# Canon 35mm f/1.4 L or Canon 50 mm f.1.2 L - for Weddings



## RKK (Jun 13, 2012)

Hello, 
Can you please suggest which lens is better for shooting Weddings (still pictures)? 
Is it 35mm 1.4 more useful than 50mm 1.2 or the other way? 
I am not able to decide. Have budget for only one lens.
I use Canon 5D Mark III. I will be using the lens primarily for shooting bride and/or groom and groups.
I have 70-200 2.8 and 24-105 4.0 lenses as well if it helps for you to make a better suggestion.
I am kind of leaning towards 35 mm but I am afraid that I may have to get too close for the individual shots.
Thank you for your suggestions in advance!
Regards.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2012)

Well, I don't know for primes. For weddings I'd use 24-70L zoom lens mainly. Hmmm, I'd say I shoot at 50mm more than 35mm. 35 just isn't close enough for me for most situations.


----------



## Liberty555 (Jun 14, 2012)

I've been toying with the same proposition and whilst the 35mm is a stunning lens, you need to get closer and risk distortion - which for a wedding is not desireable. No bride wants her nose to appear bigger!

50mm provides a good field of view without the distortion effects.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 14, 2012)

The 50mm is a super general-purpose focal length. Never used the Canon 50mm, but the 35mm I have. It's a gorgeous image but you gotta get really close to your subjects for portraits.


----------



## Old Shooter (Jun 14, 2012)

If you can delay, I would see if the 24-70 II delivers the IQ that it is supposed to...

It has an awesome focal range for weddings!


----------



## bloodstupid (Jun 14, 2012)

The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.


----------



## SambalOelek (Jun 14, 2012)

bloodstupid said:


> The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.



The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with _any_ AF sensor on _any_ 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.

Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 14, 2012)

SambalOelek said:


> The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with _any_ AF sensor on _any_ 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.
> 
> Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.



Looks like you should have the lens sent in to be calibrated. Mine works OK on a 5DII with AFMA.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 14, 2012)

50mm > 35mm. 

I just prefer the neutral perspective and it's look.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2012)

SambalOelek said:


> bloodstupid said:
> 
> 
> > The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.
> ...



Really?? I just used it all day yesterday on a 5D Mark III and it worked great, except it was admittendly frustrating in AI Servo Mode.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 14, 2012)

During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible. Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck. Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus. When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations. The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue. Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible. Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck. Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus. When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations. The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue. Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.



I'm starting to think Canon has added a new layer of "skill" in using this lens: Whether they sold you a good copy or not


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 14, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible. Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck. Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus. When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations. The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue. Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.
> ...



I dont know what it is... when the 1.2 got good focus, it was magical, but for me to get consistent results, i had to shoot at 2.8 or lower... If i'm paying $1200 for a 1.2, I dont know, i kinda expect to be able to consistently use it for shallower aps that 2.8. Even my 1.4 50 does a decent job at 1.8 and 2.2, albeit iffy on AF from times to time and not so flattering at 1.4... The 35 1.4, it was hard to make that puppy miss.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 15, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible. Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck. Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus. When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations. The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue. Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.


 
How fair is that? If you had å copy at Max out MA, you haven't got a properly calibrated lens, and of course that won't work. I didn't get any stability or accuracy with my 50's before i used REIKAN software. But now, the 50 L is just fantastic, and as you can see from my bottom signature, I have the others to compare with. It isn't perfect, but it's what's closest in the 50 focal...


----------



## SambalOelek (Jun 16, 2012)

Viggo said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible. Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck. Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus. When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations. The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue. Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.
> ...



My experience is similar, and I probably should have my own sample calibrated. It's especially frustrating because I've never encountered any such problems with the 35L (two samples), 85L, 135L (three samples) or 50 f/1.4 (3 samples) for that matter. Slight MA needed, sure, but nothing like this.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 17, 2012)

SambalOelek said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Well, then I guess the 300 f2,8 L IS sucks bigtime, because mine missed by 30 meters aiming at 100 meters, and that was at +20.... It needed hardware calibration, and when it came back I adjusted it to +6 and it was dead on. Calibration doesn't have anything to do with "bad" or good lenses at all. It has to do with tolerance. And in my experience you can go 10 and 10 steps at the time and see no difference, heck both my 50's where very close, but not perfect (like my other lenses) until I ran the FoCal software, it only adjusted them 2 steps from where I was, but it made a HUGE difference in stabillity and accuracy. Farther and farther adjustment doesn't always make it better and better, it's the RIGHT adjustments you need.

