# 24mm 1.4L ii vs 35mm 1.4L vs 50mm 1.2L



## martinelliminimo (Jan 6, 2012)

So I was a little discouraged about just buying the 35mm three weeks ago and hearing that the new 35mm ii will be this up and coming CES. I had nothing to do and decided compare the three primes that I own; 24mm 1.4L ii, 35mm 1.4L, and the 50mm 1.2L. The test was not very scientific at all but more for my personal curiosity and satisfaction. I compared the three lenses at 1.4, 2.0, and 2.8. And at 1:1 crop surprisingly the rumors are true, the 35 came out the sharpest every time. Now i'm tempted to save up and purchase the other lens I have been hearing all about, the 135L f/2.


----------



## AaronCR (Jan 6, 2012)

135L is the best/sharpest lens I own. Not so impressed with the 35L.


----------



## martinelliminimo (Jan 6, 2012)

can't wait to get my hands on one!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 6, 2012)

martinelliminimo said:


> So I was a little discouraged about just buying the 35mm three weeks ago and hearing that the new 35mm ii will be this up and coming CES. I had nothing to do and decided compare the three primes that I own; 24mm 1.4L ii, 35mm 1.4L, and the 50mm 1.2L. The test was not very scientific at all but more for my personal curiosity and satisfaction. I compared the three lenses at 1.4, 2.0, and 2.8. And at 1:1 crop surprisingly the rumors are true, the 35 came out the sharpest every time. Now i'm tempted to save up and purchase the other lens I have been hearing all about, the 135L f/2.



I agree with your findings, although the 24L II and 50L are no slouches. I still really want that 24 II, but that Zeiss 21mm is making it tough to decide (things is beautiful and so sharp on the edges). 

I wouldn't be disappointed, the 35mm is an awesome lens and I can't imagine the 35L II being substantially better. Even if Canon made a near perfect lens they would still keep releasing new versions because they know it will make people that own the v1 feel inferior all of a sudden.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 6, 2012)

martinelliminimo said:


> So I was a little discouraged about just buying the 35mm three weeks ago and hearing that the new 35mm ii will be this up and coming CES.



It's a rumor.


----------



## 00Q (Jan 7, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> martinelliminimo said:
> 
> 
> > So I was a little discouraged about just buying the 35mm three weeks ago and hearing that the new 35mm ii will be this up and coming CES.
> ...



+100

Its a rumour. Never take rumours seriously. Never buy according what is discussed in here. Rumours can last for years, as is the case for the 24-70. its an indulgence to talk about it. get back to the real world and buy the lens you need WHEN you need it. ie if you need a 24-70 NOW then buy it NOW. the mkII will be significantly more expensive once it coes it, IF it comes out. And you will be getting a good deal anyway on the MkI


----------



## martinelliminimo (Jan 7, 2012)

Sometimes I hate this website  I sold my 7d a couple months ago assuming that the mark ii was coming out. I did not understand the CR0, 1, 2, & 3. But it ended up being a good thing because I bought a 5d ii with that money. But I do have to say these rumors have created a little anxiety in me.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 7, 2012)

I would love to get a 135mm f2L too.

I already have the canon 50mm f1.2L, the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and the canon 100mm f2.8L macro, so perhaps I'll get a 35mm f1.4L first to give me some wider options, but I can see the 135mm f2L being added to the kit in the next couple of years.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 7, 2012)

Also, the 135L is a lot cheaper than the lenses you have, you can find them for like $800-$850 used. It is definitely super sharp, not quite as sharp as my 85L II though.


----------



## photophreek (Jan 7, 2012)

The topic of this thread is timely for me. I rented the 50L this weekend and have taken a few intial shots. BTW, I own the 35L and the 135L which are great and sharp lenses. I've also rented the 24L II and was very impressed with the IQ and will get this lens in the spring.

Back to the 50L. It's rather soft at 1.2. From f2.0 on, the lens is sharper and the colors are very nice along with the contrast. I have yet to shoot outdoors. My intial reaction is not positive and hopefully, my mind will change. When I evaluated the 85L II, I was blown away. I'm not getting the same reaction with the 50L. Any tips, tricks regarding this lens would be appreciated from owners of this lens.

