Low light prime lens to complement 24-105 f/4 on 5D MKII
I'm looking for recommendations for a good low-light prime lens I can use to complement the 24-105 when light is lacking. I'm looking for something 50mm or wider. Given that I have little experience with many of my options I thought I'd see who had some opinions. 
This is for use on a 5D Mark II.
Looking through my shots, I have a pretty even distribution of shots taken at 35-50mm so I imagine I would find both focal lengths useful.
My main consideration is usefulness towards the wide-open end as I'll likely be using my 24-105 when more light is available (or when using a flash). Here's what I'm considering:
Thoughts?
This is for use on a 5D Mark II.Looking through my shots, I have a pretty even distribution of shots taken at 35-50mm so I imagine I would find both focal lengths useful.
My main consideration is usefulness towards the wide-open end as I'll likely be using my 24-105 when more light is available (or when using a flash). Here's what I'm considering:
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - Cheapest of my options, but not crazy about the build-quality or focus noise/speed (owned one previously).
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 - Seems to have better build quality and focus speed but not very sharp wide-open and there are many reports of failed AF mechanisms. Likely the most popular option in the price-range.
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM - A bit more $ than the Canon 1.4 and larger, but seems very well built. Reviews seem to indicate much better sharpness wide-open but I've also read of inconsistent auto-focus performance - true or not? :dunno
- Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 - Inexpensive way to get a good 35mm lens. Build-quality and focus speed don't seem much better than the 50mm f/1.8.
- Sigma 35mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM - A step up in build quality from the EF 35 f/2.0 but, like the sigma 50, I've read reports of inconsistent focus.
- Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L - Regarded as one of Canon's best wide primes and priced accordingly... :huh Anyone want to buy me this beauty? :lust Worth it?
Thoughts?
0
Comments
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
The EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is a micro-motor USM, which means that it is not as fast to focus as a ring-USM, but focus accuracy at f1.4 has been very good for me on the 1D MKII bodies. The softness at large apertures is more due to halation, which you can think of as a localized blur between areas of high contrast. It is exacerbated by objects which are luminous and surrounded by a darker background. Sharpness is actually better than many think but the halation looks soft to our eye in the resulting images. Halation can be used to advantage and makes older subjects with wrinkled skin seem less wrinkled while still having good overall sharpness for other features. By f2.2 the halation is much better controlled, so it's still a very useful lens. By f2.8 sharpness and contrast is very good indeed. By f5.6 the lens is almost as sharp as the EF 50mm, f1.2L USM. (BTW halation responds very well to USM sharpening, better than other forms of soft focus.)
The EF 35mm, f1.4L USM is one of Canon's best lenses and is often used for group portraits and full-length in smaller spaces. While moderately wide on a FF body, it is still pretty well corrected for barrel distortion and is not so wide to cause too much perspective distortion. I do tend to use the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM instead just because the full aperture of the 35mm prime is not commonly needed.
The EF 35mm, f2 has pretty good center sharpness, but the edges and corners get very soft at large apertures. I would not recommend it for professional applications.
My prime selection for wedding/event photography and FF or crop 1.3x imager includes the Canon 50mm, f1.4 and the Canon 135mm, f2L USM. Those 2 lenses work nicely for ceremony shots when flash is not allowed. The 135mm is a very nice length to allow some distance from the subjects but gives a great feeling of intimacy with the subjects. Very sharp wide open it is truly one of the finest of its kind by any manufacturer. The EF 100mm, f2 USM makes a good alternative.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
See plenty of images here, all shot with the 35L, most post will tell what body was used, or better yet, use a EXIF reader for your browser.
Link to my Smugmug site
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Link to my Smugmug site
Ivar - You're right, I suppose it's an issue of focal lengths and I'm somewhat undecided when it comes to 35 vs 50mm.. I find the 35mm focal length more interesting, but perhaps a bit less versatile. I think the 50mm f/1.4 would certainly outperform the 35mm f/2 for similar $. To best the 50mm f/1.4 in the 35mm focal length would mean spending 3-4 times the price for the 35L unless someone can convince me the Sigma 35mm is a viable alternative. As rwells mentioned, I'm certain I'd fall in love with the 35L it but am finding it hard to justify at the price.
kdog - you had to throw in more lenses to drool over didn't you.... gee thanks... :cry
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
+1
The 35L was my fave lens, alongside the 135L. If I were still in the DSLR game, I would own these two and maybe nothing else.
Be warned, use a safety line cause ur gonna fall!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Don't forget about the 50mm 1.0 L at around 4g- it's definitely a bargain!
Brady:D
I'll keep that in mind.