Debating on Next Lens

Devouredsouls123 · Nov 19, 2016

Hello everyone! So I'm kinda torn on 3 different lenses. (quality wise and money wise)

The lenses are

Canon 35mm 1.4L (or the mark II)

Canon 50mm 1.2L

Canon 85mm 1.2L II

Now out of these 3 I like the 35mm length better after playing around with it on my 16-35mm 2.8. Only thing is the old one is around 800 used, 1k new. The new one is 1700 new. From what I have seen the old ones image quality is pretty bad to me. Not horrible but not what i would expect from a prime like this. The new one is amazing but the price is a bit too high.

The 50mm 1.2L is a good general purpose lens. I've has 2 different 50mm lenses and they never fit my use particularly well. Its not wide enough, and not zoomed enough. The image quality is not as good as the other two but the price sits around 1-1.2k.

The 85mm 1.2 is the ultimate portrait lens I have heard. I own the 85 1.8 and I do admit I love it a lot. The only things with the 1.2 is the weight, price, and durability. That rear element is gonna freak me out (OCD and anxiety issues so I cant help it), the af is slow and the manual focus ring really is not to my liking. Its also massive and heavy.

My current lenses are:

70-200mm 2.8L II, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-105mm 4L, 100mm 2.8L, and 85mm 1.8 USM.

Camera is a Canon 6D body.

I'm just looking for a bit of advice on which one would be a best fit.

diness · Nov 19, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
Hello everyone! So I'm kinda torn on 3 different lenses. (quality wise and money wise)

The lenses are

Canon 35mm 1.4L (or the mark II)

Canon 50mm 1.2L

Canon 85mm 1.2L II

Now out of these 3 I like the 35mm length better after playing around with it on my 16-35mm 2.8. Only thing is the old one is around 800 used, 1k new. The new one is 1700 new. From what I have seen the old ones image quality is pretty bad to me. Not horrible but not what i would expect from a prime like this. The new one is amazing but the price is a bit too high.

The 50mm 1.2L is a good general purpose lens. I've has 2 different 50mm lenses and they never fit my use particularly well. Its not wide enough, and not zoomed enough. The image quality is not as good as the other two but the price sits around 1-1.2k.

The 85mm 1.2 is the ultimate portrait lens I have heard. I own the 85 1.8 and I do admit I love it a lot. The only things with the 1.2 is the weight, price, and durability. That rear element is gonna freak me out (OCD and anxiety issues so I cant help it), the af is slow and the manual focus ring really is not to my liking. Its also massive and heavy.

My current lenses are:

70-200mm 2.8L II, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-105mm 4L, 100mm 2.8L, and 85mm 1.8 USM.

Camera is a Canon 6D body.

I'm just looking for a bit of advice on which one would be a best fit.

Don't bother with the 50mm, since you don't like the focal length. You already have the 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200 f2.8, which cover the telephoto portrait range nicely. A fast wide angle like a 35mm f1.4 is where I would go. The original 35mm is not "bad". It was and still is used by many professionals. The sigma and canon ii are both Sharper though. If the price of the ii is too high, I would consider the sigma.

Dave Boy · Nov 19, 2016

Get the 35mm f/1.4 II. It's expensive, but I would just wait and save up the money for it. It is that good. Like you, I don't find 50mm wide enough as my indoor/wedding/documenting life lens. The 85mm f/1.2 II is an amazing lens, but it is sort of specialized. And the long minimum focus distance does not make it very versatile. Personally, I'd just stick with your current 85mm lens.

James Larsen · Nov 19, 2016

The Canon 35mm f1.4II I would definitely go with - but if its too expensive the sigma 35mm f1.4 Art fits the bill nicely. I would definitely go with the Sigma over the Canon Mark I.

