There are off course many aspects when buying a lens, but the blurriness seems like a high valued factor for most, or Bokeh as we tend to call it.īelow are a 35/1.4, a 50/1.2 and a 85/1.4 compared. So I'll likely get the older 50 1.4 and save a $thousand, or the good ol 55mm 1.8 or the new Sigma 65mm f/2. I could somehow justify $1000 for a lens but not $2000 unless it was my job (it's not). OK we got a f/1.2 instead but it's just as big as the older 1.4 and twice as expensive. I think this is more a choice of focal length and budget than the difference between 1.4 and 1.2.īut personally I'm a little disappointed, with all the 1.4 GM lenses coming out I was really really hoping for a 50 1.4 GM. So you have your zooms covered well and no fast normal prime, pick one and you should be in good hands. I don't think a 50mm replaces a 24-70 2.8 in any way. If I could put a great f/1.2 lens to use I wouldn't hesitate to do it. The 35 also has a nice size, while the 50 GM is little too heavy at 780g - compact for what it is, but still a brick
At 50mm I'd rather use the CZ 55 as I don't need the super thin dof. Otherwise I find the 35 to be much more interesting as I'd be using it more often wide open. The 50 of course makes more sense in your kit between the 16-35 and 135.
I’m a 75/85 person for portraits so I’ve just got the elcheapo fe50 f1.8 first to see how I like that focal length after using film for years with just 50 and 125. I’d say grab your 24-70 and set it 35 and go shoot and see if you like that focal length and do the same again for 50mm. Ĭhoosing between 35 and 50, I’d say go for 50mm ( old school film standard lens) as it’s more challenging to get stand out images as this is the focal length we see everyday life with. Well Jon as he already has a 135 and the 200-600 I think he has wildlife/ telephoto portraits covered. Neither lens would be my first choice for wildlife and portraiture, if that's what you plan on shooting. I will probably do more portraits going forward of my family - having a newborn on the way so I anticipate that will change my photography habits. I used to do a lot more street, landscapes and travel but have gotten into wildlife. I would add the 35mm f1.4 to the lineup whereas the 50mm f1.2 might outright replace my 24-70mm since it fills the gap between the 16-35mm and 135mm nicely. My other lenses currently are the 16-35mm GM, 24-70mm GM, 135mm GM, and 200-600mm. These two primes lack the wider view though - hence choosing a 35mm for "more background" in any close shots.Īnyone else given thought to this? I probably only have enough money left to buy one exorbitantly priced prime lens this year - which would you pick? I haven't owned a 35mm or 50mm lens in a while.
It works really well and lets me get a full set of detail AND context/habitat shots much faster. I have already started using the 135GM and 400GM for this (in addition to their "traditional" uses). I used to use all macro lenses on these trips, but found the sheer detail, sharpness and croppability of other GM primes makes them very good for a zoom-by-cropping approach too. But some of the reasoning may help.Įdit: I should add that my main use for the 35GM, and my reason for choosing it, is to use for context shots and (heavily cropped) close-ups during macro and micro field trips (using the relevant lenses for that too).
Minor or not, I find them intensely annoying in premium, high-priced glass.Īll these are personal preferences of course, and I can't say if it's the right choice for you. The vignetting of the 35GM looks pretty severe, but I can tolerate that far more than the greater (fringing) aberrations that the 50GM exhibits. The 35mm FL does both better for my intended uses (priority on close and heavily cropped rather than distant and whole frame) Never quite close enough or not quite wide enough, even when zooming with the feet. A very important requirement for me.ģ) I find 50mm FL a bit "middle of nowhere" at times. But I would have still chosen the 35mm even if I didn't already own a 50mm prime.ġ) Fewer/lesser IQ compromises in the 35mm (less CA, LoCA and edge/corner softness wide open)Ģ) 35mm focuses closer and gives a larger reproduction ratio (1:4). Same choice here, though I already own the Zony 50mm f/1.4 ZA and the 35mm GM was released first, so my decision was pretty easy.