# 35L or 50L?



## Alexiumz (Mar 18, 2013)

In the very near future I may be buying a number of things, namely a 5Dmk3, 16-35L, 100L and 135L, along with a few other accessories. I already own a 60D, 17-85 and 85 1.8.

I'm also considering whether to get a wide/normal prime with all that, namely the 35L or the 50L, though this is where I can't make up my mind. I'd like your input and opinions and experiences on said lenses and which you think I should get! I'm set on the other lenses, so I'm not needing any advice on those - they're just for reference so you know what else it'll be amongst.

Below are my thoughts, both pros and cons on each lens, along with a few other points of consideration.

*35L*
_Pros_

I prefer a mid-wide walkabout lens to 50mm
Slightly cheaper than the 50
Led to believe it has slightly better IQ than the 50?
Great build quality, metally and solid.
_Cons_

Not weather sealed
Already have the 35 length with the 16-35

*50L*
_Pros_

A third of a stop faster
Weather sealed
Doubles as a good portrait length on my second (crop) body
Fills a gap in the focal range not yet covered
_Cons_

Infamous focus niggles
Could just get the 50 1.4?

I have both at work and have tried them both out a fair bit and like them both very much, however I'm still torn between the two. For some reason I feel slightly drawn to the 35 over the 50, but only by a hairs width. If the 35 had weather sealing, I'd probably go with it, as I always seem to find myself in the rain and I'd like to know that I don't need to worry.

Other things to consider are I'd really like to do some astrophotography with one of them - one of the reasons I'm not going with the 24 1.4 as it has bad coma wide open - how do these lenses perform for star shooting? Coma? Overall sharpness? Does the extra third-stop of light make much difference? Would the wider FOV be more appropriate?

I'd really only be able to afford one of them, however I may be able to stretch to get the 35 and the 50 1.4 instead? I know it's a great lens though the main drawback for me over the 1.2 is the weather sealing - more important than a wider aperture. Also should I think about the Sigma 35 1.4 perhaps?

Please leave your thoughts and opinions - 35L, 50L or alternatives?


----------



## BruinBear (Mar 18, 2013)

Why not the sigma 35mm? Its by most accounts better and cheaper than the canon.

As for the build quality, I actually thought the 35L was pretty horrible in this respect. The outside is all plastic and feels kinda cheap imo.

For me i prefer the 35mm length as a walkaround and after buying the sigma 35mm my 50/1.4 just sat in my closet until i ended up selling it. 

Also note that IQ of the 50/1.4 is as good if not better than the 50/1.2 so unless you shoot at 1.2 all the time or need the weather sealing i dont think i would bother.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

The 50L is the sharpest 50mm canon makes in the center from F1.2-2.8. If this fits your usage, I'd get one.

I wouldn't buy a 35L, Get the Sigma 1.4.


----------



## kuffer (Mar 18, 2013)

BruinBear said:


> Why not the sigma 35mm? Its by most accounts better and cheaper than the canon.



How is the auto-focus of this lens?


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

A few random thoughts:

35mm on the 16-35II does not compare to the 35L prime IQ. It is night and day.

The 50L owners do have an advantage over the 35mm owners who choose it as their standard... 50L stradles much of the portrait range while 35L leans heavily towards the wider end of the portrait focal length spectrum. 

In real terms, a 50L person can walk a little farther or closer and hit something similar to a 35mm or 85mm FOV (I am not saying identical) that still will look "normal".

This luxury simply doesn't exist for the 35mm owner. He/she has to rely on a 85mm to hit the medium tele range of the protrait spectrum because getting too close simply is not flattering on a 35mm WA. No amount of zooming with feet will help.

Granted, same can be argued for small groups and indoor shots where 35L gives you an edge in cramped spaces.

I say, get one L and the other as a good quality non-L. Perhaps, 50L and 35 f/2 IS or the Sigma 35 combo....or the 35L and 50 f/1.4. Have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## ianreid (Mar 18, 2013)

i was going to say something that was said above. 
the 35 on the 16-35 and the 35l are TOTALLY different for me on the 16-35 i rarely go into 35 i keep it between 16-28 the 35 is a more versatile lens (for me) i own both and i use the 50 only when i have to or am shooting 1 specific subject.

where as with the 35 i would shoot almost everything EXCEPT a close portrait with it. 

anyway i say go 35 . and that sigma 35 sounds amazing! but for what ever reason i stick to canon lenses for my cameras


----------



## florianbieler.de (Mar 18, 2013)

The focus issues with the 50L have been fixed in newer revisions as I was told... I got a lens from 2012 and I have no focus shift issues at all, tried various apertures and they all fit.


