Hi
I have Canon 5D mark II,I want to get one of the above lenses i.e. 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4. I know that 35mm is a L lens, but I want your advice which can render good picture quality and which would be a ideal walk around lens for the FF camera and also which can give the best bokeh.
Thanks in advancce
They can both render good picture quality. I think the bokeh on the 35 is better, although the 50 is capable of greater defocus blur (i.e. background blur). For most people, I think the 50 makes a better walk-around focal length. There area lot of other differences too -- build quality, focus ring, etc.
Do you see any disadvantage of getting 50mm in terms of image quality when compared to 35mm?
It depends. The 50 is better at some things, and the 35 is better at others. For example, the 50 has more trouble with flare, but it also has more resolution.Originally Posted by gandhi
From the quality standpoint both of these lenses are going to deliver sharp images with good bokeh. They're both Canon primes with a great F stop. And my guess is that either can deliver sharper pics than just about any zoom lens out there -- L or not.
The real issue then, which lens does the job you want done, a 35mm or a 50mm? If it was me, I'd probably go with the 50mm even if the price was the same. The 50 is closer to how your eye sees the world and it's a great lens for portraits, walking around, etc. The 35mm is closer to a wide angle lens and for that range, I usually grab a wide angle zoom that gives me more flexibility. But you have to ask yourself what kinds of requirements you will have for the lens.
Plus of course, the 50mm is what, a third the price? For what you'd save on the 50, you could also get the excellent Sigma 30mm 1.4, one of the best lenses out there.
Which, of course, would be a complete waste of money for someone with a FF camera, right?
I break it down like this, If you like to shoot wide portrait shots, meaning landscape oriented go with the 35. If you shoot mostly vertical/portrait oriented go 50.
35 vertical gives an odd distorted perspective and you'll feel like you are way too close. 50 will do both, but the landscape portrait at 35 just has a really amazing look when you get the subject right in the frame.
My experience with 50 1.4, I wouldn't recommend it unless you are shooting narrower f/stops. I really dislike that lens when I owned it. If the 50 1.2 is out of budget I'd look into the Sigma. I just really disliked the canon 1.4.
What specifically didn't you like about the 50 1.4? Since acquiring a FF camera, the 50mm f/1.4 has been one of my favorite lenses to work with.
Last edited by Sean Setters; 05-26-2012 at 10:10 AM.
I didn't care for the bokeh, color, contrast or build quality. Especially the manual focus ring. Didn't care much for the weight. It didn't balance out well for me. I like a heavier lens as it helps me steady the shot which I found highly important while shooting at shallow DOF.
Last edited by Keith B; 05-28-2012 at 05:01 AM.
[QUOTE=Sean Setters;70258]What specifically didn't you like about the 50 1.4? Since acquiring a FF camera, the 50mm f/1.4 has been one of my favorite lenses to work with.
Not sure what his issue was, but I think there are QC issues with that lens. My copy, which I sold, had maddeningly inconsistent focus at f/2.5 and wider, where I obviously spent a lot of time. At narrower apertures, though, it was jaw droppingly sharp.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote