35mm f/1.4L vs. 70-200mm f/4L IS

[deltasun]

Hey All, wanted to get your opinions on this...


I'm going to purchase one of the two lenses for my 7D (and 40D), but cannot decide. I know they're not even the same ballpark of lenses and what's it going to be primarily use for, etc. If I have to answer that question, it'll probably be portraiture of my 5-mo old. The next question is indoors or out?


I get all that and I don't really want to compare the lenses based solely on functionality. Rather, I'm looking at it more for the FUN factor. I already have the 50mm f/1.4, which will probably never get used again if I get the 35mm f/1.4L. I hear the IQ is night and day. Then, there's the opinion that the 35mm f/1.4L doesn't look as sharp on higher pixel density cameras.


So, pound for pound, which would you choose and why? For those who have both, can a decision be made without regard to functionality?


Thanks for your time!

[Garrett-Grimsley]

35L hands down. Why? It's freakin' amazing.

[Jon Ruyle]

Personally, 70-200 is my favorite focal length rage when it comes to fun factor, but of course that is just opinion. But I also think it is a better range for portraits than 35mm, especially portraits of small people (as no doubt your 5-mo old is).


The 35, of course, is faster, and fast lenses are fun. But you know that from using your 50 f/1.4 (which reminds me of another reason I would recommend the 70-200: it's more different from what you already have).


Opinions, you'll probably find, will vary wildly. Take mine with a teaspoon of salt.

[ddt0725]

More fun ...my 35L butmy 70-200mm f/4 IS has definitely been used more around my toddler grandkids who don't stay in one spot for long (and your baby won't pretty soon)! The zoom range of that lens has really come in handy!

Denise

[HDNitehawk]

I agree with Garrett, its amazing go with the 35L.


Although I do not have the 70-200 I have other primes in the focal range. The 35L will go with me before any other lens for just walking around.


There are two reasons I would choose the 35mm L.


First is that I would use that focal range a lot more than I would 70-200.


Second, and I say this without ever using the 70-200 so I am basing this on my experince with other Canon Zooms, if I could only have one I would pick a Canon's top prime in that lens range over a Zoom of any other range. I am not bad mouthing the 70-200, its just my preference to use Primes.

[deltasun]

Some good info so far and so far, I'm leaning a bit on the 35L... [:D]

[Sheiky]

I already have the 50mm f/1.4


Do you have more lenses than the 50mm?? [A]



So, pound for pound, which would you choose and why?


I don't have experience with the 35mm, but here's what I think. I think the 35mm will be fine right now, since a 5-mo baby doesn't move that much and so you can easily frame a shot with the 35mm.


However once they start crawling and walking which should be within the next year or so...they get very mobile. I personally prefer a longer range lens for snapshots and unposed photos of children. With the 35mm you'll always need to frame correctly and so be at a certain distance of your kid. Of course you can crop with 18MP, but I personally like to frame right the first time and keep all my MP[;)]


I also assume you'll have the wide end covered with something like the 17-55 or so?? In that case I don't really see a 35mmL as a huge benefit. But then again it depends also on what you like and how you like to shoot.


Good luck,


Jan

[Tom Wertman]

If I have to answer that question, it'll probably be portraiture of my 5-mo old.


If that is going to be your primary use than keep in mind 35 is pretty wide for a subject so small. When you get in close there will be more distortion. Faces become elongated, noses become larger, etc. 70-200 is way more versatile for kids as they grow and get involved in all kids of activities.


Tom

[thekingb]

I don't have the 35L, but my 70-200 f/4 IS is the most fun lens I own, especially for kids. If I'm going to be outdoors shooting my kids, it's almost always my choice(even though using a fill flash becomes nearly impossible due to its length)because it's versatile, IQ is fantastic, and I can stand back from the action and get natural shots. Kids do weird things when they see the camera.


BUT, this lens is essentially useless indoors, which is too bad during the long Wisconsin winter.

[JJphoto]

I have 35mm and 70-200 4.0 but non IS


I prefer 35mm 1.4 of course and would suggest to trade your 50mm for a 85mm1.8, then indoor, outdoor, close up, candid, stationary, action, low light... you all covered.


70-200 is very good too, if you don't mind to use your 50mm for indoors but 50mm on a cropped body sometimes still too long for indoor shots

[Richard Lane]

<span style="font-size: 11.8056px;"]I'm going to purchase one of the two lenses for my 7D (and 40D), but cannot decide. I know they're not even the same ballpark of lenses and what's it going to be primarily use for, etc. If I have to answer that question, it'll probably be portraiture of my 5-mo old. The next question is indoors or out?


I get all that and I don't really want to compare the lenses based solely on functionality. Rather, I'm looking at it more for the FUN factor. I already have the 50mm f/1.4, which will probably never get used again if I get the 35mm f/1.4L. I hear the IQ is night and day. Then, there's the opinion that the 35mm f/1.4L doesn't look as sharp on higher pixel density cameras.






