# 50mm 1.2 vs 35mm 1.4



## hippoeater (Aug 6, 2012)

Well, I'm not sure what to do. I'm currently using only my 50mm 1.2 lens and I'm considering selling/trading it towards the 35mm 1.4. (and maybe repurchase the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8)

I want one of them for a kind of everyday lens for general walkaround use. 

Looking for some opinions on people that have used/own both and which they lean more towards and why.

On top of that I'm not too sure if I maybe want to hold off and see what gets announced in the next months as the mark II of the 35 seems to be a pretty strong rumor for the past year or so - but who really knows.

Anywho, would love to hear some insight from everyone.

Thanks!


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 6, 2012)

Used the 35 on a crop sensor, and then added a used 50 when I moved to FF. The 35 is sharper wide open then the 50. The 35 is not weatherized like the 50, but that's not a feature that I require. I used to have a general purpose zoom (17-55) on the crop sensor, but I sold it to switch to FF and never replaced it with a 24-70/24-105 so I exclusively use primes for the midrange. I tend to use the 50 more because it slots nicely between the wide angle and telephoto zooms.

If you're happy with the 50L, then stay with it. It might be hard to downgrade to the 1.4 or 1.8.

If you prefer the 35mm FL, then go for the 35L now. It's a great lens. It's an older design but is still sharp. The new Ziess is sharper according to TDP, but the Ziess is MF only and costs a bit more. I expect that the 35L II will similarly cost more when it comes out.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2012)

hippoeater said:


> Well, I'm not sure what to do. I'm currently using only my 50mm 1.2 lens and I'm considering selling/trading it towards the 35mm 1.4. (and maybe repurchase the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8)
> 
> I want one of them for a kind of everyday lens for general walkaround use.
> 
> ...



5-6 months ago, I tested both 50L and 1.4. At the end, I decided to go with 1.4. 

Now...I'm thinking about 35L....this lens is SHARP and a bit wider than 50


----------



## The Bad Duck (Aug 6, 2012)

Not knowing what kind of photographs you want to create this is an impossible question to answer. I think you need to settle for the focal length first. Do you know that 35mm is right for you? Also think about what f-stops you use. Are you doing a lot of work at f/1.2 - 1.8 and like the photographs you create at the moment then you might want to keep the 50 and buy a 35 /2.0 or a 28 /1.8 instead. The 28 is not as bad as its reputation. My 28 /1.8 seems as sharp as my 35 from what I can tell by looking at my photographs. Colors are warmer with the 35 though.
But if you find yourself at f/4 - f/11 all the time then there is no need for the fastest lens. 

I own the 35 /1.4 and the 50 /1.4 (not the 1.2) and while the 35 is the cooler lens, I find the 50 is almost always easier to use for enviromental portraits (I´m using a 5d mkII). At events I am in peoples faces with a 35 while I can leave them be with a 50. They still know I am there photographing them, but it´s not as fearsome as with that big camera up their noses. For full body portraits with lots of enviroment in the frame I often go as wide as 24 mm but with caution of where I put the model in the frame to avoid problems from distortion. If I hit the streets with two primes for shooting people I use the 85 /1.8 and the 35 /1.4. If I only take one lens it´s the 50 /1.4. 

As for image quality my 35 seems really sharp stopped down a little bit (f/2 or so) but as always remember short DOF is hard to work with on non-static subjects and of course I might have been sloppy when doing micro adjustment on the lens. But probably not. 

If you are on a crop body then just get the sigma 30 /1.4.

As my uncle use to say - with a 50mm at smaller apetures you have no leverage from a technical point of view. If you create an image that really pops its because of your skill, not your gear. Think of that as a motivation.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 6, 2012)

I have them both, and I must say, they are not even close to each other in perspective and distortion on a FF sensor at least. 

The 50 can be used for portraits and have completely different compression, much better bokeh and way more blur.

For sharpness wide open the 35 kills the 1,2. You do not buy the 50 L for sharpness over the 35 or 85. You buy it because the gorgeous 50mm focal and the compression it gives. It's seriously non dramatic lens, it gives you nothing, you have to rely on subject light and composition.