Just checked, and it seems the 50 and 135 are the ones that are the least adjusted both on my 5d3 and my gf's 5d2. My 24 is at +16, but it hits perfect. I ran it through FoCal, and it gave me +16...

35 is at -11 but also hit perfect.


----------



## Cosk (Jun 17, 2012)

Jasmine Star has a great blog entry on her favorite prime lenses for weddings. (But she loves them all... so it's not going to give you a definite answer.) Click the link below and scroll down half-way for her lens comments. 

http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?m=10&y=2011

I no longer shoot weddings professionally (working started to take the joy out of photography for me). But - when I shoot weddings and events as favors, I only bring my prime kit (35/50/85/135) - and I always seem to grab the 35 and 85. Those two deliver stunning results. The 35 delivers low-light, journalistic shots with a 3D quality - and without a flash (getting ready, the reception). The 85 delivers magical portraits that no zoom can match. (The 1.8 and 1.2 are both incredible... I say start with the 1.8 ). My poor 50 is neglected. 

Hope that helps...


----------



## SambalOelek (Jun 18, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Well, then I guess the 300 f2,8 L IS sucks bigtime, because mine missed by 30 meters aiming at 100 meters, and that was at +20.... It needed hardware calibration, and when it came back I adjusted it to +6 and it was dead on. Calibration doesn't have anything to do with "bad" or good lenses at all. It has to do with tolerance. And in my experience you can go 10 and 10 steps at the time and see no difference, heck both my 50's where very close, but not perfect (like my other lenses) until I ran the FoCal software, it only adjusted them 2 steps from where I was, but it made a HUGE difference in stabillity and accuracy. Farther and farther adjustment doesn't always make it better and better, it's the RIGHT adjustments you need.
> 
> Just checked, and it seems the 50 and 135 are the ones that are the least adjusted both on my 5d3 and my gf's 5d2. My 24 is at +16, but it hits perfect. I ran it through FoCal, and it gave me +16...
> 
> 35 is at -11 but also hit perfect.



That's a non-sequitur. The 50L focus shifts (a separate, but very related issue) is caused by the lens' undercorrection of spherical aberration, in other words a design flaw (or "feature", if you prefer).


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 19, 2012)

Viggo said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible. Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck. Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus. When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations. The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue. Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.
> ...



Fair or not, canon loaned me the lens for a 2 week period so sending my camera to be calibrated with it was out of the question. It is what it is. When I did the MA, it was good, but the AF motor or whatever just couldn't keep up. My results were far from scientific nor fair, but 2 lenses, both sent to me direct from canon, and my results are what they are.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 19, 2012)

SambalOelek said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Which is exactly why it's not a good value lens like the 35L or 85L, and especially the 50 f/1.4. Okay so you have to microadjust the lens. Why should I have to do that when I paid $1699?? Some have said, "Oh well that's just how lenses are." Ok, well I didn't have to do that for ANY OTHER LENS I bought, but ok.


----------



## RKK (Jun 19, 2012)

Cosk said:


> Jasmine Star has a great blog entry on her favorite prime lenses for weddings. (But she loves them all... so it's not going to give you a definite answer.) Click the link below and scroll down half-way for her lens comments.
> 
> http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?m=10&y=2011
> 
> ...



Thank you for the link. There is a lot of interesting information and beautiful pictures in it. Thank you, again!


----------



## RKK (Jun 19, 2012)

It looks like 50 mm is not liked by many people. It is still a tough choice for me to make a decision on. I hate to spend money on rentals but I guess I should rent these two lenses and try. Thank you everyone for your responses, I appreciate it!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 19, 2012)

RKK said:


> It looks like 50 mm is not liked by many people. It is still a tough choice for me to make a decision on. I hate to spend money on rentals but I guess I should rent these two lenses and try. Thank you everyone for your responses, I appreciate it!



When I shot weddings I used the Canon 50mm f/1.4. It is fantastic!


----------



## RKK (Jun 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> RKK said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like 50 mm is not liked by many people. It is still a tough choice for me to make a decision on. I hate to spend money on rentals but I guess I should rent these two lenses and try. Thank you everyone for your responses, I appreciate it!
> ...



Do you use 50 mm for groups or for just bride/groom portraits? Is there a way you can share some sample pictures?
Have you ever used 35mm too? If so, which one did you find more useful?
Thank you for your response!


----------



## psolberg (Jun 20, 2012)

50 1.8 or 50 1.4 

CA on both 1.2 canon lenses at 1.2 along is HORRENDOUS and both suffer of low contrast and very soft output. This makes the cost not worth the benefits IMO. At f/1.4 the 50mm cleans up a little but to get acceptably sharp images you need to go down to f/1.8 or f/2. Any more open than that and the lenses just can't keep up with the sensor. The difference in the look of an image of the 1.4 vs 1.2 is minimal at best and won't really have the wow factor that you'd get with some of the truly exotic 50's out there that push things to f/0.95. That you WILL notice ....but good luck affording that. : 

so save your money. As hyped as the f/1.2 lenses are the reality is that to make them shine at that aperture, canon would have to charge 3x more. Consider these lenses to be f/1.4 for all intents and purposes which can be pushed to 1.2 if you can live with the fall in quality. I never could.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 20, 2012)

psolberg said:


> 50 1.8 or 50 1.4
> 
> CA on both 1.2 canon lenses at 1.2 along is HORRENDOUS and both suffer of low contrast and very soft output. This makes the cost not worth the benefits IMO. At f/1.4 the 50mm cleans up a little but to get acceptably sharp images you need to go down to f/1.8 or f/2. Any more open than that and the lenses just can't keep up with the sensor. The difference in the look of an image of the 1.4 vs 1.2 is minimal at best and won't really have the wow factor that you'd get with some of the truly exotic 50's out there that push things to f/0.95. That you WILL notice ....but good luck affording that. :
> 
> so save your money. As hyped as the f/1.2 lenses are the reality is that to make them shine at that aperture, canon would have to charge 3x more. Consider these lenses to be f/1.4 for all intents and purposes which can be pushed to 1.2 if you can live with the fall in quality. I never could.



I'm sorry, I've read your post twice and I can't figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Anyways, if you use the 50 f/1.4, you can use it for both group and distant portrait as I like to call it. The 50 f/1.4 is really useful for a group shot of about more than say, 5 people. But for group wedding shots at the front of the church I used the 85. I used the 85 f/1.2L II for bride down the aisle and close up bride/groom portraits on a FULL FRAME. 50mm on APS-C would be good, at 80mm. I had 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2, and 135 f/2 for primes. They can be used for everything. Furthermore, I had a 24-70L and 70-200L zoom lenses in the bag. Be creative.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 20, 2012)

RKK said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > RKK said:
> ...



If you are unsure of focal length, another good tip is just put the 24-70 zoom on if you have it. I did shoot at 35mm but using the 24-70L zoom lens. 50 f/1.4 for groups of more than 5, scene shot, 85 for bride up the aisle and front of the church group shots, everything else I used as I saw fit, such as many shots in the church and reception. Be creative from 24 to 200mm!


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Jun 22, 2012)

I have just about every current AF Canon L prime between 24mm and 300mm. The 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L II are the best for weddings and stay on my cameras as much as possible. I have several friends who have sent their 50mm f/1.2L's back because the autofocus was so inconsistent and it was recommended to me to not purchase that lens so I'm going to pass that recommendation to you. At the moment I just use the 35mm prime and can crop it to around 50mm easily. If I need the extra focal length I just pull out my 85mm f/1.2L II and skip over the 50mm focal length (recommended if you are on full-frame).

I'm anxiously waiting for Canon to come out with a good 50mm lens. This is the weakest focal length in their line up if you ask me. 

