In Studio or for stills I prefer the Zeiss 50 mm macro, superb picture quality, contrast and sharpness is far better than the 50L and 45 TSE.
The 35L is a nobrainer, workhorse for nearly anything that comes, and it's always in the bag. (light, compact, fast, often useful and very good pic quality).
The 85L and 135L are the next autofocus in the line. Don't miss the 50L much, and I doubt I often used it.
My 35L stays on my 5D Mark III 75% of the time. Take a few steps forward, it's a 50mm, take a few backwards and it's a 24mm. Close it to f4 and it's tack sharp. My next lens purchase will be the 85mm 1.2 to complete my 35 1.4, 85 1.2, and 135 f2 trinity.
I have used both. Now i only have the 35L. It is a great lens that no one will regret buying - a versatile, workhorse that is tack sharp on all apertures, even wide open.
The 50L is a "mixed feelings lens". It has problems with focus shift, and compared to other L primes, it is not sharp enough wide open. You can get great shots with the 50L, but it just doesn't happen very often. In my experience it is very hard to nail the focus with it.
Rickuz wrote:
I have used both. Now i only have the 35L. It is a great lens that no one will regret buying - a versatile, workhorse that is tack sharp on all apertures, even wide open.
The 50L is a "mixed feelings lens". It has problems with focus shift, and compared to other L primes, it is not sharp enough wide open. You can get great shots with the 50L, but it just doesn't happen very often. In my experience it is very hard to nail the focus with it.
I got my 35L with my 7D to get an almost 50mm. But now that I use 35L with my 5D Mark II I feel like it's a bit between. It's not wide enough and it's not long enough. So I would probably pick a 50L instead.
though it seems there's only a 15mm difference, these two lenses are very different beasts.. the 35L is considerably wider (in a closed area/room), more reliable with AF & more versatile (use it wide open all the way up to f/8 without a second thought) than the 50L..
that said, the 50L, when used properly, can yield sublime results unmatched by the 35L..
with the 35L at weddings, i typically shoot it either at f/1.4, f/2 or f/2.8-f/4 (for larger groupshots)
with the 50L at weddings, i typically only shoot it between f/1.6 to f/2.2 depending on if i'm isolating one subject or taking a photo of 2-3 people at once.. quite a few photographers will rip on the 50L for its less consistent AF, but i'd prefer to say the 50L has personality =)
I'll add to the chorus of people giving props to the 35. I had two copies of the 50. Loved the IQ, but returned both because of focus issues. I've also discovered that the 35 focal length is more versatile for my needs. The 35/85/135 combo is fantastic on FF.
badlydrawnboy wrote:
I'll add to the chorus of people giving props to the 35. I had two copies of the 50. Loved the IQ, but returned both because of focus issues. I've also discovered that the 35 focal length is more versatile for my needs. The 35/85/135 combo is fantastic on FF.
yes yes, the 50L is notorious for focusing issues, especially on 5D2 etc. I finally got a good copy - which works flawlessly on my 5D3.
I've heard great things about the 35L, but is the lens kind of old?
I LOVE the 50L on my 5D3's. I always had a love/hate with it on my other Canon's, but it's amazing on the 5D3. The 35L has always been great. No surprise there.
And, taking a few steps forward does not turn the 35 into the 50. You might get similar framing, but the looks are completely different.
Also, a good 50L is plenty sharp wide open. Don't listen to the naysayers.
By sharp wide open, I see the 50L is "contrasty." It really doesn't have that much fine detail resolving power near wide open, and it has horrific LoCAs...like the worst I've ever seen. But it does take nice pictures nonetheless...