----------



## infared (Mar 18, 2013)

I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 I think the sharpness is up there with or past the Canon 50L ..and the bokeh is much more like the 50mmL...not as creamy as the 50mmL (1.4vs1.2)..but the bokeh on the Sigma is way better (IMHO), than the Canon f/1.4.....and right now you can pick one up for about $450. (I am usually a Canon L glass guy or Zeiss...but this lens is great!).
I also agree with everyone else above who says buy the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. At the price and the quality I plan on owning one of these, too. Now these are the only two Sigma lenses I would consider owning out of any thing that they manufacture. I am hoping that since this new 35mm is soooooooooo good and reasonably priced AND it is the beginning of a new line of lenses, the Art Line....perhaps Sigma will be producing more Art Line lenses that I will want to own...we will have to wait and see. I have read that the company has made a lot of changes and that it is starting to show in their newer products. Sounds good to me. Canon prices are hitting the stratosphere and I am a thinking man...not a Canon fanboy!!!! Sigma...bring it on! LOL!


----------



## BruinBear (Mar 18, 2013)

kuffer said:


> BruinBear said:
> 
> 
> > Why not the sigma 35mm? Its by most accounts better and cheaper than the canon.
> ...



I can only speak for the copy i got but the AF is very good. I did af accuracy tests at min focus and 10 feet and it was spot on with 0 AFMA. Infinity focus seems accurate as far as i can tell as well. Also there doesnt seem to be any noticeable focus shifts with stopping down.

For real world usage it doesnt seem any less accurate than the 35L i had.

As far as speed is concerned, again, it is very similar to the 35L. When you focus it on a blank wall the speed from MFD to inifinity focus and back to MFD is definitely slower than the 35L but in real world use i honestly havent noticed any difference.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Mar 18, 2013)

The new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is a complete new design and doesn't suffer from the focus issues like the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 18, 2013)

Sigma 35mm... I hope they can also produce a 21mm or 20mm that's as good and as cheap.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 18, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> A few random thoughts:
> 
> 35mm on the 16-35II does not compare to the 35L prime IQ. It is night and day.
> 
> ...


agree 100% if you go 35 you will want an 85 too

which usually means a second body for event
currently the 35mm and 85mm options that are available are far better than 50mm options

possibly other than the new zeiss but thats MF only


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 19, 2013)

The Canon 50L, though a superlative lens, is probably the worst value lens in Canon's lineup. It's only very, very marginally faster than the 50 f/1.4, and the 50 f/1.4 is its superior or equal or almost equal in every way except faster than f/1.4. I'd only recommend it for somebody for whom $1500 isn't a significant amount of money. That is, if you're wealthy enough that dropping $1500 doesn't get your attention, or if you're charging your clients $1500 a pop, or that sort of thing, sure go for it. Otherwise, save your money.

The 35L is a reasonable value for the money...but I'd probably go with the Sigma right now if I was buying, even if money was no object. That the Sigma is so much cheaper kinda makes it a no-brainer.

You should be able to buy both the 50 f/1.4 and the Sigma for less total than you'd spend on either L lens alone. And that's my recommendation: Sigma 35 f/1.4 + Canon 50 f/1.4.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TommyLee (Mar 19, 2013)

I never liked the 50 f1.2 the two times I tried it....
I tried to accept the vignetting, soft edges and chromatics... never got to the focus quirks...
but I personally don't care for 50mm over 35mm.... so it was uphill from the start

my 35L was pretty good @ f1.4.....and real good @ f2...
my sigma is as good as 35L @ f2....... but @ f1.4.. and very little fringing/CA...
plus...perfect for a crop camera

However, I am SURE the 35L focused a just little bit faster and maybe more accurately...
I didn't try those two 35s together .... and hardly ever for action shots

I did try the Sigma in a foot race yesterday...and DID notice I (I do mean ME) missed the focus a few times... so is it me, or my 5D3 settings or the Sigma...I dont know... I don't face those 'sports' situations that much ...so I am not qualified to judge.......this was a perfect situation for the 24-70mm f2.8 II - IMO
I'm almost certain mis-focuses were a combo of my technique(setting) AND the how the Sigma-5D3 work together

But the Sigma is - for sure - sharper than the 35L....maybe a stop ahead
I say get the Sigma 35 f1.4
I have been using it in low light situations mostly.....wonderful

you can almost get the sigma AND the 50mm NON-L for the 35L price....as already mentioned
I know I will get the 35L II when it arrives - if sharper and cleaner than the Sigma.....someday


a few race shots @ f2 from the Sigma (servo mode)


----------



## TommyLee (Mar 19, 2013)

also I am pretty sure the Sigma has lower chromatics than the 35L and the bokeh is about the same ....
that depends on the background distance ... and that may differ with different distances for each lens...
hard to test that I think

anyway
I like my Sigma wide open for these sort of shots
these were 1/50 sec so maybe some motion blur from the subject..
50L and 35L do not have this low chromatics.. in my experience...

and I ALSO believe Canon had to pull their almost released 35L II because Sigma was so good...
I will get the Canon 35L II if it is better...


