Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM

[The Ghost of FM]

From this evening...



http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h250/thefontmeister/VV4G4635small.jpg



Cheers!

[phamster]

Nice work everbody !!! too many names to mention..

haven't contributed to this thread in awhile

i am making a poster - but here is one sneak peak shot..

this was taken with the 35L.. sweet lens

this poster will have total of 5 subjects in it..

i had 4 lights going to get this shot.. 3 speed lights and one alien bee..


http://i43.tinypic.com/2qvxszm.jpg

[Photomek]

http://photomek.de/photos/20090630/TB_20090630_4163.jpg

[dajli]

I'm completely new to wrinting in this forum, but I've been following this thread for a while as a part of building up my desire for this lens. Now Iv'e sold my 28/1,8 and 50/1,4 to buy the 35L instead. Just got i today, a brand new with production code UX0506!

I'll post sample pictures contributing to this thread in the coming future!

/Jonatan - Sweden

[DL.Photography]

Congrats, and you weren't kidding...this is your FIRST post lol.

I'm completely new to wrinting in this forum, but I've been following this thread for a while as a part of building up my desire for this lens. Now Iv'e sold my 28/1,8 and 50/1,4 to buy the 35L instead. Just got i today, a brand new with production code UX0506!

I'll post sample pictures contributing to this thread in the coming future!

/Jonatan - Sweden

[x2x3x4x5x]

http://i41.tinypic.com/33vkytk.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/15f1uf9.jpg

[macroshot]

I don't own a 35L, but I do like what's in here.

^ Pat - really like the feel of that second image. Well done.

[Canonised]

A cropped shot of a flower taken at the Singapore Botanic Gardens.
Exif intact.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s132/horolographer/BG_7Aweb.jpg

[airfrogusmc]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_8322.jpg

[Yellowmsp]

just picked this lens up, cant wait to go out and use it more. random shots pickin my brother up from a golf tournament right after i bought it

http://www.scottlam.com/img/v6/p631408935-4.jpg

http://www.scottlam.com/img/v2/p732574459-4.jpg

http://www.scottlam.com/img/v4/p998305733-5.jpg

[Yellowmsp]

another from golf today
http://www.scottlam.com/img/v6/p1020508755-4.jpg

[MaliCali]

nappy nap

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/3703858616_0cb7e281df_b.jpg

[LLL]

How is the distortion on 35L with 5D2? Anyone?

[MaliCali]

Little to none....ive never noticed any

[LLL]

Thanks! I might just get it next week in Hongkong if its cheap :p

[philcozz]

Took this at my friends' wedding. No flash and virtually all the light coming from behind; very pleased with how this lens 'found the light':


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/3694332317_aac1c0f9f2.jpg

[royv]

Epic lighting!:eek:

[wildcart]

Made in Paris last week...
5D2
http://gallery.me.com/wildcart/100206/Paris_031/web.jpg
1D2
http://gallery.me.com/wildcart/100206/Paris_088/web.jpg
http://gallery.me.com/wildcart/100206/Paris_110/web.jpg

[echo]

^^^^ Excellent photographs Wildcart, number 2 is very impressive :)

[echo]

I've been too busy for a few weeks to look in much but some great photos!

I thought I'd post a few taken in the studio

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/553890871_g8mS7-XL.jpg
On 5D2 ISO800 at f/2.2

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/588021076_ztGGn-XL.jpg
On 5D2 at ISO800 wide open at f/1.4

Mike

[Tom K.]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/3196257410_d06f90455c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/3088924580_936245f433_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3165872432_588244b177_o.jpg

[MaliCali]

Golden Gate Park with some friends..

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/3720655615_9bde3fa686_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3720652261_0302dd1515_b.jpg

[Radiohead369]

You have a flickr Mali? Your work is inspiring. Thanks for sharing :]

[MaliCali]

You have a flickr Mali? Your work is inspiring. Thanks for sharing :]

thanks!

and yes i do flickr.com/malicali

-Mike

[WhyFi]

My 35L is still acting up (I haven't sent it off for service, yet) but you can't let a little thing like not AFing at infinity keep you from using such a great lens!

Took a few pics of my friend's baby a couple of days ago -

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2466/3717737893_afda38bcfd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/whyfinyc/3717737893/sizes/o/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2601/3718438244_36789e7ca3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/whyfinyc/3718438244/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

Now I just have to remember to stop down a lil more, damn thin DoF... :oops:

[x2x3x4x5x]

http://i30.tinypic.com/2zrj4fn.jpg

[The Moose]

Pat you've got some great shots. Going through your blog as well, I can see in certain shots that it was the 35L :p It's even more obvious to me to spot the lens than the 85L. And those wedding posts all tell the whole story and it's really, really good work. What do you do for focus during your weddings? A lot of the shots displayed have people in focus when they aren't in the centre of the frame. Do you use centre point and recompose or do you keep changing the point?

[sabesh]

Senor Pepito in the arms of his Mommy today ..

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2662/3733811042_291db3ddc9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3733811042/)

[xoldboy]

this lens produces some of the most crisp shots ive seen so far. love the colors and iq.

