Canon 50 1.8 and 35 2

ernesto

ernesto

Messages
2,839
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a 50 1.8 and am pleased with it's quality but it is a touch too long and a 35 would be nearer the mark.

Has anyone owned the 50 and the 35 as both look similar (plasticky) so I can't see why the 35 is 3 times the cost of the 50, is IQ or build any better?

I am thinking the 50 is a pile em high sell em cheap loss leader to draw people on low budget to Canon (great if a 50 is what you want but pity they didn't make an equally cheap 35!)
 
The bulld is definitely better than the 50 1.8 mk II, and the optics are good in my opinion, it's also wider which will up the price. I couldn't hack the noisy AF on it though, it really is very loud.
 
Cheers Joe. AF noise doesn't bother me and I will have to buy one as want the focal length (and my ears will still ringing from the shutter noise of the 20D anyway :) )
 
It's a lovely little lens, the AF is a little noisy but not too bad, it's still fairly fast which is the important thing (never had a problem with it). The one issue is for me it can be a little too long sometimes, although I'm more of a landscape photographer.

I'm actually getting rid of mine shortly as I've moved to Nikon, which is a shame as I do love the lens. If you're interested in a used one I'll sick it on the MM.
 
I've got a 35 f2 and a 50 f1.4, after upgrading from a 50 f1.8, and as others have said the 35 AF is a bit noisy but the optics are terriffic and the build quality is much improved versus the 50 f1.8. The 35 is nice and sharp, even wide open it's better than the 50 1.8, but my favourite is the 50 f1.4. The sharpness of that at all apertures is excellent. I have a 60D and a 5D3 so I can play about a bit with real and percieved focal lengths but with the 35 f2 on my 5D3 I can get some full length portraits of my 11 year old daughter from around 4 feet away.
 
thanks for the responses, now feel better about why it is 3 times the cost.
 
Chris, if you can run to a Sigma 30mm f1.4 I doubt you'll be disappointed. I loved that lens on my 20D. I only sold it when changing to a 5D.
 
Thanks Alan, yes I had that in mind too. Have you compared it with a 35 f2 Canon lens (although the 1.4 is tempting me for 40 odd quid more)
 
No, I've not tried the Canon 35mm f2.

I had no idea that the 30mm f1.4 was available until I saw it in a shop and I bought one immediately. At f1.4 you can hit 1/8000 sec in good light :D

20D + 30mm f1.4 @f1.4.

DF1-4.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had a look at both the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 35 f/2 and went with the Canon. It may depend what you want to shoot (portraits not as much of an issue as landscapes for example) but the Sigma has very poor edges to go with the very sharp centre.
 
YMMustV, mine didn't :D

I've read that the Sigma has field curvature so perhaps that's what you were seeing? I never found FC an issue in real world shots but of course you have to be careful at wide apertures. I sold mine some time ago but I never saw any examples of "very poor edges" when the shot was meant to be good at the edges.
 
I've looked and I can't find any brick wall shots I took with the Siggy. I personally never had an issue with corner performance or FC The f1.4 and HSM were big clinchers for me :D

Ya pays ya money and ya makes ya choice.. :D
 
I have the 35mm f/2 and it's one of my favourite lenses.

Don't compare prices against the 50mm f/1.8, those are built very much down to cost and pretty much anything is going to cost more (though it's still a great lens, and one of the best value lenses out there).
 
Amp34 said:
I had a look at both the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 35 f/2 and went with the Canon. It may depend what you want to shoot (portraits not as much of an issue as landscapes for example) but the Sigma has very poor edges to go with the very sharp centre.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my expereince aswell, I got the 35mm f/2 really as a small multiple use standard lens, fast enough to stop action without pushing into really shallow DOF, good boarders as an emergencey landscape lens and small enough to make my 550D convenient to take to some social situations.

I'v not used the 50mm 1.8 but the 35mm f/2 is certainly a level above the 18-55mm kit lens, the metal mount and the lower half of the barrel espeically feel just as tough as my 100mm macro. The focus ring and the upper half slighly less so but one feature thats often overlooked is that while the AF isnt USM the focus ring decouples when in AF mode, hence you don't need to worry about turning it accidently and damaging the gears.

As has been said the sharpness is good across the frame across almost the entire range, I see a bit of improvement shooting at f/2.2 rather than f/2 but beyond that you don't need to stop down to get it to perform. To me alot of the fun of a standard prime is the lack of hassle and not having to consider image quality relative to appature makes the 35mm f/2 very hassle free.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for all the replies. The price of the 50 appealed to my tightarse tendancies and I would be happy with a 35 built down to the same price as the only thing I don't like about the 50 is that it is 50 and not 35!
The 50 gives me good enough quality and is plenty fast enough for my easily satisfied needs :)
 
Ernesto,

Have you ever tried a 35mm f2?
I guess that, if you had, you would appreciate its (much better) quality. It's like a 50mm f1.8 mkI, but smaller. ;)


Regarding image quality, it's great even wide open. Very sharp!

To me, the only less good things are:

  1. AF noise, but it doesn't bothers (except if in very quiet places).
  2. Bokeh is not the greatest sometimes, because it only has 5 blades.
 
PitaDaVespa said:
Ernesto,

Have you ever tried a 35mm f2?
I guess that, if you had, you would appreciate its (much better) quality. It's like a 50mm f1.8 mkI, but smaller. ;)
Click to expand...

No, I have never tried one and no local shops have one for me too look at which is the reason I was asking :)
 
I sold my 50mm 1.8 for a 35mm as I was just finding it a little too close for indoor shots, nothing wrong with the 50mm considering the price its not until I was shooting indoors I found the limitations. If you have zoom lens set this to 35mm and shoot away to get a general idea (This was a good tip from a another TP member). You might also want to look at your current shots if you use/have a zoom lens you might find you never shoot at that length.
 
Thanks Dan. I know that I want the 35 length (a 50 is my sole lens) and was only really interested in the price/quality difference between them as I couldn't physically see or try one.
 
PitaDaVespa said:
Ok, I guess I didn't read the thread right. Sorry.
Click to expand...

No problem, should be me apologising - looking at my initial post it is not clear that I haven't looked at one - in fact I even referred to how they look similar! (but I was meaning in pictures, honest :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top