----------



## HawkinsT (Mar 19, 2013)

Wouldn't the Sigma 35mm be better than the Canon? In terms of 50's, I've used both the 50L and Sigma 50mm 1.4 extensively and bought the Sigma, I just find the lenses colour rendition much better, focus more accurate and it doesn't suffer from the heavy (granted easily correctable) vignetting of the Canon either.

As to whether to go 35mm or 50mm it's all personal preference, though I would get more use out of 35mm than 50mm - especially since you already own an 85mm which will sometimes overlap with a 50's uses - I think it's important to spread your primes out or else they start feeling redundant (e.g. I use 24, 50 and 135).


----------



## infared (Mar 19, 2013)

HawkinsT said:


> Wouldn't the Sigma 35mm be better than the Canon? In terms of 50's, I've used both the 50L and Sigma 50mm 1.4 extensively and bought the Sigma, I just find the lenses colour rendition much better, focus more accurate and it doesn't suffer from the heavy (granted easily correctable) vignetting of the Canon either.
> 
> As to whether to go 35mm or 50mm it's all personal preference, though I would get more use out of 35mm than 50mm - especially since you already own an 85mm which will sometimes overlap with a 50's uses - I think it's important to spread your primes out or else they start feeling redundant (e.g. I use 24, 50 and 135).



Alexiumz can buy BOTH Sigmas for $1350..that is about the same price as ONE of the Canons....


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 19, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> I never liked the 50 f1.2 the two times I tried it....
> I tried to accept the vignetting, soft edges and chromatics... never got to the focus quirks...
> but I personally don't care for 50mm over 35mm.... so it was uphill from the start



Well if you only used it a couple of times it's no wonder you don't like it. That's a fickle lens that takes time to learn, but once you get used to it and you nail a shot, you _really _nail it. It's an excellent lens, but definitely takes a while to master. I think most 50L owners would tend to agree.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 50L is the sharpest 50mm canon makes in the center from F1.2-2.8. If this fits your usage, I'd get one.



LOL I loved my 50L very much, and it was a lot of things, but not extraordinarily sharp. And for the record the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper than the 1.2 in the center and MUCH sharper on the edges. The edges on the 50L are HORRIBLE, they barely even register on the chart. I've heard some say that they were going for that kind of soft edge effect for portraits, but either way when I got my Zeiss 50 f/2 I realized just how bad the Canon was on the edges. When I jumped from the 50mm f/1.4 to 50mm f/1.2 I didn't notice any change in sharpness, the most noticeable differences are in the bokeh, color rendition, AF speed, and build quality.

Here is the 50mm f/1.4 compared to the 1.2:


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 50L is the sharpest 50mm canon makes in the center from F1.2-2.8. If this fits your usage, I'd get one.
> ...



It depends how good, bad, or ugly the copy you received was. Mine is superior to any of my previous 50mm I've owned and TDP shows how terrible the 1.4 is with CA and Veiling haze. It mirrors my experience in the center where it matters most to me.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Now most here don't care for Mr. rockwell but his experiences mirror mine with the 50L in usage. It even demonstrates the zeiss vs 50L in veiling haze.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f12-continued.htm

Nailing focus is key @ f/1.2 and when it does, I'd never go back to another 50mm lens.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review


----------



## Alexiumz (Mar 19, 2013)

Thanks for all your inputs, it's all exactly the sort of thing I wanted.

Couple of points raised in some of your comments; I'm aware that the 16-35 @35mm pales in comparison to a dedicated 35 prime. I'm also aware that the 50L is only superior to it's smaller siblings between 1.2 and about 2.8, beyond that, the other two are arguably better.

It appears that the general consensus seems to be not to get the 35L; my options seem to boil down to get either the 50L or the Sigma 35 and the 50 1.4...

Again thank you all for your feedback, it's really great. Keep posting and I'll keep reading, though we shall just have to wait and see what I end up deciding to get. Who knows? Not me! Not yet.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

Alexiumz said:


> Thanks for all your inputs, it's all exactly the sort of thing I wanted.
> 
> Couple of points raised in some of your comments; I'm aware that the 16-35 @35mm pales in comparison to a dedicated 35 prime. I'm also aware that the 50L is only superior to it's smaller siblings between 1.2 and about 2.8, beyond that, the other two are arguably better.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4. 

The 50L is really only for 50mm nuts who just like that focal length. Its heavy, It's expensive, It's IQ band is limited but I wouldn't trade for anything on the market currently.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.



