Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main Photography Discussion
Canon 50mm 1.4 or 35mm L
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Sep 24, 2015 13:04:08   #
dblack1
 
I have a Canon 7D Mark II and was wondering what lens would be better for me to purchase the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the Canon 35mm L. Most of my pictures will be indoors at Conventions, Conference..just people in general.
 
Sep 24, 2015 13:12:35   #
Basil
 
I have the 50 1.4 (and a 7D M2) and like it fine, but for mostly indoor shots I would probably go with the 35mm given the 1.6 crop factor. That said, if I do get a 35mm (on my GAS list) it will likely be the Sigma 1.4 Art. Reviews I've seen suggest it is much superior to the First gen Canon 35, and very close in IQ to the new Canon 35 II but at half the cost.
Sep 24, 2015 13:16:50   #
rook2c4
 
If you want to isolate individuals in a crowd occaisionally, the 50mm lens may be easier to work with than the 35mm.
Sep 24, 2015 13:40:47   #
Haydon (a regular here)
 
I agree with Basil, the 35 1.4 would be the preferable on a crop body.
Sep 25, 2015 07:22:24   #
waegwan
 
dblack1 wrote:
I have a Canon 7D Mark II and was wondering what lens would be better for me to purchase the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the Canon 35mm L. Most of my pictures will be indoors at Conventions, Conference..just people in general.


I agree on the 35mm. I have both in EF format and used them on my crop sensor 50D. For indoor work the 35mm will probably be more useful.
Sep 25, 2015 08:30:22   #
coyotecall
 
I read a review (Ken Rockwell) and then bought the 50mm (Canon) 1.8 which was said to be far superior to the 1.4. Works fine for me on a 70D.
dblack1 wrote:
I have a Canon 7D Mark II and was wondering what lens would be better for me to purchase the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the Canon 35mm L. Most of my pictures will be indoors at Conventions, Conference..just people in general.
 
Sep 25, 2015 09:30:53   #
Marionsho
 
dblack1 wrote:
I have a Canon 7D Mark II and was wondering what lens would be better for me to purchase the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the Canon 35mm L. Most of my pictures will be indoors at Conventions, Conference..just people in general.


Welcome to the Hog, dblack1.
Marion
Sep 25, 2015 11:19:48   #
amfoto1 (a regular here)
 
I would suggest... neither.

If you want a standard/normal focal length, I'd suggest you look at the Canon 28/1.8. It's very compact and useful, mid-grade build (not as good as L series, but quite a bit better than entry level lenses), plus its focal length makes it more of a "normal" lens on an APS-C camera. A good alternative is the Sigma 30/1.4.

I really like 35mm focal length on a full frame camera, but don't have much love for it on a cropper. It's sort of an odd, slightly long normal lens on APS-C. If you want a short telephoto for portraits, IMHO for use on 7DII a 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 85/1.4 are better choices (Canon or Sigma).

Quote:
I read a review (Ken Rockwell) and then bought the 50mm (Canon) 1.8 which was said to be far superior to the 1.4. Works fine for me on a 70D.


Ken Rockwell is almost completely wrong. The EF 50/1.8 II is a cheap, junky little lens with surprisingly good image quality,... but it's surpassed by the EF 50/1.4 in many ways including image quality (durability, focus speed/accuracy, bokeh, control of flare and chromatic aberrations, color rendition and contrast). There have been myriad comparisons of the two lenses, since both have been in the Canon arsenal for decades.

Image quality differences are fairly subtle, but the f1.4 wins in most respects. Both lenses need to be stopped down. Rockwell is the only person on earth that claims the micro motor 50/1.8 II focuses more accurately and faster than the 50/1.4's USM. Rockwell either had a 50/1.8 on steroids or a really bad copy of 50/1.4.

The 50/1.8 II is widely known to have noisy and "iffy" micro motor autofocus. It is almost impossible to Micro Adjust, because it rarely focuses to the same place twice.

It's also widely known to be rather fragile. More than a few have simply broken in half (and aren't worth repairing).

The 5-bladed aperture of the 50/1.8 doesn't give as nice background blur as the 8-bladed aperture of the 50/1.4. (All of Rockwell's sample images are shot stopped way down to middle apertures, where either lens will work quite well.)

And the 50/1.4 has better flare control that results in better color saturation and overall contrast. Plus the EF 50/1.4 also has a distance/depth of field scale and a usable manual focus ring, both of which are lacking on the 50/1.8 (any version).

All these fast lenses improve when stopped down a bit. None of them are at their sharpest wide open. But they are able to blur down backgrounds quite nicely (not illustrated in any of Rockwell's images) at f2 and f2.5.

The EF 50/1.8 II has been a real bargain, actually quite capable considering it's the cheapest lens Canon offers. Highly recommended as a "first prime" (normal on full frame or short/portrait on APS-C)... so long as it will not be used hard or extensively.

Google "Canon 50mm" and you'll find much better info than Rockwell's. He is just plain wrong in many respects.