What's more fun then taking pictures of your 5 month old baby? For that reason I would go with the 35mm f/1.4L. I just think there will be a lot more opportunities to get great low-light indoor shots of your kid with the 35mm f/1.4L. It will be a nice 56mm focal length on both of your crop body cameras, therefore it shouldn't distort facial features. It will be great for taking pictures above the crib, on the bed, on the floor, birthday parties, holidays, family members holding the baby, and so on. Just make sure you know how to set the Custom White Balance for low-light indoor ambient lighting.





Rich

[Keith B]

On a crop 35 1.4 with it's 56mm equivalent is probably pretty good call. As kids get older they move quickly and the extra light gathering and higher shutter speeds will be handy. On a full frame 35 is kind of wide and gets you to close to randomly moving child.

[thekingb]

What's more fun then taking pictures of your 5 month old baby? For that reason I would go with the 35mm f/1.4L.






The baby won't remain an infant for long. While the 35L might be perfect right now (I'd sure like one), before you know it, that baby will be running and playing outdoors and will either (1) refuse to look at the camera or (2) make ridiculous faces or smiles at the camera. At that point the 35L will be less "fun" to use with the kids. That's where the 70-200 comes in handy.

[deltasun]

Thanks for the different points of view. I guess I should qualify - I will eventually get the 70-200 f/4L IS, maybe another 6 months. I am really leaning towards the 35mm at this point. I almost feel like if I don't get it now, I probably won't get it. And the sample shots I've seen from it just look incredible.


Jan, I also have the following zooms: 10-22, 17-40, 24-105, and 100-400. Plus, the 100mm macro non-L. So, yes I do have the 35mm focal length covered, but have heard so much about its awesome IQ (contract, color, and bokeh).


Tom, would the distortion still play a role in my crop body?

[thekingb]

I guess I should qualify - I will eventually get the 70-200 f/4L IS, maybe another 6 months. I am really leaning towards the 35mm at this point. I almost feel like if I don't get it now, I probably won't get it. And the sample shots I've seen from it just look incredible.


Jan, I also have the following zooms: 10-22, 17-40, 24-105, and 100-400. Plus, the 100mm macro non-L. So, yes I do have the 35mm focal length covered, but have heard so much about its awesome IQ (contract, color, and bokeh).





Maybe next time your first post should include this kind of relevant information. If you are going to buy the 70-200 anyway, then I don't understand why you were looking for other people's opinions.


For what it's worth, unless you are making the jump to full frame any time soon, I'd sell the 17-40. With your lens arsenal, the only gap that lens fills is the 23mm focal length. I suspect you can do without 23mm. [;)]

[deltasun]

Hey, 6 months (or so ) is still a long time! [:D] I do like JJ's idea of getting the 35 and maybe replacing the 50 1.4 with an 85 1.8.


An FF is in the future as well, but that's even farther down the line. :)

[thekingb]

Funny - I replaced my 50 f/1.4 with the 85 f/1.8 a few weeks ago. It was a great decision given I shoot with a 7D. The 50 was too long for lots of indoor shots anyway, so I didn't lose much there. And the 85 is so sweet. Sharp wide open and scary sharp stopped down. Great bokeh too. I think the 85 f/1.8 is the best lens dollar for dollar.

[Tom Wertman]

Tom, would the distortion still play a role in my crop body?


Crop body should be ok. Just something to keep in mind when using a wide lens for close


up facial work. 35 isn't that wide anyway. Sounds like you are heading for it now and the 70-200


later. Not a bad way to go with kids IMO.


Tom

[Sheiky]

Jan, I also have the following zooms: 10-22, 17-40, 24-105, and 100-400. Plus, the 100mm macro non-L. So, yes I do have the 35mm focal length covered, but have heard so much about its awesome IQ (contract, color, and bokeh).
<div>


Thanks Tom, I was waiting for this information.


The 35mmL does sound more logical now. Since you also mention that you will buy the 70-200 in about 6 months (when you're baby starts to crawl/walk) you need to have something until then. A 35mm will be great for shots right now, since you're probably bound to indoor shots a lot of the times and a wider aperture will help out great for that.


So you're own idea of buying the 35mm now and buy the 70-200 later sounds pretty good to me.


Just put one of your lenses on 35mm (the 24-105 will do) and see if you like the focal length for shooting photos. If you're convinced, go for it!







Tom, would the distortion still play a role in my crop body?


Crop body should be ok. Just something to keep in mind when using a wide lens for close


up facial work. 35 isn't that wide anyway



The barrel distortion of the 35mmL on a crop-body is only -0.486% ("http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/336-canon-ef-35mm-f14-test-report--review?start=1) so it is visible, although it's close to nothing compared to other lenses. Also the 35mm on a crop is equal to 57mm on a full frame camera which was exactly the standard lens for full frame camera's in the days, since it has a natural field of view. So distortion is absolutely nothing you should worry about.


Have fun with your new lens [;)]


Jan
</div>

[deltasun]

Thanks for the input, all! The 35L should be here by Friday! [:)]

[scalesusa]

If you need a particular lens, you should already know it.


Do you have the 17-55mm IS? Its the first lens a crop camera owner should buy if you use normal focal lengths.