Also, if the 35mm f/1.4L gets updated with less CA and weather proofing (why does this lens not have this in the first place?) then I'd say the 35mm f/1.4L II is going to be as close to a perfect prime lens as you can get. Image quality is already amazing.

I've been wanting to pull out all of my primes and do a comparison at night time, maybe that can be my next blog entry. Till then here are some samples:

85mm f/1.2L II at f/2.0 http://markwebbphoto.com/weddingportfolio/h3401c75e#h3401c75e

35mm f/1.4L at f/2.5 http://markwebbphoto.com/weddingportfolio/h2027ab87#h2027ab87


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

MarkWebbPhoto said:


> I'm anxiously waiting for Canon to come out with a good 50mm lens. This is the weakest focal length in their line up if you ask me.



yep thats the truth, for now for me the 50 f1.4 is the best bang for buck


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Jun 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> MarkWebbPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm anxiously waiting for Canon to come out with a good 50mm lens. This is the weakest focal length in their line up if you ask me.
> ...



Yep I went with the 50 f/1.4 too but note that mine fell apart sitting in a lens case once. The rear element fell out so I had to sent it to Canon for repairs. I guess the rear element just screws in so just check on it every so often.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 22, 2012)

MarkWebbPhoto said:


> I have just about every current AF Canon L prime between 24mm and 300mm. The 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L II are the best for weddings and stay on my cameras as much as possible. I have several friends who have sent their 50mm f/1.2L's back because the autofocus was so inconsistent and it was recommended to me to not purchase that lens so I'm going to pass that recommendation to you. At the moment I just use the 35mm prime and can crop it to around 50mm easily. If I need the extra focal length I just pull out my 85mm f/1.2L II and skip over the 50mm focal length (recommended if you are on full-frame).
> 
> I'm anxiously waiting for Canon to come out with a good 50mm lens. This is the weakest focal length in their line up if you ask me.
> 
> ...



50L is a awesome lens. Am I the only one here who got a good copy? I prefer it over the 35mm for its classic focal length. I suppose ive always been a fan of Henri cartier bressons subtle painting like perspective of the 50mm. No tricks, just a normal view.


----------



## Cosk (Jun 22, 2012)

MarkWebbPhoto said:


> 85mm f/1.2L II at f/2.0 http://markwebbphoto.com/weddingportfolio/h3401c75e#h3401c75e
> 
> 35mm f/1.4L at f/2.5 http://markwebbphoto.com/weddingportfolio/h2027ab87#h2027ab87



Very, Very good portfolio... nice work.


----------



## swrightgfx (Jun 22, 2012)

When it comes to wedding, you often only have one chance to get "that shot." I have found the 50L a little too unreliable in this regard and the 85L (yes, I am aware this kens is not the topic of discussion) way too slow.

The 35L is actually very quick. I find they lock focus beautifully and the resultant image, especially if you are shooting at wide apertures, tends to be more pleasing than the 50L. 

There is, as others have mentioned, the issue of 35L being a little wide (though taking into account the central angle of view of the human eye, the average equivalent focal length equates to not much more, at 43mm). In which case, I'd settle for the 50 1.4. Weddings aren't the most brutal of locations - you are more likely to get a bit of cake on your camera than an incoming blizzard storm front or flying gravel from motorcyclists, so the 50 1.4 can hold up in the majority of cases. Yes the USM has a habit of dying, but you will likely have other lenses with you - if you are really concerned and set on the 50mm focal length as an essential, pick up a 50 1.8 II as backup.

I'd suggest buying all five lenses mentioned. Just to account for that rare Antarctic wedding come car rally.


----------



## SandyP (Jun 24, 2012)

I use the 35L and the 50L for almost the entire wedding, on my 5D3. And did so also, on my old 5D2. They are close together in terms of focal length, but they are very different lenses that let you do very different things. Two of my favorite weddings from last year were shot 90% on only the 50L, it was incredible. The 85L is awesome, but I feel like I'm too far away with it, even on full frame, to really feel IN the action. For portraits of course, it's incredible in certain situations.


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Jun 24, 2012)

Sorry for getting off topic a bit but...