Amen.

You're not going to get a better 35 than the Sigma. Different, yes, but not better.

And chances are negligible that you'll find the 50 f/1.4 lacking...and, if you do, you can sell it for nearly what you pay for it (and consider the difference your rental fee) and use the proceeds to buy a minuscule fraction of the 50L.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## HawkinsT (Mar 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.



For a little extra money I really see no reason to get the Canon 50/1.4 instead of the Sigma 50/1.4. I've already said how I prefer Sigma's 50/1.4 to Canon's 50/1.2, which some people may disagree with, but honestly the Sigma produces so much more pleasing images than the Canon 50/1.4, the bokeh is a lot smoother and the colours and micro contrast better, plus the Canon 50/1.4 just feels cheap. The Canon 50/1.4 is not a lens I'd ever bother with and the only friend I have that has, traded it in for the Sigma 50/1.4 pretty quickly.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

HawkinsT said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I'd get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Canon 50mm 1.4.
> ...



I could never recommend the sigma 50mm because of its irratic AF behavior. It's IQ was good when it hit but I couldn't trust it. Maybe when they update it to an art series lens, I'll revisit it.


----------



## HawkinsT (Mar 20, 2013)

Apparently some copies of the lens have issues with consistent af and so perhaps I've been lucky there (after considerable micro adjustment to the af) but there are great copies of this lens about and buying from a reputable retailer always allows you to swap your lens for another if you do indeed get a dud. Amazon are great in this regard.


----------



## pierceography (Mar 20, 2013)

HawkinsT said:


> Apparently some copies of the lens have issues with consistent af and so perhaps I've been lucky there (after considerable micro adjustment to the af) but there are great copies of this lens about and buying from a reputable retailer always allows you to swap your lens for another if you do indeed get a dud. Amazon are great in this regard.



I own the Sigma f/1.4. Took me two copies, but I got one with decent AF. Being that it's still a 1.4, AF can be hard to nail, but when you do the results are outstanding. I had the Canon 1.4 and sold it for the Sigma. Real happy I did.

Here's a recent shot with the Sigma:

http://www.pierceography.com/31725


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 20, 2013)

Hmm, not a lot of love for the 35L here. I have one and I simply love it, I can't compare it to the 50L other than focal length wise. I like the 35mm focal length, even on my 24-105 I find myself often going to around 35mm.

In terms of CA and other, I am not skilled enough (or interested enough to check all details), but I've not noticed anything disturbing in processed pictures.

People are talking alot about the new Sigma, probably for the right reasons. But it is still untested in terms of build and how it will last over time. The 35L was introduced 1998 if I remember correct and as far as I understand holds well over time. I think that is also something to take into consideration. I have one Sigma lens that I used for my old 60D, I haven't sold it because it's not worth anything and the years have definitely taken it's toll on it.

I am sure you will be happy with the 50L though as many of the more experienced photographers here recommend.


----------



## Ricku (Mar 20, 2013)

dilbert said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 35mm... I hope they can also produce a 21mm or 20mm that's as good and as cheap.
> ...


And I hope they can produce a wide angle zoom that is sharp across the frame, so that we don't have to wait for Canon to do it.


----------



## wayno (Mar 20, 2013)

I use my 35 a lot more than my 50 - I just find the focal length a lot more useful and practical.


----------



## coryparris (Mar 20, 2013)

My 50 1.4 was a complete dog. Complete mush at anything below f2.8. I bought the Sigma on a whim with the intention of buying the 50 1.2 later. Later never arrived. 

The Sigma 50 1.4 is very sharp and has good bokeh. It is usually good to focus, but occasionally stops before achieving complete focus. The focus action is a bit harsh compared to Canon lenses.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 25, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It depends how good, bad, or ugly the copy you received was. Mine is superior to any of my previous 50mm I've owned and TDP shows how terrible the 1.4 is with CA and Veiling haze. It mirrors my experience in the center where it matters most to me.



I wasn't talking about wide open, more from f/2 up. I had a great copy and overall it is a better lens than the 50mm f/1.4 but it's not like it's crushing it in terms of sharpness.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 25, 2013)

My 50 f/1.4 is sharp and is a well bahaved prime. It doesn't have the L's "look" but it is a straight shooter...not a fancy lens.


----------



## WhoIreland (Mar 27, 2013)

I had a 50/1.4 which I loved on film & early digi's....
never thought it was up to scratch on full frame digi bodies

tried 50/1.2 and was much better

but bought and kept 35/1.4L - superb lens....
i upgraded 28-70L to 24-70L, and then went to 24-70L II

but nothing replaces 35L - it's a fantastic piece of kit


----------