I would have to say that the 135L is the sharpest with the 35L second and the 24L II third. The 85L II and hopefully, the 50L are in a different category.


----------



## martinelliminimo (Jan 7, 2012)

I agree... out of my prime lens collection, i would have to say 35L, 24L ii, than 50L. I am thinking of selling my 50 and getting the 85. And the 50 is too close to the 35.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 9, 2012)

photophreek said:


> The topic of this thread is timely for me. I rented the 50L this weekend and have taken a few intial shots. BTW, I own the 35L and the 135L which are great and sharp lenses. I've also rented the 24L II and was very impressed with the IQ and will get this lens in the spring.
> 
> Back to the 50L. It's rather soft at 1.2. From f2.0 on, the lens is sharper and the colors are very nice along with the contrast. I have yet to shoot outdoors. My intial reaction is not positive and hopefully, my mind will change. When I evaluated the 85L II, I was blown away. I'm not getting the same reaction with the 50L. Any tips, tricks regarding this lens would be appreciated from owners of this lens.
> 
> I would have to say that the 135L is the sharpest with the 35L second and the 24L II third. The 85L II and hopefully, the 50L are in a different category.



My 85L II is super sharp, but my 50mm is no slouch either. I use the 50mm a lot more, the minimum focusing distance on the 85mm can be somewhat limiting in certain situations. The 50L is definitely a little more versatile, I usually use the 85 for portrait stuff.

I would go shoot some outside with the 50L and play with it some more, and maybe try another copy if something looks way off. I know I've prematurely judged lenses before when I would just pop them on in the office to take some "test shots." But none of the test shots ever end up being something I would have photographed normally, so I think its better to get out there and try to shoot something "unrehearsed" and see how you like it after that. 

And f/2 is definitely the sweet spot, and be mindful of short hyperfocal distance when shooting at f/1.2.


----------



## photophreek (Jan 9, 2012)

My weekend with the 50L has been very interesting. I've shot many different scenarios both indoors and outside and at many different apertures. The lens has been paired with my 7d which is my main camera body. BTW, I'm very familiar with my 7d and it's AF system. I don't get OOF shots unless I've had a brain fart. Just this afternoon, I was taking a few shots of one of our cats with fill flash at f/1.2 and f/1.8. When I was comparing the two shots in LR, I was surprised that the f/1.2 was sharper. I understand that the 50L can be softer at f/1.2, but based on my testing, technique may have something to do with it. 

I must confess that the images of this lens are very different than the other L primes I use. It's hard to describe, but the images seem "dreamier" and not as much edge blur as the 85L II. I use my lenses as tools to achieve a "look" in the images I photograph and the 50L has a very unique look about it unlike my other primes. I've decided to buy the lens and I anticipate that it will find itself attached to my 7d a lot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

photophreek said:


> I don't get OOF shots unless I've had a brain fart. Just this afternoon, I was taking a few shots of one of our cats with fill flash at f/1.2 and f/1.8. When I was comparing the two shots in LR, I was surprised that the f/1.2 was sharper. I understand that the 50L can be softer at f/1.2, but based on my testing, technique may have something to do with it.



It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.  Except, in this case, it's the tool's fault. If you look closely, you'll find that your f/1.8 OOF shots are a bit back-focused. The 50L exhibits noticeable focus shift - as you stop down, the focal plane changes. So, since lenses are focused wide open, if you shoot wide open, no problem. By f/4 or so (depending on subject distance), the DoF is getting deep enough to mask the effect. But, between f/1.3 and ~f/4, the focus shift results in back-focusing. 

There are some workarounds - shoot wide open or narrower than f/4, MF with the DoF Preview button pressed and a precision focusing screen (problematic on the 7D since you can't easily switch screens), Live View, focus on something a little in front of where you need to, or tweak the focus manually after AF (which takes a lot of practice to become proficient).