The 35mm l is not a beginner lens, at f/1.4 it frequently needs microfocus adjuse, which is not available on your 40D. I'd go for the 35mm f/2. you would probably be happier.


The 70-200mm f/4L IS will work well and be very sharp on both cameras, do you use that focal length range?


Getting a lens and then looking for something to use it on is not a good plan, even a poorer plan if its a expensive lens.

[deltasun]

Appreciate the comments, scale, but there's no talk of need here. [:D] The operative word is FUN! I understand all the potential complexities inherent of such a thin DOF at f/1.4. I've had fairly good practice with my 50mm f/1.4.


The 135 f/2L and 17-55mm f/2.8 are on my list as well, but a bit farther down.

[Jayson]

I don't know how much I am in the minority here, but I have a 35 f2 and sure it doesn't have the quality of the 35 f1.4 but it does pretty well. However, I find that I have the 70-200 on my camera 90% of the time. Almost all of the photos I take on here are with that lens. If I am going to do stuff inside, I just use the 50 1.4. It works for kids since the are smaller anyway. That would be my suggestion is go for the 70-200. I have heard nothing but great things with the 35, but by far the zoom is it for me. That's my two cents.

[deltasun]

Good points, Jayson. Were those zoo shots with the 70-200 f/4L?


That's what makes this difficult (though I've already made a decision). The 70-200 definitely is versatile outdoors and I'm sure in certain indoor situations. The 50mm f/1.4 does a great job, but have found it several times this weekend to be a tad long. I think the 35mm in those situations would have done perfectly.


One thing I still have not heard mentioned - any IQ issues when the 35L is paired with higher pixel density sensors such as that found in 7D's, for example? Any softness at all?

[Gian Luca]

In my opinion the best portrait lens for children is the 70-200 f2.8. If budget is a part of the choise I rather have the f2.8 without IS vs the f4 with IS. Your baby will grow very fast, and you will want to capture him while walking, running in the park, biking... To free action the IS does not help, and in few months he will move very fast!!!


You need the fastest aperture possible, but you also need the zoom flexibility to recompose quicly, any optical advantage of a prime like the 135 f2 will be lost if you need to crop!!


Untill you shoot indoor the 50mm f1.4 is a great choice, remember that sharpness is often not a prime caratteristic for potraits, and that some Lens manufatcureres reduced voluntarely the sharpness of their best portrait lenses at wide open value

[deltasun]

Got it last night and the first impression is FRONT HEAVY. There's quite the mass in this lens. Anyway, I've just tested with window lighting into the living room at 1.4 to gauge the sharpness handheld...


35mm f/1.4L @ 1.4, 1/80s, ISO 160


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c114/deltasun/Random/IMG_1103.jpg





35mm f/1.4L @ 1.4, 1/80s, ISO 125


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c114/deltasun/Random/20100902_034_35mm.jpg

[ddt0725]

Got it last night and the first impression is FRONT HEAVY. There's quite the mass in this lens. Anyway, I've just tested with window lighting into the living room at 1.4 to gauge the sharpness handheld...



Congrats! By the looks of these shots, you should be very please! It is a tad front heavy but it doesn't take long to get used to it. I had to do some microadjusting to mine and it was the hardest to do of all my lenses for some reason. I still don't know if I'm really dead on but yours looks really good!

Enjoy!

Denise

[deltasun]

Thanks, Denise...still playing with it, but haven't had a chance to also try outdoors to get that nice bokeh. I haven't calibrated yet, but will probably not do that till I get Lens Align at some point. I tried to calibrate my 50mm f/1.4 on a ruler on a table, but in the end I was so frustrated that I set it back to 0. I want to test the 35mm further to see if hitting the sweet spot is consistent.


And you're right, I'm already starting to forget about the front weight. [:D]

[sdean7855]

My 2 cents: If you're doing portraiture, the hands-down best-ever-anywhere-anywhen portrait lens is the 85mm F1.2. Throw away your (ugh) flash. Pick up this lense and you'll be sucked into portrait imagery, razor sharp with a great bokeh.

[Sean Setters]

My 2 cents: If you're doing portraiture, the hands-down best-ever-anywhere-anywhen portrait lens is the 85mm F1.2. Throw away your (ugh) flash. Pick up this lense and you'll be sucked into portrait imagery, razor sharp with a great bokeh.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Or, buy the 85mm f/1.8 and use the extra money to buy flash equipment and modifiers. Then spend some time getting to know how to use it all with great effect. Just my 2 cents. ;-)



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4491656180_af9ea26ff0.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/4491656180/)

[saturnia]

if I could only have one I would pick a Canon's top prime in that lens range over a Zoom of any other range


Well, I am prime fan, too, but if it comes down to the 70-200/4 IS I'd say it is so sharp that it meets the quality of a good prime. Only my EF 100/2.8 IS beats it in terms of sharpness in that range of focal lengths - but that's a macro and certainly one of Canons sharpest lenses.

[scalesusa]

It won

[saturnia]

Well, you only could use the 70-200/4 with slowly moving objects indoors. Its IS is very good but it is not fast, indeed. I never use mine indoors, if I then need such a tele zoom range I use a Tamron 70-200/2.8. But I