The 35L is quick enough to use AI Servo tracking even with the slow 5D2, I only use the 85L on single shot with the 5D2. However, if you pair the 85L with a 1D4 you can get great shots under the basket. Most of my favorite basketball photos last year were with the 85L on the 1D4, especially when I was in a dark high school gym.

College with lots of light (1D4, 85mm, f/2.2, 1/1600 sec, ISO 2000 )
http://markwebbphoto.com/photojournalism2012/h21ec8f42#h21ec8f42

Darkest high school gym in town (1D4, 85mm, f/1.8, ISO 4000, 1/800 sec, pushed 1 stop)
http://markwebbphoto.com/p225432823/h3ecfc41f#h3ecfc41f

I doubt you'll be shooting many sports with the 35L but I have had relatively good luck tracking the bride coming down the isle with this lens. This lens is great and it really doesn't need an update except for the weather sealing and new coating to reduce CA. The 85L should see more updates for those of us who shoot action because there is so much glass in the lens which slows it down. Not sure what is up with the 50L's AF, I'll wait for 50L II which I hope is as good as the 85L II. With the 50L's bad AF reputation, I would think that Canon would update this lens first. Kudos to those who get good AI servo results with the 50L, anyone mind sharing some??


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 24, 2012)

I have not gotten good AF stability with my 50L. It is frustrating, because I've shot sports with the 85 f/1.2L II and a 1D4 and still had a great keeper rate. I don't understand this lens. It has problems that both the 35L and 85L don't have.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> MarkWebbPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I have just about every current AF Canon L prime between 24mm and 300mm. The 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L II are the best for weddings and stay on my cameras as much as possible. I have several friends who have sent their 50mm f/1.2L's back because the autofocus was so inconsistent and it was recommended to me to not purchase that lens so I'm going to pass that recommendation to you. At the moment I just use the 35mm prime and can crop it to around 50mm easily. If I need the extra focal length I just pull out my 85mm f/1.2L II and skip over the 50mm focal length (recommended if you are on full-frame).
> ...



The normal view you get isn't about the 50 fov, it's about the compression you get at 50mm. But yeah, I love it too! 

I think the 50 L is a great 50, but then again, I agree with what's being said, the Canon 50's suck (compared to 35 and 85)...

MY dream 50 is the same color and contrast and size+build of the current 50 L, but with the 24 L II AF, and the 35 wide open sharpness and way less CA. And get rid of the fact it's useless sharp at mfd, but great at 4 feet and beyond.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > MarkWebbPhoto said:
> ...



I disagree, I like all the canon 50mm's. I've used them all before and all have there strengths and weaknesses. The 50L is my favorite 50mm of all time currently and i've used tons of different 50mms on 35mm and medium format 80mm's.


----------



## Chris Geiger (Jun 25, 2012)

As a full time wedding shooter I normally shoot with zooms because I can get the shots fast. I love the look of a 1.2 wide open so I purchased the Canon 50 1.2. During the reception I am now getting some great stuff with it. I keep zoom on one body and the 50 on a second body. Maybe someday I can work toward shooting the reception with a pair of primes like the 35 and the 85. I think I will always stick to zooms for the ceremony. 

I'd pay $5,000+ to get a 35-85 f1.4 zoom!


----------



## tt (Jun 25, 2012)

Cosk said:


> Jasmine Star has a great blog entry on her favorite prime lenses for weddings. (But she loves them all... so it's not going to give you a definite answer.) Click the link below and scroll down half-way for her lens comments.
> 
> http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?m=10&y=2011
> 
> ...



What look do you want? What kind of compression? Then what kind of f stop/bokeh?

Jasmine Star does a nice visual comparison between the 50 and the 35mm -
http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=990&review-canon-35mm-1-4

The 50mm 1.2 might get a bad rep on its focus because how many do adjustment, and also take into account what they want to focus on may not be what it sees as nearest thing to focus on. 
At 1.2 - like the 85mm, the actual in focus depth is in the millimeters dependent on how far you're focusing out at. I'd imagine on a full frame like the 5D Mark II you could also use the EgS focusing screen to help


----------



## Viggo (Jun 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Yeah well, I really like the 50 L too, but are you saying you're happy with sharpness at all distances and CA control? The focus is sluggish compared to the 85, but that's very slow and way too long focal for most of what I shoot, the 35 is precise and fast, but it lacks all the goodiness in color, contrast bokeh of the 50 L, and of course is wideangle with distortion. 

