Hello and welcome to FM. I have both the 35L and 50L and in my opinion they are both absolute magic. For this situation I would say it depends on what FL you prefer shooting and where you feel you have a gap you need to fill. Given the other lenses you already own I would say the smartest thing to do would be to spread your coverage a little bit, so I would go with the 35L. Either way, IQ is excellent on both
Well, we photographers deceive ourselves all the time. You think you are choosing a lens over the other. But you are actually adding one at a time. It's just a matter of which one you get before the other Eventually you will have both 35L and a flavor of 50.
So, don't pretend you were going to miss the other one. Focus on which one you would enjoy more just today. I would go for 35L. It gives the frame with so much fun without overshadowing the contents with exaggerated optical perspective.
Jess Edward wrote:
I love how no matter what lenses you ask about you get comments from people raving about both.
Half the comments say the 50L is the only lens you should own, the other half say its the 35L. Your never going to get a solid answer here.
That's because everyone has their own needs and requirements. You should determine what focal length you need, and then decide on the lens, not the other way around.
I have both 35L and 50L. I like the 50mm more, but will choose one or the other depending on the situation.
a thread after me own heart. having the 35L, 50L, 85mm 1.8 and 135L, and having owned the sigmalux, here's my humble take:
the 35L will allow you slightly faster and slightly more accurate AF than the 50L, and slightly faster and immensely more accurate AF than the sigma 50mm. all are going to be very sharp at F2.8 onward. the 50L definitely has its place and time to shine depending on the application, but if you can afford just one right now, and this must serve as wide a purpose as possible, i have found the 35mm fixed FOV to be more versatile (if that word can be applied to a prime) than the 50mm FOV. You can always crop things out, but you can't always clone background in.
of course, ymmv. anyone else who owns/ed both/all three to either confirm or disconfirm this appraisal? cheers.
Cinstance wrote:
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.
Sean Mills wrote:
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.
You wont be sorry either way.
Same here. I have the 35L and have rented the 50L twice wanting to like it, and it's no slouch, but the 35 is just crisper without sacrificing the gorgeous color of the 50 at all. The day Canon makes a 50 as good as the 35 is the day I'll sell the 35, though.
halse wrote:
when faced with this sort of decision I rent each lens for a week, take a lot of pics and then decide
Tom Abbott wrote:
+1 for the best advice.
gregoryfo wrote:
I think Halse's wisdom rules the day
I disgree. Renting both lenses for a week is a costly exercise and totally irrational from an economic point of view. You might as well just buy both and sell one if necessary. You make less of a loss and can keep them both as long as you want.
Eventually you will have both 35L and a flavor of 50.