Rexgig0 · Nov 20, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
Hello everyone! So I'm kinda torn on 3 different lenses. (quality wise and money wise)

The lenses are

Canon 35mm 1.4L (or the mark II)

Canon 50mm 1.2L

Canon 85mm 1.2L II

Now out of these 3 I like the 35mm length better after playing around with it on my 16-35mm 2.8. Only thing is the old one is around 800 used, 1k new. The new one is 1700 new. From what I have seen the old ones image quality is pretty bad to me. Not horrible but not what i would expect from a prime like this. The new one is amazing but the price is a bit too high.

(Snipped.)

My current lenses are:

70-200mm 2.8L II, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-105mm 4L, 100mm 2.8L, and 85mm 1.8 USM.

Camera is a Canon 6D body.

I'm just looking for a bit of advice on which one would be a best fit.

Everything you have said, above, points to the 35L II, of the choices you mentioned. The 16-35/2.8 L, whether version I or II, is rather weak at 35mm. Your 24-104L is good at 35mm, but is f/4. Your 70-200/2.8 will handle 85mm quite well, especially if it is the newest version, as indicated by the "II" designation, and if the large zoom is too heavy to use all the time, you have a very good 85mm lens, already. 50mm is not all that inspiring to you, so why get one?

OK, so the 35L II is too expensive. I fully understand. I recommend going to Dustin Abbott's blog, and looking at his four-way comparison of several 35mm lens options. Look closely at the performance of the EF 35/2 IS, especially the one way in which it actually bests the 35L II, which may be important to the way you shoot. I felt that the EF 35/2 IS actually won this comparison, for the ways I shoot. I also consulted plenty of other sources, and bought my EF 35/2 IS.

I do plan to eventually add an EF 35L II, later, but will keep my EF 35/2 IS, because some situations, such as back-lit scenes, will probably be better done with the EF 35/2 IS, and there will be times Image Stabilization will be more important that being able to shoot at f/1.4 or f/1.8 apertures. Plus, the EF 35/2 IS accepts the same macro adapter as my EF 100/2.8L Macro IS lenses, so I can use my Macro Ringlite on both lenses, taking advantage of the EF 35/2 IS's very close MFD and magnification ratio. A 35L II would be a specialized lens for me, nice to have, but a luxury, for which there is no hurry.

I used my 5Ds R, 100/2.8L Macro IS, and 35/2 IS, to photograph an entire crime scene, involving a limo bus carrying a rap group entourage being shot-up by someone who strongly disliked someone inside the limo bus. These were the two best lenses in the world, for me, at that moment in time, enabling me to work quickly with the Macro Ringlite and normal Speedlites. I am not CSU/ID, but a first responder, so do not have the luxury of taking hours to process a crime scene. (The 50MP of the 5Ds R did bog-down the PD's upload system; I should have switched to small JPEG; I usually use a pair of 7D Mark II cameras while on duty.)

I like my EF 35/2 IS enough to consider buying a second one, so that one can remain inside the big Pelican case I use at work, while another remains with my personal shooting kit.

Nothing I have said above should be construed to mean that I claim to be any king of expert on photography in general.

--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

Devouredsouls123 · Nov 21, 2016

diness said:
Devouredsouls123 said:

Hello everyone! So I'm kinda torn on 3 different lenses. (quality wise and money wise)

The lenses are

Canon 35mm 1.4L (or the mark II)

Canon 50mm 1.2L

Canon 85mm 1.2L II

Now out of these 3 I like the 35mm length better after playing around with it on my 16-35mm 2.8. Only thing is the old one is around 800 used, 1k new. The new one is 1700 new. From what I have seen the old ones image quality is pretty bad to me. Not horrible but not what i would expect from a prime like this. The new one is amazing but the price is a bit too high.

The 50mm 1.2L is a good general purpose lens. I've has 2 different 50mm lenses and they never fit my use particularly well. Its not wide enough, and not zoomed enough. The image quality is not as good as the other two but the price sits around 1-1.2k.