The 35 gives a cooler perspective for creative shots, VERY good AF and a lens I use A LOT for shooting my kids, not so wide and dramatic as the 24 1,4, but enough to get that connection with the subject, like they are IN your face, and the 35 is also very nice to give an extra lift to types of streetphoto.

The 50 is the bigger more mature brother that thinks and gives a more serious look, whilst the 35 is the younger brother that likes to break the rules and have fun.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2012)

I prefer the 50L over the 35L. It's rendering is much nicer to my tastes. As for sharpness, The 50L is the sharpest 50mm you can get from F1.2-2.8.

If you want wide and fast, might as well look into the 24L II. 35mm is too close to 50mm to justify it over the wider, crazier 24L II.

5D3+50L - F/1.2 - ISO3200 - 1/1000th


----------



## Moody Blues (Aug 6, 2012)

I sold the 50L to buy the 35L and made the right choice. The 50L requires way to much finesse to overcome the focus drift issue. The images from the 35L are incredible sharp. I will use it unless I am forced down to the 24L. If I need the 1.2, I will use the 85L and back up a few feet.


----------



## donjensen (Aug 6, 2012)

First of all, I haven't had the 50L, only the 50 f1.4.
But I do have the 35L, and I absolutely love it. I love the fact that you can use it inside for low light shots, that are wide enough for my taste. IMO the focal length of the 50, 80, 135 etc. primes, limit our use for low light. 




Catacombes de Paris by fluxdon, on Flickr
Shot with Canon 35L @ 1.4
ISO 5000

And the bokeh is lovely. 



6I9B1020.jpg by fluxdon, on Flickr


----------



## Matthew19 (Aug 6, 2012)

If your on FF I'd get the 35L and the 50mm 1.4. The 35mm FF equiv. focal length is such a cool perspective, it allows you to get just enough environment in there without seeming too wide like a 24mm can sometimes. Check out this post on street photog that compares 50mm and 35mm. I could pick out which was which without knowing every time : http://www.yanidel.net/2011/02/28/35mm-or-50mm-for-street-photography/


----------



## kbmelb (Aug 7, 2012)

I own both. I use my 50L more than any other lens but I love shooting with the 35 too. I consider the 50 more versatile since in normal proximity it can be used landscape or portrait orientation. The 35 gives and odd look to things when shot vertically. But horizontal shots with the 35 can be very striking. So I always break it down to, if you shoot more portrait, go 50. More landscape, go 35.

I find my 50L to be sharp but I'm also realistic about what to expect shooting at 1.2. I'd say it is really good but sometimes I am not. Stopped down it gets better. At f/2 it is very sharp and accurate. f/1.2 takes some effort. I find it to be sharp at 5.6 on up. Funny thing about what I usually shoot, I'm shooting f/2 and below or 5.6 and up. So I'm not sure about the week areas of this lens.

The 35L is really good through out. It is probably easier to get hits wide open. The thing I really love about the 35 is minimum focal length. At 1.4 and the proximity you can achieve make for cool images.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 7, 2012)

I did actually purchase the 35L and the 50 f/1.4 together back when the 50L was $1699 new, because I could both for that price. I haven't been in a condition where I needed the 50L instead of the 1.4 to be quite honest. Narrower than f/2.8 the 1.4 takes a slight lead in sharpness, even if ever so slight. I did begin shooting in wedding receptions so I bought the 50L just to be safe and have used it effectively in low light. But I never did a comparison so who knows, maybe the 1.4 can do just as well at f/2 to f/2.8 for reception shots. I do appreciate the quality and extra build though.

If you already have the 50L, selling it and buying the 35L won't accomplish much regarding money. If you didn't have the 50L yet, I'd suggest the 35L/50 1.4 combo. Now though, I wouldn't do any trading personally.


----------



## alexradsby (Aug 7, 2012)

I also own both of these lenses and they are great lenses. I mostly use the 50L though, it just renders the images more to my liking. So it's on the camera 90% of the time. But the 35L is great for indoor use if you are working close quarters.

I guess it all depends on what you want to shoot, I would never sell my 50 for the 35 but that's just because the 50L fits my style of shooting.


----------

