A question for 50mm/35mm users: Been using my 50mm 1.4 for years & can't live without it, BUT it's not that sharp. Is the 35 sharper and worth it?
1838716
What body do you use? This will blow the 50 out of the water. Amazing lens.
1838717
This lens is quite shart at it's focal length. Not take away from this lens but I have actually started to favor the 135L prime lens in terms of sharpness. It obviously requires much more room to get your subject in range (outdoors generally) but the picture come out sharp with a nice Bokeh.As you mentioned, the 35mm is a must have focal length and the sharpness of this lens won't disappoint. I would post an example but I am responding by mobile. You can probably find examples with a quick google image search.
1838718
M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for... » Read More M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. « Show Less
1838719
Yea, the 35 1.4 is very sharp and also a "cannot love without it" lens. Definitely worth it.
873452
Another option is getting the 50mm 1.8 for about a hundred bucks. Takes great shots and you can still buy the 28-135. I bought my 28-135 used and love having both lenses.
86637
Depends on what you are going to use it for. I have the 1.8 50mm and the 1.4 85. The 85 1.4 has much more versatility for portraits and can create amazing blur beyond what the 1.8 can. It also allows for a faster shutter when shooting portraits of young kids(which helps with movement). Lastly, it is an amazing macro lens, but unless you are really into that, the 1.8 is sufficient in my humble opinion
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
1796676
It's more plasticy ten the 50mm 1.4. I got the 35mm bc I have the Canon 70D which cropped senor dslr. I like the 1.4 better for quality of shots in door but eith a cropped sensor it made the lense closer to 80mm. The 35mm is closer to 45mm on the crop sensor dslr
481692
Like Ali said, the crop factor makes the 35mm more like a traditional 50mm lens. The 35mm is by far a better everyday shooting lens compared to the 50mm. I have both and the 35mm stays on the camera 85% of the time.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
433204
I have both, but use the 50mm more (for portrait). Now that I have a tokina 11-16mm 2.8, 35mm won't be used as much, but I did get some good shoots from it.
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
294922
Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of distortion, but take a step back and you're golden. Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of... » Read More Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of distortion, but take a step back and you're golden. « Show Less
2000789
Mindy,For kids couples etc, I love shooting with my 85mm not my 35 mm. 35 is great when traveling and might need a bit of a wider angle but the 85 is the best to get you a little closer than you would usually shoot and get great results.
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
2127846
I don't know that the image will be noticeably sharper. I also have the 50mm 1.8 and was very pleased with the results. I would have gotten a 35mm 1.8 (to save some money) if it was offered but it only came as 1.4. I use it on my D800 and love it!
282260
I use the 28mm for more of a wide angle shot. I would recommend the 50 for family portraits. They both have a good bokeh effect but I found the 50mm was sharper
1901982
Soccer Hoolian nailed it, get both. The 50mm is irreplacable and I adore my 1.8, it's just louder and more plastic-feeling than the 1.4
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!