The new Canon EF 50/1.8 STM is another thing entirely. KR's review of this is more correct. The new lens is the same low price (about $125) and still has some of the plasticky construction as the older 50/1.8 II... but now using an improved STM focus drive (faster, quieter, smoother, more accurate)... and with a rounded, 7-blade aperture for better background blurs... and a metal bayonet mount that's a little more confidence-inspiring.... and a little more compact to boot (but uses a 49mm filter that's common, but an odd size among Canon lenses). Optically, it's the same as the 50/1.8 II but appears to have improved flare control that helps it deliver better color and contrast.
Sep 25, 2015 11:35:48   #
coyotecall
 
That's the lens I'm talking about the 1.8 STM....so far so good....seems well built and certainly is sharp.
amfoto1 wrote:
I would suggest... neither.

If you want a standard/normal focal length, I'd highly recommend you look at the Canon 28/1.8. It's very compact and useful, mid-grade build (not as good as L series, but quite a bit better than entry level lenses), has fast/accurate USM focus (same as L series), plus its focal length makes it more of a "normal" lens on an APS-C camera. Even the matching lens hood is nicely compact. A good, but larger and heavier alternative is the Sigma 30/1.4 (which is "crop only" ). But the Canon 35/1.4L is also comparatively large and heavy.

I really like 35mm focal length on a full frame camera, but don't have much love for it on a cropper. It's sort of an odd, slightly long normal lens on APS-C. If you want a short telephoto for portraits, IMHO for use on 7DII a 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 85/1.4 are better choices (Canon or Sigma).

Personally I am considering the newer EF 35/2 IS USM for use on full frame. Superb image quality, more compact size/weight than the L... and only one stop difference (but with IS to help steady shots, not that I think I need it very much on a 35mm focal length).



Ken Rockwell is almost completely wrong. The EF 50/1.8 II is a cheap, junky little lens with surprisingly good image quality,... but it's surpassed by the EF 50/1.4 in many ways including image quality (durability, focus speed/accuracy, bokeh, control of flare and chromatic aberrations, color rendition and contrast). There have been myriad comparisons of the two lenses, since both have been in the Canon arsenal for decades.

Image quality differences are fairly subtle, but the f1.4 wins in most respects. Both lenses need to be stopped down. Rockwell is the only person on earth that claims the micro motor 50/1.8 II focuses more accurately and faster than the 50/1.4's USM. Rockwell either had a 50/1.8 on steroids or a really bad copy of 50/1.4.

The 50/1.8 II is widely known to have noisy and "iffy" micro motor autofocus. It is almost impossible to Micro Adjust, because it rarely focuses to the same place twice.

It's also widely known to be rather fragile. More than a few have simply broken in half (and aren't worth repairing).

The 5-bladed aperture of the 50/1.8 II doesn't give as nice background blur as the 8-bladed aperture of the 50/1.4. (All of Rockwell's sample images are shot stopped way down to middle apertures, where either lens will work quite well.)

And the 50/1.4 has better flare control that results in better color saturation and overall contrast. Plus the EF 50/1.4 also has a distance/depth of field scale and a usable manual focus ring, both of which are lacking on the 50/1.8 (any version).

All these fast lenses improve when stopped down a bit. None of them are at their sharpest wide open. But they are able to blur down backgrounds quite nicely (not illustrated in any of Rockwell's images) at f2 and f2.5.

The EF 50/1.8 II has been a real bargain, actually quite capable considering it's the cheapest lens Canon offers. Highly recommended as a "first prime" (normal on full frame or short/portrait on APS-C)... so long as it will not be used hard or extensively.

Google "Canon 50mm" and you'll find much better info than Rockwell's. He is just plain wrong in many respects.

The new Canon EF 50/1.8 STM is another thing entirely. KR's review of this is more correct. The new lens is the same low price (about $125) and still has some of the plasticky construction as the older 50/1.8 II... but now using an improved STM focus drive (faster, quieter, smoother, more accurate)... and with a rounded, 7-blade aperture for better background blurs... and a metal bayonet mount that's a little more confidence-inspiring.... and a little more compact to boot (but uses a 49mm filter that's common, but an odd size among Canon lenses). Optically, it's the same as the 50/1.8 II but appears to have improved flare control that helps it deliver better color and contrast.
I would suggest... neither. br br If you want a ... (show quote)
Sep 25, 2015 22:04:16   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
dblack1 wrote:
I have a Canon 7D Mark II and was wondering what lens would be better for me to purchase the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the Canon 35mm L. Most of my pictures will be indoors at Conventions, Conference..just people in general.
The 35L is an excellent lens. I used mine first on my older 7D. I just got in this evening from shooting hot air balloons at night on my current 5DIII. If I was going for the 35 'look', I'd go with the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM that was developed for this purpose. The 35L will give you that 50 'look' on your 7DII and it will be a great look. But, conventions and conferences are going to probably want that wider field of view.
Sep 26, 2015 00:10:04   #
amfoto1 (a regular here)
 
coyotecall wrote:
That's the lens I'm talking about the 1.8 STM....so far so good....seems well built and certainly is sharp.


Good! The new STM is much better than the old 50/1.8 II in most respects, though the 50/1.4 still betters it in a few ways.
 
Sep 28, 2015 11:23:14   #
dblack1
 
Thanks Everyone for your input
Sep 28, 2015 11:24:16   #
dblack1
 
Thanks
Sep 28, 2015 19:00:24   #
Marionsho
 
dblack1 wrote:
Thanks


Right back at you for asking. I learned a lot.
Marion
 
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2018 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.