AF 1.4/50 vs 35L
/forum/topic/1065748/0



fotofraag
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 78
Country: Belgium

I have a photoquestion: is the AF on the 35L much better than on the 1.4/50? I have the 50 now. I don't care about the old fashioned AF too much since I do not shoot video the noise is no problem to me. In general the AF is also fast enough. But when I use the lens in the dark I notice frequently the lens is hunting, and has difficulties to lock even when I look for a part in the subject with some contrast. I miss quite some pictures in the cafe of my friends where I like to shoot. I use an 1DsII and the lighting conditions that I mean are about 1.4 and 1/20s at 3200 ISO. Will the 35/1.4L under the same curcimstance better AF? Does it lock at these low light levels? Or is the only difference that it is a little faster and has noiseless AF? The 35L is already on my wishlist for a long time, but I want to be sure it is a step up in AF performance. With the holiday season and several "semi-dark parties" coming it might be the solution for my annoyance with the 50/1.4 sometimes.

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience/knowledge with the 35L.



bridow
Registered: Jun 08, 2003
Total Posts: 739
Country: United States

yes.



Mike Tuomey
Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Total Posts: 2874
Country: United States

I've owned 3 copies of the 35L and one of the EF 50/1.4. Shooting on several different 1-series cameras, the 35Ls focused more reliably in lowlight than the EF 50/1.4. The same is true in my experience in comparing the 50L with the EF 50/1.4, by the way.



fotofraag
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 78
Country: Belgium

Thanks bridow and mike, I'd like to add the 35L instead of the 50/1.2L unless the 50L is significantly better in AF in the dark than the 35L. Are they about the same or is one of them better? In fact I like the 50/1.4 quite well, except for the AF and IQ until 2.0, but for everything else I coud keep it in my kit next to the 85L, that I already have, and a 35L. If I would take the 50L I would sell the 50/1.4. The 35 is also a view angle that I like above the 50, it would become my primary lens (now the 24-70L) I think. If I have a 35L I would keep the 50/1.4 for occasional use. What is my smartest solution do you think?



Mike Tuomey
Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Total Posts: 2874
Country: United States

The 50L is not significantly better in lowlight compared to the 35L. They are pretty much the same in my experience.

I can't say what's smartest for you. If you prefer the 35mm focal length to the 50mm, then I think the 35L + 85L pairing makes sense.



fotofraag
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 78
Country: Belgium

Thanks, that was what I was hoping for! I should order a 35L then



slee915
Registered: Jan 05, 2006
Total Posts: 368
Country: United States

$1255 at amazon right now, I pulled the trigger



erikburd
Registered: Feb 03, 2010
Total Posts: 578
Country: United States

I tested out both lenses, and the 35L destroyed the 50 when it came to focusing, especially on accuracy on lower light. The 50 just kept hunting, but it did that even in relatively good outdoor light too.



remoras
Registered: Dec 23, 2010
Total Posts: 377
Country: Belgium

Isn't it easier if you just use AF assist on a speedlite?
I have both the 50mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.4. I don't find the AF significantly better. It is better, the price is much higher



Daan B
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Total Posts: 7591
Country: Netherlands

fotofraag wrote:
I have a photoquestion: is the AF on the 35L much better than on the 1.4/50?


Yes. And it will be sharper @ 1.4 too



EyeBrock
Registered: Dec 03, 2005
Total Posts: 1007
Country: Canada

I have both like many on FM.

The 35 is great for a walk-around lens and the FL (on FF) is more useful for interior shots like you mention in cafes. The bokeh and general look on the 50L is more 3D-like but the 35L seems to focus quicker than the 50L. Both are my top 2 used lenses and I wouldn't part with either lens.

From your brief input I think you would be better off with the 35L.



mark petri
Registered: Oct 25, 2006
Total Posts: 1006
Country: United States

I've never noticed any difference. I have them both beside me now perhaps I'll test it out this evening if bored.

They are both superb.



adrianb
Registered: Jun 28, 2010
Total Posts: 525
Country: Romania

fotofraag:

You can get a 24L II.

Personally , I feel the 35 is pretty close to 50 1.4, so that's why I went for 24mm instead of 35mm. I needed something wide, for wider FOV,for group shots, etc.

With 24L + your current 50 1.4 and 85L you would be better covered.Now it all depends what you're shooting,perhaps my advice/opinion doesn't fit with your needs..

I don't recommend selling the 50 1.4 as it's a great lens for the price.
Think that there is NO other 1.4 lens with AF in Canon line up for that price..
I'm very happy with it even at f1.4

I never shot 35L but I can confirm that the 24L II focuses faster (in low light) than the 50 1.4.



fotofraag
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 78
Country: Belgium

adrianb, I wish you had not said that you bring up a dilemma It's not about selling the 50/1.4. I will not. I think it is a great value and though it's not my favorite field of view I will keep for that assignments where I want the 50. But I have been contemplating the 24L mkII often, because from the images I have seen I like the lens better than the 35L. Contrast and bokeh seems to be more pleasant. But the 35 is the field of view that I like the best. I find the 24 can give a kind of dramatic perspective that I don't like very much for portraits/people photography in the cafes or receptions. The 35 field of view is much more "natural" to my taste. I figured out that I use my 24-70L very much around 35mm FL without being conscious. It happens intuitively. So that made me think of buying a 35L. But maybe I could force myself to use the 24L instead and crop to prevent the dramatic perspective. But then again if I have to crop I think I'd better "crop optically" with the 35L.

Decisions. What would you fellow FM ers do?



dfresh
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Total Posts: 2711
Country: United States

fotofraag wrote:I figured out that I use my 24-70L very much around 35mm FL without being conscious. It happens intuitively.

I think that's answer. Get the prime of the focal length you use more often. I found that I liked my 35L so much I never used my superb Sigma 50/1.4 anymore and eventually sold it. The 35L also has a very unique and pleasing drawing/rendering style that I really enjoy.



outlawyer
Registered: Feb 27, 2008
Total Posts: 1404
Country: United States

The 35L is 4X the price of the 1.4. It's better at everything, including MFD, but the real story (as I seemingly never tire of reiterating) is how good a lens costing a quarter as much really is in such comparisons which can be validly made between lenses of different FL's.
I've had excellent copies of both and gotten excellent images from both. In my amateur opinion, I prefer the less distortion that the 50 presents on FF. On a crop camera, the 35L is just about perfect for my shooting, with the 35/2 a surprisingly close second.



fotofraag
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Total Posts: 78
Country: Belgium

Thanks for all of you with recommandations and advice. Today I picked up my 35L at Rabbit Hill Photo. I find the lens great build quality and my first impression is it focuses faster than the 50/1.4 and it locks almost instantly. It's even quieter than my 24-70L, I hardly notice the lens is focussing. Somehow I find it harder to focus though than my 85/1.2L. Placing the focus point on the subject seems to be even more critical than I'd expect. I thought the 1.2 was the most difficult lens, but the 35L is as difficult as the 85L as far as I can judge so far. Probably I need to get used to it.

Anyway, again thanks to all of you being helpful in making a decision.