Any 85 1.8 users have experience with 35 f1.4 L

I'm starting to shoot more weddings and actually starting to get paid a little. I've always dreaming about getting the 35 L.

My favorite lens is the 85 1.8.

I'm just wondering what people's experience of the 35L as it compares to the 85 1.8. I know it's a different focal length but I'm talking in terms of picture quality. I know they are different lenses but the 85 is my reference point.

Is the picture quality noticeably better than the 85? How much more or just a little bit?

Lastly.. as it relates to focal length... although I love the 85, it is a little too long in many situations. How do you like the 35 as a focal length? Note: I'm shooting on a 40D and not a full framed.

Thanks... sorry if the question is confusing.

--
dohdoh
http://www.project107.com

liked 85 for its size, weight, focus-speed & sharpness.

35 weight/feel is great on 1D bodies, phenomenal in low-light settings, that and wonderful color rendition from the 35 are the major differences between the lenses... at least for me.

I am too tired to compose a literate post right now, but I'll give you the link to my photos: http://www.pbase.com/jccphoto -- I own and use both on a 30D. Maybe I'll write more after I get some coffee.

JCC

dohdoh said:

I'm starting to shoot more weddings and actually starting to get paid
a little. I've always dreaming about getting the 35 L.

My favorite lens is the 85 1.8.

I'm just wondering what people's experience of the 35L as it compares
to the 85 1.8. I know it's a different focal length but I'm talking
in terms of picture quality. I know they are different lenses but
the 85 is my reference point.

Is the picture quality noticeably better than the 85? How much more
or just a little bit?

Lastly.. as it relates to focal length... although I love the 85, it
is a little too long in many situations. How do you like the 35 as a
focal length? Note: I'm shooting on a 40D and not a full framed.

Thanks... sorry if the question is confusing.

Click to expand...

dohdoh said:

--
dohdoh

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/jccphoto

In good condidions there is some marginal differences between those two:

35L have bit better colours and contrast, 85 1.8 suffer from purple fringing in harsh contrast wide open, other hand 35L have some CA in borders but both are very sharp when focus is just right, absolutely no any big differenses.

BUT in available light indoors without tripod or other support 35L give much more keepers than 85 1.8 and in limited space (with 40d) 85 1.8 is quite long lens too!

With studio style setup = flash(es) + tripod + plenty of room 85 1.8 is very, very good (maybe in ceremony in this case). Also outdoors in good lighting 85 1.8 is one of my favourites.

In limited space low light I have very little use for 85 1.8 and then 35L shines: it gives bigger aperture, longer exposure whithout shake, and still enough DOF for snapshot style shooting = easier to use in those conditions!

I think 35mm and 85mm are so different focal lenghts that it is almost imposible mission to compare them. Both are good in one's element. In weddings they are cohots not rivals!

Maybe 35L is just a little bit better or perhaps it is just little more L get it... I think you will like it!

I have the 35L and the 85 f1.8 and have used them on my wife's 350D and my 5D. Both are great lenses.

I agree with the above that the 35L has better color and contrast; the 85 1.8 is no slouch, but if your looking for a little wider (particularly if you have a crop camera) the 35L is great.

Jeff Smith

Thanks for all the responses.

Just to clarify... I'm not trying to compare the two lenses as rivals but just using the 85 as reference point. I think all of you have answered the question very well.

Thanks!

--
dohdoh
http://www.project107.com

dohdoh said:

I'm just wondering what people's experience of the 35L as it compares
to the 85 1.8. I know it's a different focal length but I'm talking
in terms of picture quality. I know they are different lenses but
the 85 is my reference point.

Click to expand...

I find that both lenses are of comparable sharpness when shot wide open. If the 35L is stopped down to f1.8 to match the 85 f1.8, then the 35L is clearly sharper and shows more contrast. The 85 f1.8 also suffers from noticeably more purple fringing than the 35.

In terms of bokeh, I think the 85 f1.8 bokeh is a bit more pleasing than the 35L's.

dohdoh said:

Lastly.. as it relates to focal length... although I love the 85, it
is a little too long in many situations. How do you like the 35 as a
focal length? Note: I'm shooting on a 40D and not a full framed.

Click to expand...

The 35L is a far more useful lens in low light than the 85 f1.8. With the 85mm lens on a 40D, you'd have to maintain a fast shutter speed to avoid camera shake. It's difficult to maintain the requisite 1/125 shutter speed @ f1.8. On the other hand, with the 35L, it's easy to shoot 1/50 @ f1.4.

Look at the difference in aperture (f1.8 vs f1.4) and minimum shutter speeds (1/125 vs 1/50). You're looking at a nearly 2-stop difference in low light usability between these two lenses. With my 1.6x crop camera, I consider the 35L to be my low light lens. I don't consider the 85 f1.8 to be a low light lens at all.

I can tell you one thing though: I very much regret having spent $1200 on the 35L to use in a cropped sensor camera. All things considered, I would've been better off buying an EOS 5D with 50 f1.4 than getting the 35L for my APS-C. I hope you don't make the same mistake I did.

