I strongly recommend the 50L.

Nevertheless as Neuro stated in this thread you should question your preferred focal length, because although 35mm is somewhat similar to 50mm it is not the same. The 50mm will give you tighter portraits or night shots with more reach. If you want to shoot wider, go for the 35mm, if it is the opposite you should buy the 50mm.

I own and absolutely love the 50mm. I use a 24mm f1.4 for wider shots with fast aperture, because I feel 35mm focal length is not really something for me, but that is exactly the point in focal length preference.