Here's my solid answer, (I have the same lenses and camera the OP has, plus a couple more). I have both lenses (35 L and 50L) and the 35 is used 3X more. My number 1 used is the 85 L. So, my solid, personal answer is with the 85 L get the 35 L. I doubt you'll miss the 50 range at all.
For now, why don't you start with the quite good EF 35mm f/2 and the EF 85mm f/1.8? Both lenses can be quite fine performers, especially the 85mm lens. It seems to me that if you need both focal lengths there would be more value to your photography in having high quality versions of both lenses now as opposed to having only one.
Especially for "street" photography, one wonders why you need all L lenses?
One other reason to go with the 35L: There are lots of very good to excellent fast 50s, but nothing really to compete with the 35L. Here are a few options in the 50mm range (all of them stunningly inexpensive, by comparison to the 50L): Sigma 50/1.4 or Canon EF 50/1.4 for AF. For MF, Rokkor 58/1.2, OM Zuiko 50/1.2 or 55/1.2, Zeiss or Leica at 1.4...
stanj wrote:
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.
You are correct - but on the other hand, i would take what people say with a grain of salt. Especially on the internet, people seem to follow whatever the next person says without giving it a second thought...
Hi again and many thanks to you all.. I'm very grateful for your advice. I think I will go for the 35L. As many of you replied, the 50mm is maybe a bit too close to 85mm and it would be smarter to have one wide angle(ish) lens also -other than just the 15mm FE. I just love the build and the bokeh of the 85L so much and that's why I have been dreaming about the 50L also, but it's not the same after all-at least the wide open sharpness isn't, and because the 35L is a great lens also(even though not so well built), I think I'll have more use to it than the 50L. And again, I can allways buy that one later (if I ever have the money!). Thanks again, I'll let you know when I have bought the lens!
epuja wrote:
You are correct - but on the other hand, i would take what people say with a grain of salt. Especially on the internet, people seem to follow whatever the next person says without giving it a second thought...
True, except when you look at the stats - NO complaints about the 35L, ever, while MANY complaints about the 50L - even seen thru the "clueless internet people" glasses it should tell you something.
stanj wrote:
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.
The problem with 50mm f/1.2L is focus shift. A LOT of people don't understand that. They say it's soft, but it's not. It's sharper at f/1.2 and f/1.4 than the 50mm f/1.4 is at f/1.4 or the 50mm f/1.8 is at f/1.8. That's a very impressive lens. If you intend to use it at those apertures it's fantastic all things considered.
Obviously at f/1.2 you're not going to see focus shift affecting your photos. There's no problem at f/1.4 either. However, from f/2 all the way to f/5.6 focus shift will be blurring your plane of focus --especially if there's the slightest amount of back-focus, which current AF systems can't rule out (remember the AF system will do its math for f/2.8 equivalent DOF, so it's going to be randomly back & forward from time to time). The DOF doesn't get large enough to mask the effect of focus shift until f/8! So, if you don't account for this --pretty much by learning to manually pull the focal plane a tiny bit closer when you're shooting stopped down--, you're going to have problems from f/2 to f/5.6.
Is this acceptable in a US$1400 lens? That's for each individual buyer to decide. Some thoughts though: 1) Almost every fast 50mm has similar issues. People just spend more time pixel peeping thousand dollar lenses than $450 lenses. That's life. 2) If you're buying this, you're buying it because you want to shoot wide open or nearly so. If you're shooting between f/2 & f/5.6, save yourself some weight, and freak out your subjects less with a 50mm f/1.8 (hell, forget about money --those are serious considerations on their own).
My recommendation to the original poster? Between these lenses I'd go with the 35mm f/1.4L. But I'm not happy making that suggestion. I think the 50mm focal length is better suited to street photography unless you're comfortable getting close and shoving your camera in your subjects' faces. My recommendation would actually be to get the 50mm f/1.8 for street photography. It's an extremely discrete lens. I know it's not as cool as either of the big L primes though. So get the 35mm f/1.4L for social photography... or something --I'm sure you can come up with an excuse...
timnosenzo wrote:
Probably because more people own it... I'm willing to bet that quite a few of the people suggesting a 35L have never even tried a 50L.
Though I will say that I also own a 24L, so if I was only going to get one prime, it might be the 35L... but the 24 & 50 are a great combo.
That is possible. My photography partner owns the 50F1.2 and I have used it. Funny thing.. He wants a 35L after viewing my shots....but.. he does like the 50.. For me, if you have the 85 (which the OP has), the 35 is the next logical choice. 50 and 85 are way too close to the same focal length in my mind for that much $. I am a fan of the 35, 85, 135 combo myself. My 50 doesn't even get taken out of the bag often anymore.
On my 5D MkII, I tend to use my 50 much more than my 35L. You should consider getting the Carl Zeiss ZE 50mm f:1.4. Definitely "L" quality or even better, yet price is accessible, so you might still be able to get also the excellent 35L when you want to go wider or need AF speed.
Here is an example of the IQ this lens gives. Download the "original" size to see the full detail on my 40D. It would be better on my 5D MkII, of course.
Iīve just sold a 35L. I think itīs to near the 50L in regard of focal length. And since I think the 50L is a great deal better performer regarding IQ, I choose to sell the 35L. But then again I donīt like the 85 focal length either which I think might be a little to close to the 50. My line up today is 24-50-135. And I canīt say I miss anyting... The 24 is in my book also a better performer than the 35L. Not in regard of sharpness maybe but definitely when it comes to background blur/bokeh. Also I think the CA on the 35L was just a little bit to much. The 24L also suffers from CA but in my experience not in the same extent as of the 35L.
I also thing the 24mm is much funnier to work with than the in my book a little bit boring 35mm on FF. But as always it comes down to what YOU need....
My suggestion is borrow a zoom like 24 to 70 or 24-135 and then go to places you would be taking photos and try at both 35mm and 50mm and see what your compostion looks like, then decide. In my opinion you might want to do the 35L
Jon Guilbault wrote:
The problem with 50mm f/1.2L is focus shift. A LOT of people don't understand that. They say it's soft, but it's not. It's sharper at f/1.2 and f/1.4 than the 50mm f/1.4 is at f/1.4 or the 50mm f/1.8 is at f/1.8. That's a very impressive lens. If you intend to use it at those apertures it's fantastic all things considered.
Well even without focus shift, the Sigma 50/1.4 that I'm currently borrowing is noticeably sharper, at least for my purposes. Then again I guess that's why there are choices
I have the 35L and just bought a 50L from another member here... Can't wait to receive it as 50mm is my most used focal length. I say if you have to choose, but the focal length that suits you...
stanj wrote:
Well even without focus shift, the Sigma 50/1.4 that I'm currently borrowing is noticeably sharper, at least for my purposes. Then again I guess that's why there are choices
That was not my experience with the Canon 50L vs the Sigma 50/1.4. I found the Canon to be slightly sharper with better color. Bokeh was very close, again with a slight edge to the Canon. The build quility and weather sealing were, of course, better on the 50L. I also found that the the Sigma had focusing issues of it's own. In short, I preferred the 50L. I will say, however, that I think the Sigma 50/1.4 is much better than the Canon 50/1.4.
They're both fine lenses for different applications. And, let's face it, given your kit, the question isn't which one you get, it's which one you get first. I'd say for your street photography and indoor shooting, the 35 is the better choice. It'll allow you to get more of the scene in when you're working in tight spaces (and it's easier to crop what you don't want than it is to try and add what fell out of frame).