To me the 50 focal is perfect for almost everything I shoot, but it's hard to use when I have both the 35 and 85 which are CLEARLY better IQ, in some ways over the 50. 

Why can't they make a 50 that is as good as the 85 L or the 35 or the 24 or the 135 ?!

I don't care if it would cost the same as the 85 or if it was as heavy as the 85. I just want a 50 that can easily match the other L-primes, because all of the others are way better overall. And they should put some effort into the 50 as more and more people using FF and the 50 is such a great focal the 85 and 35 just aren't close too.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 26, 2012)

This thread has gone bonkers. Did someone just say the 85L is a good deal? The 35L can't really be improved? I really hope that's wrong as the cheap as can be samyang is much better. Are we still talking about the 50L's focus demons? i say get a 50mm1.8 and a 35mmL, and you shouldn't really be taking "portraits" with a 35mm lens. I'll also say that, then turn around and say it doesn't really matter. Your shooting distance matters. 

-oh, and my 300mm2.8IS also had to be sent in for focus issues, and did someone really also recommend a 2k+$ as yet unreleased 24-70mm 2.8?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

Viggo, you triggered the comparison I wanted to make. No sane person would argue that the 50L lens is not better in bokeh and color rendition than the 50 f/1.4. Afterall, I have the 50L and even stopped down, the colors are very good. Having said that though, let's look at SHARPNESS ONLY. And let's look at 3 focal lengths. For the 35L, it is sharper at f/8 than the 35 f/2. Okay, so the 35L is a better overall lens. Now, let's look at the 85L. The 85L is sharper than the 85 f/1.8 at f/8. Again, the 85L is a better lens overall. That leaves the 50L. The 50L is NOT sharper than the 50 f/1.4 at f/8, in fact, the 1.4 is sharper. See Bryan Carnathan's Tools/Tests if you don't believe me. This is why the 50L leaves a lot to be desired. For maximum sharpness across all apertures, I have to have two 50mm prime lenses, in effect, and that is not so for the 35 and 85mm focal lengths. Would I get rid of my 50L? No. I like it wider than f/2.2. It's a very, very good night lens too for street shots. I like the saturation too. But again, my comparison was center sharpness, which does matter too.

If I were shooting weddings, I would NOT purchase this lens just because I was shooting weddings. Shoot your shots with the 50L, 50 1.4, load 'em onto your computer and compare. You'll see no difference at all in IQ at f/2.8 and narrower, which is where I spend all of my time even in wedding photography. So what would be the point in spending $1499 vs. $369? If you want the awesome bokeh effects for elsewhere outside of weddings, then yes it is worth it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 26, 2012)

Chris Geiger said:


> I'd pay $5,000+ to get a 35-85 f1.4 zoom!



ditto

L series and weather sealed

I'm not sure if i could bring myself to remove that lens from my camera if it existed
for 5K it would be nice if they included IS too 

There is a real market for a lens like this and people who want it would happily pay supertele price if it delivers the goods


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 26, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Viggo, you triggered the comparison I wanted to make. No sane person would argue that the 50L lens is not better in bokeh and color rendition than the 50 f/1.4. Afterall, I have the 50L and even stopped down, the colors are very good. Having said that though, let's look at SHARPNESS ONLY. And let's look at 3 focal lengths. For the 35L, it is sharper at f/8 than the 35 f/2. Okay, so the 35L is a better overall lens. Now, let's look at the 85L. The 85L is sharper than the 85 f/1.8 at f/8. Again, the 85L is a better lens overall. That leaves the 50L. The 50L is NOT sharper than the 50 f/1.4 at f/8, in fact, the 1.4 is sharper. See Bryan Carnathan's Tools/Tests if you don't believe me. This is why the 50L leaves a lot to be desired. For maximum sharpness across all apertures, I have to have two 50mm prime lenses, in effect, and that is not so for the 35 and 85mm focal lengths. Would I get rid of my 50L? No. I like it wider than f/2.2. It's a very, very good night lens too for street shots. I like the saturation too. But again, my comparison was center sharpness, which does matter too.
> 
> If I were shooting weddings, I would NOT purchase this lens just because I was shooting weddings. Shoot your shots with the 50L, 50 1.4, load 'em onto your computer and compare. You'll see no difference at all in IQ at f/2.8 and narrower, which is where I spend all of my time even in wedding photography. So what would be the point in spending $1499 vs. $369? If you want the awesome bokeh effects for elsewhere outside of weddings, then yes it is worth it.



