35mm F1.4L or 50mm F1.2L?

Associate
Joined
3 Oct 2004
Posts
358
Hi all,

Havent been on here for ages, hope you are all good :)

Just toying with the idea of a new prime and would like the opinions of owners of either or both?

Ive got a MK2 and have the 50mm f1.8, just wondered given the choice would you go with the 50L or the 35L?

Having used the nifty for the last few years ive always found myself wanting it to be a bit wider so am currently edging towards the 35. My main style of shooting is travel/landscape/street....

The price is pretty similar for the 2 lenses but its still a fair wedge of cash so would like to make the right decision.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Oh also,

If i shoot at 35mm i can crop down to 50mm, however, does cropping fully replicate the change in focal length? Im sure an image cropped down from 35mm to 50mm is different from an image shot at true 50mm? Correct me if im wrong

:)
 
The 35L is arguably the better prime as its sharp at 1.4 whilst the 50 1.2 gets vastly sharper if stopped down. Depends how anal you are about sharpness I suppose! I know ray on here does some cracking shots with the 35L at weddings as it has a lovely dreamy looking bokeh effect. If thats what you are looking for, can't really go wrong with the 35.
 
50 1.2 also suffers with focus shift at different apertures, which is arguably a bigger deal than wide open softness. Go with a 35l imo...
Also for Canon, the Sigma 50 looks to produce much better bokeh than the 50 1.2.
 
^^^ indeed, the canon 50 1.2 L shows how the complexity n creating very fast lenses has a detrimental affect on bokeh quality, and thus simpler and slower primes can be better than faster 1.4 and 1.2 primes.
 
I may be being rude here, but if you need a forum to tell you whether to get a 35 or a 50, I think spending over a grand on a lens might not be the best idea for you?

In any case, what camera are you using? The size of the sensor affects the lens recommendation
 
As i said Ksanti im shooting on a MK2 so FF. And no, of course i dont need a forum to tell me which lens to buy i am perfectly capable of making the decision on my own, i just thought i might might ask owners of both lenses their opinion on the subject before buying.
Sorry if im being rude but i thought such places were exactly the place to put such questions out?
 
Sounds like what i thought anyway, the 35L is getting more votes.

Apologies if my OP sounded dumb to anyone, i would just rather ask folk who use the kit in real world situations for their opinions rather than trawling through endless pixel peeping side by side reviews on various sites.

Thanks for the input guys :)
 
As i said Ksanti im shooting on a MK2 so FF. And no, of course i dont need a forum to tell me which lens to buy i am perfectly capable of making the decision on my own, i just thought i might might ask owners of both lenses their opinion on the subject before buying.
Sorry if im being rude but i thought such places were exactly the place to put such questions out?

My apologies for not reading thoroughly.

Well the thing is the choice between a 50mm and a 35mm comes pretty early on in the 'what lens do I need' decision process, as they're quite substantially different focal lengths with quite substantially different uses. Usually the questions for forums fall between different lenses that are used for more or less the same thing e.g. a Sigma 85 versus the Canon 85s.

The reason this specific question doesn't really make sense on a forum is because the decision between a 35 and a 50 isn't really one we can help you make as it comes down more to what and how you shoot than the technical aspects of each lens. Sure, the 35L is a legendary lens and the 50L not so much, but if a 50 really suits your shooting then a 50L is better than a 35L. They're too different to really be compared.

I'll use cars to better explain it. It would be like asking us if you should buy a Range Rover, or a Jag XF. We /could/ say the XF will be better on fuel, the Range Rover will be better offroad etc., but they're so different that sort of shouldn't be the decision we're helping you with, as once we've established either way, we then have to decide whether a BMW 3 series or Mercedes E class would better suit you if you went with the XF, or if a Porsche Cayenne or Audi Q7 might better suit you if you went with the Range Rover.

There are aspects of the 35L and 50L that we could debate, but ultimately the debate between these two lenses would be decided largely by the arbitrary characteristics of the lenses e.g. shallower apparent depth of field on the 50 1.2, faster focusing on the 35 1.4, which are things that shouldn't matter as much as what the focal lengths do.

The first decision should be what focal length you want, be it a 35, a 50, and 85, or maybe a zoom etc. and then once you make that decision, deciding upon which one to get e.g. the shallow depth of field of the Canon 50 1.2, versus the faster focusing on the Sigma 50 1.4 as that will make the more subtle differences to your shooting than the focal length.

Better to set out to decide on the sort of lens you want then the lens itself e.g. wideangle>35mm>Canon 35 f/1.4L rather than decide you want to spend £1000 on a single lens and then decide between a Canon 50 1.2 and Canon 35 1.4 as if you go with the latter you won't get a lens that compliments your shooting as well and it almost certainly won't be the best buying decision for your photography.
 
Well, look at it this way.

The 35L is a MUCH MUCH better lens than the 35/2.0.

However the 50L does not have that gulf in quality to the 50/1.4. Both in quality and aperture compare to the 35mm variant.

The difference here is that the 50/1.4 is one of the bargains of the "consumer" primes, along with the 85/1.8. (discounting the 50/1.8 for the minute, although optically good, its bokeh is not smooth, its focusing in low light is dreadful, it is built like a toy...check that plastic mount, it is cheap though).

Back on topic.

35L + 50/1.4 would be where my money is going, and where it went.

Case in point. This is from the 50/1.4, it looks like something from an L in my opinion.

 
Last edited:
Am I right in saying that you couldn't do the same shot with the 35L ray? I've been told that it distorts facial features for headshots and is far more suited to full body work.
 
Am I right in saying that you couldn't do the same shot with the 35L ray? I've been told that it distorts facial features for headshots and is far more suited to full body work.

I would need to move in a little closer, there will be a slightly more distortion and less natural look.

Traditionally speaking, 85 to 135mm are the classic focal length for headshots, you can make 35mm work and you can make 200mm work but it is not as flattering as between 85 to 135. Normally 85 for around shoulder and head and 135 for just the head.

I like the 35 because it is versatile and get a bit of the context in while i am at it.
 
Last edited:
Oh also,

If i shoot at 35mm i can crop down to 50mm, however, does cropping fully replicate the change in focal length? Im sure an image cropped down from 35mm to 50mm is different from an image shot at true 50mm? Correct me if im wrong

:)

You need to be very careful of perspective when trying to get equivalence between lenses of different focal lengths.
 
Thanks guys,

Good point about the 50 1.4 compared to the 1.2 Ray, seems the quality diff does not warrant the price diff......
 
agree with ksanti

you first have to decide what focal length you want based on your style/need

not by comparing two lenses.
 
Yeah i agree, was just wanting some opinions on both the lenses, obviously they have different uses but are of a fairly close focal length, like i said, having used the 50mm 1.8 for about 5 years ive always found myself wanting it to be a wee bit wider, even on FF.

So i guess i had already answered my own question. Good to have the opinion of you guys however :)
 
Back
Top Bottom