The 85mm 1.2 is the ultimate portrait lens I have heard. I own the 85 1.8 and I do admit I love it a lot. The only things with the 1.2 is the weight, price, and durability. That rear element is gonna freak me out (OCD and anxiety issues so I cant help it), the af is slow and the manual focus ring really is not to my liking. Its also massive and heavy.

My current lenses are:

70-200mm 2.8L II, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-105mm 4L, 100mm 2.8L, and 85mm 1.8 USM.

Camera is a Canon 6D body.

I'm just looking for a bit of advice on which one would be a best fit.

Click to expand...

Don't bother with the 50mm, since you don't like the focal length. You already have the 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200 f2.8, which cover the telephoto portrait range nicely. A fast wide angle like a 35mm f1.4 is where I would go. The original 35mm is not "bad". It was and still is used by many professionals. The sigma and canon ii are both Sharper though. If the price of the ii is too high, I would consider the sigma.

Unfortunately after quite a few bad encounters with 3rd party lenses I wanna stick with canon. So i guess the 35mm would be the best? the 85 1.8 is good and can be used professionally? And the original 35 is a good value right now at 800$?

Devouredsouls123 · Nov 21, 2016

James Larsen said:
The Canon 35mm f1.4II I would definitely go with - but if its too expensive the sigma 35mm f1.4 Art fits the bill nicely. I would definitely go with the Sigma over the Canon Mark I.

gimp_dad · Nov 21, 2016

Rexgig0 said:
Devouredsouls123 said:

Hello everyone! So I'm kinda torn on 3 different lenses. (quality wise and money wise)

The lenses are

Canon 35mm 1.4L (or the mark II)

Canon 50mm 1.2L

Canon 85mm 1.2L II

Now out of these 3 I like the 35mm length better after playing around with it on my 16-35mm 2.8. Only thing is the old one is around 800 used, 1k new. The new one is 1700 new. From what I have seen the old ones image quality is pretty bad to me. Not horrible but not what i would expect from a prime like this. The new one is amazing but the price is a bit too high.

(Snipped.)

My current lenses are:

70-200mm 2.8L II, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-105mm 4L, 100mm 2.8L, and 85mm 1.8 USM.

Camera is a Canon 6D body.

I'm just looking for a bit of advice on which one would be a best fit.

Click to expand...

Everything you have said, above, points to the 35L II, of the choices you mentioned. The 16-35/2.8 L, whether version I or II, is rather weak at 35mm. Your 24-104L is good at 35mm, but is f/4. Your 70-200/2.8 will handle 85mm quite well, especially if it is the newest version, as indicated by the "II" designation, and if the large zoom is too heavy to use all the time, you have a very good 85mm lens, already. 50mm is not all that inspiring to you, so why get one?

OK, so the 35L II is too expensive. I fully understand. I recommend going to Dustin Abbott's blog, and looking at his four-way comparison of several 35mm lens options. Look closely at the performance of the EF 35/2 IS, especially the one way in which it actually bests the 35L II, which may be important to the way you shoot. I felt that the EF 35/2 IS actually won this comparison, for the ways I shoot. I also consulted plenty of other sources, and bought my EF 35/2 IS.

I do plan to eventually add an EF 35L II, later, but will keep my EF 35/2 IS, because some situations, such as back-lit scenes, will probably be better done with the EF 35/2 IS, and there will be times Image Stabilization will be more important that being able to shoot at f/1.4 or f/1.8 apertures. Plus, the EF 35/2 IS accepts the same macro adapter as my EF 100/2.8L Macro IS lenses, so I can use my Macro Ringlite on both lenses, taking advantage of the EF 35/2 IS's very close MFD and magnification ratio. A 35L II would be a specialized lens for me, nice to have, but a luxury, for which there is no hurry.