Robert Loblaw said:

I can tell you one thing though: I very much regret having spent
$1200 on the 35L to use in a cropped sensor camera. All things
considered, I would've been better off buying an EOS 5D with 50 f1.4
than getting the 35L for my APS-C. I hope you don't make the same
mistake I did.

Click to expand...

Is it a matter of focal length for you? I've had another person give me a similar response. He said... esp as a walk around lens on a 40D, he said he rather use something wider. What would you say about something like a 24L then?

dohdoh said:

Is it a matter of focal length for you? I've had another person give
me a similar response. He said... esp as a walk around lens on a
40D, he said he rather use something wider. What would you say about
something like a 24L then?

Click to expand...

No, it's not a matter of focal length. It's a matter of (1) low light usability and (2) depth of field control.

From what I've seen, the EOS 5D at the RAW level (not JPEG) maintains approximately 1 stop of high ISO advantage over the 40D. So an EOS 5D with 50 f1.4 @ ISO 1600 would be roughly comparable to an EOS 40D with 35L @ ISO 800. I just thought I'd rather go with the 5D + 50 f1.4 for that extra stop of usability, than settle for a 40D with 35L.

But the main reason I've been shooting with primes is for the shallow DoF. Unfortunately, an f1.4 lens on an APS-C sensor yields 1.3 stops more DoF than it would on full frame. Strictly in terms of Field of View and Depth of Field, the 35mm f/1.4L on a cropped sensor is behaving exactly like a 56mm f/2.2 lens on full frame. I guess the idea that I spent $1200 for what is essentially an 50mm f2 lens bugs me sometimes. Do you realize that the $80 EF 50 f1.8 on 5D produces shallower DoF than a $1200 35L on 40D? Like I said, I wish I had gone for a 5D + 50 f1.4 in the first place instead of a 35L + APS-C.

I have a 40D and I like the Sigma 30mm f1.4 along with the 85mm f1.8. That would be a much more economical solution for you. Of course if you are doing weddings, the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens would be my #1 choice and would also compliment the 85 well.

In weddings there is little use for ultra thin DOF. Shallow dof, yes it is sweet, but 5D + 50 @ 1,4 is extreme shallow! I can't get many keepers with that dof without patient model in studio conditions (with relative short ranges of course). Imagine...whole wedding OOF...what a disaster...

I think 40d + 35 @ 1,4 at short to mid ranges have narrowly enough DOF for wedding condidions, and it is just fine combination even if somebody else have 5D and 50 1.4.

If you have serious collection of lensses, get both 1,6 AND FF to get all joy. Lensses will last longer and big collection costs more than bodys anyway!

wider? walk around? versatile? with one 40d body? you know already! Yes it is EFs...

Robert Loblaw said:

Unfortunately, an f1.4 lens on an APS-C sensor yields 1.3 stops
more DoF than it would on full frame. Strictly in terms of Field of
View and Depth of Field, the 35mm f/1.4L on a cropped sensor is
behaving exactly like a 56mm f/2.2 lens on full frame. I guess the
idea that I spent $1200 for what is essentially an 50mm f2 lens bugs
me sometimes. Do you realize that the $80 EF 50 f1.8 on 5D produces
shallower DoF than a $1200 35L on 40D? Like I said, I wish I had
gone for a 5D + 50 f1.4 in the first place instead of a 35L + APS-C.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this for me? How does the 50/1.8 produce a shallower DOF on an APS-C than the 35/1.4? I understand that the 35 on a APS-C is the equivalent of a 56mm on FF, 50mm on APS-C = 80mm FF, and 85mm APS-C = 135 FF, but comparing these lenses to each other on the same type of sensor, regardless of APS-C or FF, isn't the 35 still going to perform better in low light than both the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 in terms of lower shutter speeds at the same ISO? Granted you would need a faster shutter speed if handholding the 85 vs the 35 (being more than twice the focal length).

Please note that I'm not questioning you, I'm just asking for understanding.

I currently own both the 17-55/2.8 and 85/1.8 and was considering the 35/1.4 for better low-light performance which is why I ask.

johnnyi said:

Robert Loblaw said:

Unfortunately, an f1.4 lens on an APS-C sensor yields 1.3 stops
more DoF than it would on full frame. Strictly in terms of Field of
View and Depth of Field, the 35mm f/1.4L on a cropped sensor is
behaving exactly like a 56mm f/2.2 lens on full frame. I guess the
idea that I spent $1200 for what is essentially an 50mm f2 lens bugs
me sometimes. Do you realize that the $80 EF 50 f1.8 on 5D produces
shallower DoF than a $1200 35L on 40D? Like I said, I wish I had
gone for a 5D + 50 f1.4 in the first place instead of a 35L + APS-C.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this for me? How does the 50/1.8 produce a
shallower DOF on an APS-C than the 35/1.4?

Click to expand...

He didn't say that. He said a 50/1.8 on a FF camera (5D) gives shallower DOF than a 35/1.4 on APS-C

My fault - I misread - thanks for the clarification...