50L has a look to it. Its just AWESOME! Look! This is my change bank on my nightstand but the 50L and window light with a FF camera made it look Great!

Once I took my first 50L shot, I dropped and sold my other 50mm's.

5Dc - ISO 3200 - F1.6 - 1/60th


----------



## SandyP (Jun 26, 2012)

Yeah, the 50L is definitely worth the money if you can afford it, I have no bad feelings about buying this lens, it's definitely the most used lens I have too, among quite a few nice ones. I still hope they release a new version soon that has a slightly different design. But, I must say, shooting with it on the 5D3 is far different (better) than shooting with it on the 5D2. But, I never had too many problems with the 5D2 either. It's a very dreamy lens, that the other Canon 50s cannot compare to really. It's sharp, plenty sharp enough at f/8, but you don't really buy this sort of f/1.2 lens to judge it at f/8, as it is, it's fine enough there. It's still the best at f/1.2 to f/2.2 or so. And that's like where I shoot with this lens about 99% of the time.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2012)

Yeah, I agree with that, I absolutely think it's worth the money over the others and of course the only weathersealed.

And yeah, it came to life on the 5d3 compared to the 5d2, BUT it is the hardest canon lens to control. When mastered it still is difficult up close and really not killersharp. Fix the sharpness and af and I'll live with ca and shiftfocus. I don't think that's too much to ask when we compare to it's canon siblings.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

Again, we're talking WEDDINGS. There is no reason ever, to shoot at f/1.6 at a wedding, unless you want a person's nose in sharp focus and their face blurry. I've shot weddings and I cannot for the life of me remember when I shot wider than f/2.8. The ring shot maybe? Ok, maybe, but I sure as hell didn't use a 50mm lens for the ring shots, I used my 85L. For weddings it just doesn't make sense. The 24-70L or 50 f/1.4 is better for weddings.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

SandyP said:


> Yeah, the 50L is definitely worth the money if you can afford it, I have no bad feelings about buying this lens, it's definitely the most used lens I have too, among quite a few nice ones. I still hope they release a new version soon that has a slightly different design. But, I must say, shooting with it on the 5D3 is far different (better) than shooting with it on the 5D2. But, I never had too many problems with the 5D2 either. It's a very dreamy lens, that the other Canon 50s cannot compare to really. It's sharp, plenty sharp enough at f/8, but you don't really buy this sort of f/1.2 lens to judge it at f/8, as it is, it's fine enough there. It's still the best at f/1.2 to f/2.2 or so. And that's like where I shoot with this lens about 99% of the time.



Exactly. You have to buy TWO 50mm primes to get the best sharpness across all apertures, vs. ONE each at 35mm and 85mm. And why would you shoot at f/1.2 to f/2.2 at a wedding? Remember, this thread is about weddings. So judging it at f/8 is more than justified. If I need a sharp image f/2.8 and narrower, to get the BEST sharpness, I will not choose the 50L. I use my 50L for indoor close ups and night street shots. I use my 50 f/1.4 for outside daytime shots or any shot f/2.8 and narrower.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 27, 2012)

looking at the bokeh from the 40 vs the 50 f1.4 I think the 40 might be a real winner of a wedding lens actually


----------



## risc32 (Jun 27, 2012)

I was wondering about that also, but i'm already reading the AF tracking isn't so good(photozone). I need that, even in poorly lit surrounding. If they could just take the 50L and make it's performance from around f2.8 or f4 and narrower the equal of the lowly 1.8, and squash all AF demons. I'd buy one in a second. I'd love to have access to dreamy ville at 1.2 + the across the frame sharpness of the much, much cheaper models. I refuse to carry or buy two 50's.


----------

