(Canon) 50mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2

Cleisthenes

Cleisthenes

Messages
212
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently got the 50mm f/1.4, and I love it.

The issue is, that I do find it a little limiting as I'm on a cropped sensor (7D).

How does the quality compare between the 35 and 50?

I'm only thinking about this as I could sell my 50mm for the price of a second hand 35.

Thanks for all responses :)
 
I had the 35mm f/2 and much preferred it over my 50mm f/1.4 on my crop cameras.
As an everyday walkabout type of lens I like 35mm, in fact my current fav lens is the 35mm f/2 IS, and I still have my 50 f/1.4.

The old 35mm f/2 has a bit of a rep for noisy and crude focusing, but it's accurate and reliable, and I found it was more usable wide open than my 50mm was/is.
 
The mk1 35mm f/2 is great wide open, one of my favourite little lenses!

As is the mk2 I expect...
 
Mmm, makes me wonder whether I should swap them out. If you could just have 1, which would you choose?
 
If only one it would be the 35mm, but it depends on what you want to shoot with it.
The 50mm is a bit nicer for portraits, has a bit of extra reach, a bit faster AF and of course faster in low light.

I put my 50mm up for sale on here a few months ago, but didn't get any takers. I've since used it a few times and although I would still part with it I can see it still has it's uses, even though I have the 35m and 40mm. I find 50mm works much better for me (focal length wise) on my 5DMKIII, and my 35mm works better than the 50mm on my 650D.
 
Good idea. I do, but it's just an 18-200 sigma, which isn't the greatest of lenses to say the least.

I'll try that, thanks a lot.
 
dave_bass5 said:
If only one it would be the 35mm, but it depends on what you want to shoot with it.
The 50mm is a bit nicer for portraits, has a bit of extra reach, a bit faster AF and of course faster in low light.

I put my 50mm up for sale on here a few months ago, but didn't get any takers. I've since used it a few times and although I would still part with it I can see it still has it's uses, even though I have the 35m and 40mm. I find 50mm works much better for me (focal length wise) on my 5DMKIII, and my 35mm works better than the 50mm on my 650D.
Click to expand...

This answers a question for me too Dave, thanks. I have a 600D and love the 50mm 1.4, but as I'm upgrading to full frame ( 6D ) I think I am going to enjoy that gem of a lens even more!


Concentration! par Primrose_girl ( trying to catch up! ), sur Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cleisthenes said:
Good idea. I do, but it's just an 18-200 sigma, which isn't the greatest of lenses to say the least.

I'll try that, thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

No problem. With that lens you can test out both focal lengths, that will give a really good indication of what will work under most situations.
For what it's worth I've never had much luck shooting under f/2 outdoors with the 50mm, whereas I could with the 35mm, so for me the extra speed of the 50mm was really only used in low light.

Jen. Yes, as soon as I got my 5DMKIII (coming from a 60D) the 50mm came to life for me. It's still not great wide open in daylight, but it's a more useable lens. I guess that was more to do with the jump from crop to full frame rather than anything else. If I didn't have the 35mm f/2 IS I would be using the 50mm more.
 
And what would you say about the non-IS 35mm? Is that still going to be comparable to the 50?
 
Cleisthenes said:
And what would you say about the non-IS 35mm? Is that still going to be comparable to the 50?
Click to expand...

All my earlier posts were based on owning both the 50mm and non IS 35mm at the same time. I had these two lenses for about 4 years together, although they both got neglected when I got a 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
The 35mm got a lot more use before the 17-55 came along. The only reason I kept the 50mm was because I didn't have anything lower than f/2.8, and I felt f/2 was too close to f/2.8 to bother keeping.
The reason I now have the 35mm f/2 IS is because I don't have any stabilised lenses under 70mm, and wanted something that is smaller and lighter than my 24/70, otherwise I guess I'd be using the 50mm more.
 
Ah, thanks for the clarification :)

You have been very helpful indeed! I'll be sure to shoot any further questions on the subject over to you!!!
 
I should also point out that the cameras I had these two lenses on were a 350D, 30D and 40D, so older sensors that might not have being giving me the full picture (excuse the pun). I never really used the 35mm on my 60D as by that time the 17-55 was used most of the time. It did get a bit of use though, and still no complaints.
 
Cleisthenes said:
Ah, thanks for the clarification :)

You have been very helpful indeed! I'll be sure to shoot any further questions on the subject over to you!!!
Click to expand...

Just remember I don't have the non IS lens anymore, so all this is from memory and based on my feelings between 35 and 50mm.

Good luck.
 
What do you think about the 28mm f/1.8? Have you had any experience with this? What are the thoughts about it?
 
Cleisthenes said:
What do you think about the 28mm f/1.8? Have you had any experience with this? What are the thoughts about it?
Click to expand...
I have the 28mm 2.8 and that's a lovely lens. However doesn't get much use at the moment as the 17-40 is rarely off my camera nowadays! In fact I think it's going to go up on the forums with a load of my crop bodies and stuff.
 
If I can get the 1.8 for a similar price I feel like I'd be silly to get the 2.8 instead! Thanks for the heads up though.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Simga 35mm f/1.4 (old version) gave me lots of grief. I had 3 copies of it. In fact it was this that pushed me towards the Canon 35mm f/2.
Never really looked at the other, wider primes that Canon do. Although I do believe they get luke warm reviews compared to the old 35mm.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Do you have ay experience of the 28mm f/1.8 in comparison?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top