EF35/F2.0 lens superior to EF50/1.4 lens for handheld indoor non-flash photography?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

After looking at www.photodo.com, it appears to me that the EF35/F2 is sharper than the 50/F1.4 when the aperature is wide open. Also the 35mm focal length will allow 1/30th handheld minimum shutter speed compared to 1/60th second for the 50mm lens. I have read some reviews of the 50/F1.4 lens raving about how wonderful the lens is for indoor available light photography. However I am thinking that the 35mm/F2 lens is superior.

Does anyone here own both these lenses and can confirm this?

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), November 30, 2000

Answers

I don't know Canon's lenses from experience, but my ownership of similar Nikkors (AF 35/2 and an older AI-converted manual-focus 50/1.4) may give you some help.

The 50 mm at f/2 will be better than the 35mm at f/2 (wide open). Canon's f/1.4 is not particularly good at f/1.4 but it is excellent at f/2 and world-class at f/2.8 to f/16 from the reviews that I've read.

However, sometimes 50mm is just too long, and I think this is one of those circumstances. I prefer a 35mm lens for indoor photography because it allows you to incorporate more of the environment.

Frankly, you should select the lens that fits your photographic vision, and not worry too much about the maximum aperture. If you absolutely must have the best quality lens possible, Canon makes a very nice 35/1.4. Frankly, I'm sure the quality of the 35/2 is just fine.

-- Jim MacKenzie (photojim@yahoo.com), December 01, 2000.


I've owned the 50mm f:1.8 (both mark I and mark II) and currently own the 35mm f:2, but I've never used the 50mm f:1.4.

The 35mm f:2 is indeed tack sharp wide open, and is a much better focal length when shooting indoors for most shots. A much more practical focal length for low light in my opinion. The 35mm f:2 is designed very much like the originnal 50mm f:1.8 with metal mount and beetter focusing ring. Focusing is very noisy though and neither USM nor FTM are available unless you upgrade to the f:1.4. Focusing is quick and sure however.

A combination of 35 & 85 is great for most any low light situation, much better than a 50 & 100 in my opinion.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), December 01, 2000.


I've extensively used the EOS 50/1.4, and found it to be a very sharp lens, even wide open. (In addition, I also found this lens to have a very low tendency to produce ghost images and flare when shooting relatively bright point-sources of light amidst a dark background). However, I often used this lens at f1.4 when shooting very low-light subjects such as night-time city scapes, in which the subject was typically far enough away that the focus distance scale was at "infinity". On the other hand, for shots in close quarters, there will be very *shallow* DOF at f1.4, and I believe it is important to not confuse shallow DOF with the lens's sharpness at f1.4. In my experience, the 50/1.4, at f1.4, will produce very, very sharp images at the point of focus (for example, the critical eye of a portrait subject) IF the photographer is using good technique. But as previously mentioned, DOF will be very shallow at f1.4, and there will always be situations where this effect is desirable.

FWIW, I eventually traded the 50/1.4 towards the EOS 28-70/2.8L, and while I'm in love with this incredibly sharp zoom, I occasionally miss the speed of f1.4.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), December 03, 2000.


In my experience, the difference between handholding at 1/60 and 1/30 is pretty large, and I'm pretty uncertain of my ability to do it with a 28mm lens, let alone a 35mm. With a 20, no problem. With a 50, I definitely have to get lucky. I wouldn't count on a 35mm lens "allowing" 1/30 unless you've found that to be true yourself.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

I have the 50mm F1.8 and 28mm F2.8. Both of these lenses are built very similar to the 35 F2.0. They all use a 5 bladed aperture and from a side view are almost identical.

The 35 would be better for indoors than the 50 mainly because of the perspective.

I would still prefer the 50mm F1.4 because of the 8 bladed aperture is better for portraits of children. The USM and FTM would be handy too.

-- Michael (mikemyuen@hotmail.com), December 11, 2000.



Do you find that you can use a slower handheld shutter speed with the 35mm lens?

-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), December 11, 2000.

In fact, I have both lenses, and they are truly superb. With 400 ISO film, they are super for photographing children indoors.

-- Paulo Bizarro (pbizarro@cggp.pt), April 10, 2001.

Assuming the one over focal length rule of thumb is true (yes, it depends on the user, but I think many photographers are aware of it because it is more or less true), you should be able to handhold a 35mm at a little slower shutter speed, IMHO.

-- Todd Garlow (toddgarlow@hotmail.com), April 19, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