I used my 5Ds R, 100/2.8L Macro IS, and 35/2 IS, to photograph an entire crime scene, involving a limo bus carrying a rap group entourage being shot-up by someone who strongly disliked someone inside the limo bus. These were the two best lenses in the world, for me, at that moment in time, enabling me to work quickly with the Macro Ringlite and normal Speedlites. I am not CSU/ID, but a first responder, so do not have the luxury of taking hours to process a crime scene. (The 50MP of the 5Ds R did bog-down the PD's upload system; I should have switched to small JPEG; I usually use a pair of 7D Mark II cameras while on duty.)

I like my EF 35/2 IS enough to consider buying a second one, so that one can remain inside the big Pelican case I use at work, while another remains with my personal shooting kit.

Nothing I have said above should be construed to mean that I claim to be any king of expert on photography in general.

BAK · Nov 21, 2016

Run $2000 through a paper shredder and then go take some really good pictures with the equipment you already own, make big prints, get the pictures framed, and give them to friends and family.

BAK

JerryriggedTECH · Nov 22, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
Hello everyone! So I'm kinda torn on 3 different lenses. (quality wise and money wise)

The lenses are

Canon 35mm 1.4L (or the mark II)

Canon 50mm 1.2L

Canon 85mm 1.2L II

Now out of these 3 I like the 35mm length better after playing around with it on my 16-35mm 2.8. Only thing is the old one is around 800 used, 1k new. The new one is 1700 new. From what I have seen the old ones image quality is pretty bad to me. Not horrible but not what i would expect from a prime like this. The new one is amazing but the price is a bit too high.

The 50mm 1.2L is a good general purpose lens. I've has 2 different 50mm lenses and they never fit my use particularly well. Its not wide enough, and not zoomed enough. The image quality is not as good as the other two but the price sits around 1-1.2k.

The 85mm 1.2 is the ultimate portrait lens I have heard. I own the 85 1.8 and I do admit I love it a lot. The only things with the 1.2 is the weight, price, and durability. That rear element is gonna freak me out (OCD and anxiety issues so I cant help it), the af is slow and the manual focus ring really is not to my liking. Its also massive and heavy.

My current lenses are:

70-200mm 2.8L II, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-105mm 4L, 100mm 2.8L, and 85mm 1.8 USM.

Camera is a Canon 6D body.

I'm just looking for a bit of advice on which one would be a best fit.

I'm not a huge fan of the 85 1.2L II... but hoping to go for either the Sigma 1.4 Art, or maybe someday a new Canon 85mm 1.4, or a version III.

I own the 35mm f/1.4L II, and it is a great lens (sample images below), but it is very pricy.

Also, I wouldn't discount the 50mm based on owning the lower end crappy 50mm lenses made by Canon. I had the use of the 50mm f/1.2L recently for a wedding, and really loved the results. It is NOT the sharpest lens made, but I really love the look anyway... and I'm typically drawn to super sharp lenses. (also samples below).

35mm

50mm

Devouredsouls123 · Nov 22, 2016

This was an entirely useless answer... I decided on getting a 35mm due to the focal length as i like it the most. My biggeat conern was if the Mark I is worth it still for the price its at or is it basically obsolete since the 35 II seems to be the best lens. But its also double price the mark I is now.

Devouredsouls123 · Nov 22, 2016

So the Mark I isnt even worth looking at?

gimp_dad · Nov 22, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
So the Mark I isnt even worth looking at?

Sorry I don't have info on that. I never owned the 35/1.4L Mark I. Many who have owned it have said that the new 35/2IS is better than the old 35/1.4L but that obviously depends a lot on what your use is going to be.

It can't hurt to play around with all 3 lenses to see what you think. I love the 35mm focal length which is why I have two primes just for that FL.

Devouredsouls123 · Nov 22, 2016

Well I decided on a 35mm but now I'm fighting with whether to save myself 800-900$ and get the first 35L. or just wait a longggg time for the Mark II to come down in price. and the 35 f2 IS does not interest me at all.

Devouredsouls123 · Nov 22, 2016

Well when i jump and get a 35mm lens, its going to be for 1.4. Thats why I ignored the f2 IS. it never interested me.

