canon ef 35mm f/2 vs f/1.4L

clintham · 4 Oct 2011 at 13:13

i would really love the 35mm f/1.4L but cash wise, its just not gunna happen anytime soon. so at roughly £200-£250 (second hand) the f/2 is a way cheaper option.
has anyone had any experiences with the f/2? what is the general opinion?

the reason i ask is im currently weighing up the primes vs zooms argument. unfortunately price is a big factor. for the price of a 24-70 i can get a 35mm f/2, plus a 50mm f/1.4 and a 85mm f/1.8 (all second hand)

my 2 endpoint options are: 5Dii, 5D, 24-70, 70-200 VS 5Dii, 5D, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm (135mm may have to wait a while though)

its a pretty old argument i know - primes vs zooms. at the moment im looking at primes but the cheaper models to begin with. think i would miss the long range of my 70-200 though.

Raymond Lin · 4 Oct 2011 at 13:23

If you are starting out, get a set of zooms. You will "miss" less shots with the flexibility.

Primes are great for lower light, bokeh and sharpness but the restriction of their focal length need to be compensated by experience. Almost predicting the future, and knowing that focal length and know where you need to stand to get the photo in your head before you even get into position.

Save up and get the 24-70L, although even though I don't use it much lol

The 35L is my most used lens.

But...if i were on a budget, and get a budget set of primes.

35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, those are a very capable set of lenses and I wouldn't feel that restricted if I were to use them.

clintham · 4 Oct 2011 at 13:44

Raymond Lin said:
Primes are great for lower light, bokeh and sharpness but the restriction of their focal length need to be compensated by experience. Almost predicting the future, and knowing that focal length and know where you need to stand to get the photo in your head before you even get into position.

thats an interesting point ray but surely if i always use zooms, that experience is never going to come as i will just use the flexibility of the zoom rather than anticpating and moving into position? im pretty tempted to jump in at the deep end in that respect. got a week in cyprus with the family starting tomorrow so plenty of time to think it over

Rojin · 4 Oct 2011 at 14:20

I've been looking at the 35/2 for ages, as like you I cannot afford the 35/1.4. They are pretty rare second hand on forums, if I saw one for a good price I'd probably go for it. The big issue though is the AF speed, it's ancient and I fully admit to being an AF snob so I can't see myself getting on with it... I don't shoot much of anything that is static so being able to use AI servo with moving objects is a must have.

33L · 4 Oct 2011 at 14:43

I started with zooms, gota mix now, but the zooms are really for back up to my primes. I am slowly building my prime lens range, however i will never get rid of te zooms. good for traveling & good for a backup if a primes dies on me.

Mr Jones · 4 Oct 2011 at 16:11

The biggest pitfall for me in the prime budget set is the 35mm f2 - no USM or full time manual focus is a meh for me (Surprising how often I focus, compose and FTM a little when something else is in shot). I personally don't actually get on well with the 50mm range (but loved my 50mm back in the crop - turns out I like shooting 24, 35 and 85.)

I prefer zoom for the flexibility, especially in and out of churches, where you really have no time to change or just need to quickly zoom and snap.

Portrait shooting or posed shots with the bride and groom on the other hand, is where primes works for me, for the shallow DoF and the time available to compose and snap.

So at the end, do you need the flexibility or will you have time to compose? Choose and use that starting off, then save up and get the better lenses next.

clintham · 4 Oct 2011 at 16:29

no usm is a negative point. i dont manual focus very often so that doesnt bother me.

in terms of flexibility, i plan to shoot with 2 bodies, 5Dii and a 5D classic. primarily one with a 35mm and the other with an 85mm (if i go with primes!). so that gives me a fair amount of flexibility in terms of not needing to change lenses on the fly too often. obviously i would still need to move more than if i were using zooms though.
really must get round to selling & upgrading my 50D....

ElDude · 4 Oct 2011 at 23:02

I started out with a kit lens, which was fun, but I wanted sharper images so got a 50mm1.8, then I got the 70-300 sigma, which sucked. That's when I got the 12-24 which was also fun. I stopped for a while but when I got back into it after reading a HELL OF A LOT I decided to stick with the 50mm for a while. Now my best lens is the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and I really like the canon 70-200F4 as it's so sharp and the colours are great with it.

I really can't decide what to get next. I'm planning on getting the 5DmkIII when it's out with possibly a decent 85mm.

You could get a crop sensor camera as a second camera to stick a 70-200 on for extra reach, and use a 5D for the prime

33L · 4 Oct 2011 at 23:14

Buy the kit you need not what you want. Your shooting style will be different from others. Yuo will go thrugh a phase of lenses and settle on the ones you like. I have 5 lenses now, i have had 11 in total and 3 bodies. I found out what i was missing and progressed from there. I compromised as budget was an issue but in the end i just saved and got what i needed. the right lens for you will last a life time. You will probably find that you will only have maybe 2-3 main lenses you use the others as a little expansion of your core lenses.

OG · 5 Oct 2011 at 12:25

The F/2 is currently going for dirt cheap on the rainforest shop.. as in cheaper than second hand prices.

mrthingyx · 5 Oct 2011 at 13:10

Why is everybody hung up about non-USM lenses? Sure, they're noisier, slower, etc. but they still work?

I started out with a Sigma 50mm f1.4 on loan from my bro, and when I moved to a 50mm f1.8mk2, the difference was not something I cared enough about.

I now use a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (also USM) and I'm more interested in hwo I frame things and that the image is in focus, rather than the slightly increased noise.

Go and check this video review out, done by DigitalRev for an insight into the differences in real world snapping.

On a side note, the only time I've ever used a zoom was when I'd just bought a 20D and - having used the 50mm f1.4 above - was moved onto a 24-70mm f2.8L. Which was nice enough, but I prefer sticking a single prime on the end and thinking harder about what I'm snapping.

Primes = Awesome Bokeh = Win (appreciate this is not wholly representative of the high quality zoom lenses out there, but until they make the Bigma in f1.4, I'm not interested).

Mint_Sauce · 5 Oct 2011 at 13:18

It's difficult but I'd go with the primes route. I do rediscover my 24-70 and 70-200 frequently these days and always wonder to myself why I don't shoot with them more.

Whichever route you take you can't lose in the end but I think go with primes.

Saying that, it does come down to what you're shooting.

bigredshark · 5 Oct 2011 at 15:37

mrthingyx said:
Why is everybody hung up about non-USM lenses? Sure, they're noisier, slower, etc. but they still work?

I assume USM means the same as AF-S means to Nikon, in which case the 'grab the focus ring anytime for manual focus' aspect is really welcome, no need to worry about switches and stuff, just focus it...

Mr Jones · 5 Oct 2011 at 15:49

I'm hung up on the USM because of the speed and the silence (in most cases, it's better, the 50mm f1.4's USM isn't quiet as silent/fast as say the 24-70L), try focusing with a 50mm f1.8 in a quiet church and it decides to focus hunts, zeeep, zeeep... *eyes staring at photographer*

Not a nice feeling.

And the FTM (Full Time Manual) that comes with it is useful, for me at least.

33L · 5 Oct 2011 at 19:09

got to agree about the noise, certainly attention grabbing in a quiet church, Just the Shutter alone is loud enough without tiny gear whizzing about.

mrthingyx · 5 Oct 2011 at 19:49

Mr Jones said:
I'm hung up on the USM because of the speed and the silence (in most cases, it's better, the 50mm f1.4's USM isn't quiet as silent/fast as say the 24-70L), try focusing with a 50mm f1.8 in a quiet church and it decides to focus hunts, zeeep, zeeep... *eyes staring at photographer*

Not a nice feeling.

And the FTM (Full Time Manual) that comes with it is useful, for me at least.

Mmm... USM is nice, but I don't see it as the negative like this: when I take photos in church it's only when permitted, so the silence is irrelevant to me, to a degree. And FTM is nice, but I don't use it that much anyway.

I'm sure it's great for people whose lives come from their gear, but I'm not convinced many on here are in that situation, and not the OP either.

Why spend money where it's not truly warranted? Want is very different from need...

Razor-BladE · 5 Oct 2011 at 20:26

USM is supposed to be quicker.
Also, like others, not having to worry about whether it's in manual or not is great.

I'd go for the Sigma 30mm 1.4 unless you're moving to FF soonish.
Great sharpness, quick and nice bokeh, FTM, slightly wider on crop and pretty cheap (only a bit more than the 35mm f/2.

I used to be zooms are much better, but I prefer primes now.
But I still have zoom for wide angle, and telephoto because I don't really use it enough to spend more on prime.

Canon 85mm 1.8 is my next lens.

mrthingyx · 5 Oct 2011 at 22:39

Razor-BladE said:
USM is supposed to be quicker.
Also, like others, not having to worry about whether it's in manual or not is great.

I'd go for the Sigma 30mm 1.4 unless you're moving to FF soonish.
Great sharpness, quick and nice bokeh, FTM, slightly wider on crop and pretty cheap (only a bit more than the 35mm f/2.

I used to be zooms are much better, but I prefer primes now.
But I still have zoom for wide angle, and telephoto because I don't really use it enough to spend more on prime.

Canon 85mm 1.8 is my next lens.

Whilst I would also recommend the Sigma, they are quite happy to be softer than warm custard wide open if not calibrated correctly... And they generally do need calibrating!