Enjoy the lens!


----------



## photophreek (Jan 9, 2012)

I guess I should clarify a bit more Neuro. I would have expected your explaination if all the test shots at f/1.8 were a little OOF than the f/1.2 shots. In all but this one instance, the f/1.2 shot was sharper than the f/1.8 shot. I also have to confess, I was looking at these images at 200% and I'm probably a closet pixel peeper.

Thanks - I'm certain I will enjoy the lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2012)

I have the 35mmL and the 135mm L, both are tack sharp. I tried a 24mm L that a friend had, and it was amazingly sharp. Its on my list to get someday, but I don't use the 24mm focal length on my 5D MK II enough to make it a priority.


Most of the issues with the large aperture lenses tend to be front or back autofocus issues, or the use of focus and recompose. My 35mm L was noticable sharper after adjusting the AFMA. I sent it to canon for calibration a couple of weeks before the warranty was up, and its reasonably accurate on my 5D MK II, needed a +4 on my 7D. Thats pretty standard.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

photophreek said:


> I guess I should clarify a bit more Neuro. I would have expected your explaination if all the test shots at f/1.8 were a little OOF than the f/1.2 shots. In all but this one instance, the f/1.2 shot was sharper than the f/1.8 shot. I also have to confess, I was looking at these images at 200% and I'm probably a closet pixel peeper.



Apologies, but I don't understand your clarification. Are you saying that in general, f/1.2 was sharper than f/1.8, or in one specific shot, f/1.2 was sharper, but the rest of the time, f/1.8 was sharper? 

What I'm saying is that with correct focus, f/1.8 will always be sharper than f/1.2, that's just basic optics - you stop down from wide open and the lens gets sharper. MTF tests and/or ISO 12233 test shots, which when properly done are perfectly focused (either with 10x Live View, or better yet by focus bracketing and picking the best shot post hoc). But, what I'm also saying is that if you are using AF for your shots, f/1.2 will usually be sharper than f/1.8, because the f/1.2 shots will be correctly focused, while f/1.8 will be back focused because of the focus shift (focus shift does not apply wide open). However, that also assumes the lens is properly calibrated on your body - for example, if it actually front-focuses at f/1.2, then the focus shift at f/1.8 may result in correct focus (two wrongs making a right, so to speak).


----------



## photophreek (Jan 9, 2012)

Neuro - when I posted my first msg, I also could not understand why f/1.2 was sharper in one shot than f/1.8. All my other test shots, f/1.8 was sharper. I probably should have looked at the EXIF before posting. The EXIF for the f/1.2 shot had a shutter speed of 1/60 and the f/1.8 shutter speed shot was 1/15. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Notwithstanding, I'm still going ahead with purchasing the 50L 1.2.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 10, 2012)

photophreek said:


> My weekend with the 50L has been very interesting. I've shot many different scenarios both indoors and outside and at many different apertures. The lens has been paired with my 7d which is my main camera body. BTW, I'm very familiar with my 7d and it's AF system. I don't get OOF shots unless I've had a brain fart. Just this afternoon, I was taking a few shots of one of our cats with fill flash at f/1.2 and f/1.8. When I was comparing the two shots in LR, I was surprised that the f/1.2 was sharper. I understand that the 50L can be softer at f/1.2, but based on my testing, technique may have something to do with it.
> 
> I must confess that the images of this lens are very different than the other L primes I use. It's hard to describe, but the images seem "dreamier" and not as much edge blur as the 85L II. I use my lenses as tools to achieve a "look" in the images I photograph and the 50L has a very unique look about it unlike my other primes. I've decided to buy the lens and I anticipate that it will find itself attached to my 7d a lot.



Congratulations! Glad you're enjoying it. And yes, it does very well on an APS-C sensor, it's like having an 80mm 1.2 with the minimum focusing distance of a 50L 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> ...it does very well on an APS-C sensor, it's like having an 80mm 1.2 with the minimum focusing distance of a 50L



Well, it's more like an 80mm f/1.9 on APS-C...


----------