Rexgig0 · Nov 22, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
Well when i jump and get a 35mm lens, its going to be for 1.4. Thats why I ignored the f2 IS. it never interested me.

I owned a pre-II 35L, and really liked it. I reluctantly traded it as part if a re-organization of lenses, with a long-term goal of eventually replacing it with a 35L II. When I added the 35/2 IS, it did not change my plans to eventually add a 35L II, and I do not see the 35/2 IS as a complete replacement for the pre-II 35L, either, because the character of the images is different, and, as you have indicated, f/1.4 can be a desirable thing to have.

In hindsight, I do miss my "old" 35L, and still believe an original, pre-II 35L is a worthwhile purchase, if one appreciates the character of the images it will help one create. I will admit a temptation to start trying some of the pre-owned pre-II 35L lenses that often arrive at a local camera store, and buying one of them.

Actually, I did "replace" my pre-II 35L with a Nikkor 35/1.4G. This is another lens that has a special character, rather than absolute "best" sharpness. (In the Nikon SLR Lens Talk section, the differences among the various 35mm option have been much-discussed, in multiple recent threads, so I will not bring that here. DPR member anotherMike has posted much wisdom regarding the various Nikon-mount 35mm options.) This move made sense, to me, as my D3s is a favored available-light night-time camera when, I want/need accurate AF.

My EF 35/2 IS and Nikkor 35/1.4G, together, have "conspired" to seriously delay adding a 35L II, but the improved sharpness at wider apertures, and improved coma performance, remain desirable goals, when I am finally able to justify spending the money.

I will confess to also having a Nikkor AF 35mm f/2D, and an interest in several pre-AF 35mm Nikkors, plus a desire to own a Zeiss 35/2. My name is Rex, and I am addicted to 35mm lenses. ;-) (For those unfamilair is USA culture, that is a reference to a widespread method of addiction therapy; the first step of treatment is to admit the addiction.)

--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

Rexgig0 · Nov 22, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
So the Mark I isnt even worth looking at?

Yes, it is, but do look at such things as sharpness at various apertures, sharpness across the frame, vignetting, and the character of out-of-focus areas, to make sure you like the images. This is an older lens, so has been surpassed, technically, but it remains a wonderful lens, if you like the character of its images.

I traded mine, reluctantly, and with some lingering remorse for having done so. At the time of the trade, however, there were three other 35mm lenses on my long-term wish list, the 35L II, the Nikkor 35/1.4G, and the Zeiss 35/2, and I had three zooms that covered 35mm, so it seemed a reasonable thing to do. (I soon added my EF 35/2 IS and Nikkor 35/1.4G, and traded one of the zooms.)

diness · Nov 22, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
Well I decided on a 35mm but now I'm fighting with whether to save myself 800-900$ and get the first 35L. or just wait a longggg time for the Mark II to come down in price. and the 35 f2 IS does not interest me at all.

Just buy the mark i. It's going to take awhile for the ii to come down in price, and if you just buy the 1, you'll actually be able to use it.

BlueRay2 · Nov 22, 2016

Devouredsouls123 said:
So the Mark I isnt even worth looking at?

Ha, Ha...funniest thing i have heard today :-D 35mm f1.4 mk1 STILL BEAT many of these jellybean 3rd party lenses! in fact, i am not going to bother with upgrading to mk2 b/c my mk1 is brilliant enough!

James Larsen · Nov 22, 2016

1Dx4me said:
Devouredsouls123 said:

So the Mark I isnt even worth looking at?

Click to expand...

Ha, Ha...funniest thing i have heard today :-D 35mm f1.4 mk1 STILL BEAT many of these jellybean 3rd party lenses! in fact, i am not going to bother with upgrading to mk2 b/c my mk1 is brilliant enough!

The Tamron & Sigma do give it a run for the money though...

But it is still a great lens and very very capable of taking great images.

Debating on Next Lens

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts