Hello and greetings from Finland. This is my first post at this forum and right away I'm looking for a helping hand...
I just can't seem to make up my mind which lens to choose. I have read all the possible reviews but it would be very interesting if someone, who has then both, could compare them side by side, I mean colour, contrast and bokeh quality etc in real life shots.
I'd be using the lens mainly in street photography and indoor shots and I'm not even convinced, which focal lenght would be better for me. I'd propably need them both, but I can't invest that kind of money -at least not right now. They are sooooo expensive. So I've been thinking of a possible canon-sigma combination, either Sigma 30&50L or 35L&Sigma 50. A zoom lens is not an option. I've owned 24-70L but I need the speed only primes can offer because I'm shooting a lot indoors with no flash.
So far I own 135L, 85 Lll and a 15mm FE. I'd be very grateful if someone could help me out with this one...
You know you need to complete the holy trinity there... so the 35L is the obvious answer. But seriously, I don't think you'll miss the 50mm length- you probably need a moderate wide more than anything, and just can just foot zoom the 35mm. It's generally the better regarded lens as well.
I LOVE my 35L and 135L on the 5D2. I don't have the 50 F1.2...but do have the 50 F1.4 and can honestly say it never comes out of the bag. Not so much due to image quality...(although a factor), but I really never seem to be missing that focal length. I do sometimes use my 85 F1.8 however.
If I had your line up. I would go with the 35L for sure.
You said it yourself, you shoot "street photography and indoor shots". Both of those scream for a 35L. I think you would be limiting yourself with the 50.
Back in the dark ages (film) I always found the 50mm "standard" lens the most mundane and boring of creatures. 28mm and 85mm and 135mm were much more exciting.
Not only is the 35L more original, it also sucks far less. Do a search: anytime the 50L is discussed, it's a mud bath, to put it mildly. When it comes to the 35L, people still seem to be on the honeymoon. Let that be a guide, at least in part.
35L is one of the best lenses I've ever used - it is responsible for 90% of my photography. I had to sell mine as I'm in the process of switching over to the "Dark Side" of Nikon. It truly is a master piece and will be missed.
They are both beautiful lenses. The 35 is sharper, but i like the 50mm focal length better for walk around. 50 has the better bokeh and is better balanced on the 5D2 (opinion here obviously), 35 can double duty as a nice landscape lens and is lighter.
jagsiva wrote:
The 35L is a must have on FF. I would go for that and think about the 85/1.8 the two together may fit your budget and would be a great combo.
The OP already has the 85L - I don't see any need for the 85/1.8.
I use the 50L in a smallish studio for full-length shots (can't get back far enough to use the 85). Outdoors, not so much need.
The 35L is an excellent lens, and probably more generally useful.
Although I have none of these two I will throw in my opinion anyway.
Looking at the cost... as you say these things are so darn expensive... I have been looking at the 50 1.2L a few times but, as you, I also have the 85 1.2L. For me the focal length is too close to have two Ls in this range. With your line up I would probably grab a 35 1.4L... you could then add a 50 1.4 at one point. .
I would go for the 35L and sigma 50/1.4 combination. The reason is that 35L is of its own class and there really is no alternative. But the sigma 50 is so damn close to the 50L, even better in some aspects. This combination makes sense both economically and practically.