[adam*]

Few recent ones:

http://www.pbase.com/adamgrayphotography/image/114198563.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/adamgrayphotography/image/114198558.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/adamgrayphotography/image/114198580.jpg

[x2x3x4x5x]

Do you use centre point and recompose or do you keep changing the point?
Thanks a lot! Lately I've been changing the point. I used to center and recompose (I sometimes still do - both techniques have a time and place), but in good light the outer points are sweet.

To make this post legit: unblogged, sneak peak, from Saturday.
http://i29.tinypic.com/nq4k1u.jpg

[ALaS]

Bleh, I know this is the 35L page, but I can't afford to drop that much on a lens right now. Can anyone give me an opinion on Canon 28 f/1.8 vs. sigma 30mm f/1.4 (I know there are plenty of threads, and trust me I've read all of them, they don't help because they're always so biased!) So, fellas, has anyone had any experience with these two contenders?

[waynema]

The more I use my 35L the less I bring out the 24-70L, is anyone else on the same boat? Did you end up keeping both?

[dajli]

My first sample, taken while walking down a street with my gf. Just love the lens!

http://dajli.com/potn/sample1.jpg

[Stealthy Ninja]

Anyone using this lens as a "walk about" prime?

I'm considering this lens over my 50 1.4 as my everyday (5D) prime.

How's the weight and versatility in your opinions?

[airfrogusmc]

Sure all the time. There are many times I put it on the 5D and go out all day.

[sabesh]

Some street shots from y'day (click on pics for access to EXIF info & larger size):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/3737969870_4172b32217.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737969870/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/3737171389_f9285d530d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737171389/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2624/3737160423_26a7c6cff3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737160423/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2639/3737151825_33f7d5d9ed.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737151825/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3454/3737939858_0449fb777e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737939858/)

[WhyFi]

Anyone using this lens as a "walk about" prime?

I'm considering this lens over my 50 1.4 as my everyday (5D) prime.

How's the weight and versatility in your opinions?
Yup, I do. If I know that I'm going to be almost exclusively outside, I grab my 17-40, otherwise (and more often), it's the 35L.
Weight is not an issue, I think that it's comfy weight.
Versatility is great - wide enough for those story-telling shots, can focus close enough to fill a frame with most subjects (as long as you can get physically close to your subject), fast enough for use indoors and late into the night.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Sure all the time. There are many times I put it on the 5D and go out all day.

Yup, I do. If I know that I'm going to be almost exclusively outside, I grab my 17-40, otherwise (and more often), it's the 35L.
Weight is not an issue, I think that it's comfy weight.
Versatility is great - wide enough for those story-telling shots, can focus close enough to fill a frame with most subjects (as long as you can get physically close to your subject), fast enough for use indoors and late into the night.

Thanks, I did a little test with my 50 1.4 and 16-35 (stuck of 35) today.

There is more of a difference between these two focal lengths than I thought. Making the 35L viable as another prime (enough difference). The 50 might be better for something like set environmental portraits (you know, people in their environment, better because I could get back a bit and take the shot, whereas an "everyday" prime needs to be a bit wider because often I am pretty close to my subject). Because of my often close proximity to my subject, I find myself needing to go wider (lean back a lot) with the 50 1.4 and something a bit wider would probably be better (this need to go wider is why I got the 16-35). I've researched the 28 to 35mm range of prime lenses and nothing quite comes up to standard except the 35L.

I will continue to use my 50 1.4 until I can afford the 35L I think. But the 35L is pretty much on my list now (was the 24L but I've changed my mind about my personal necessity for that lens). :)

BTW WhyFi, your location is with the Beastie Boys? ;)

That funky monkey... :D

[x2x3x4x5x]

http://i26.tinypic.com/2r42adj.jpg
I've had the 35L for a while now and I'm still using it for literally 70-85% of all weddings I shoot. It's pretty absurd that I shoot a wedding with 2 lenses (35L, 85L) and occasionally (but rarely) I'll borrow a 100 macro or 45ts.

My last wedding I shot 1600 images, 1400 with the 35L. Lawl.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Seems like a nice length. Not so wide it distorts and not so long it's inconvenient.

:)

[Tareq]

Nice thread, i just come here first time now, and i hope one day when i will get this lens then i can post something.
Nice shots everybody!

[x2x3x4x5x]

Seems like a nice length. Not so wide it distorts and not so long it's inconvenient.

:)
Every aspect of the 35L is perfect. I must have a really good copy because it doesn't even get any sharper past f/1.6. I get literally the same level of detail and sharpness at f/1.6 as I do at f/4+.

[MigsVuitton]

Wow, I just picked up this lens literally an hour ago from Calumet. I took some really weak images outside my work place, so weak I wouldn't even dare post them, but the technical quality alone is outstanding. Sharp out the box @ f/1.4 on my 5dmkII.

Amazing.

[Tareq]

Wow, I just picked up this lens literally an hour ago from Calumet. I took some really weak images outside my work place, so weak I wouldn't even dare post them, but the technical quality alone is outstanding. Sharp out the box @ f/1.4 on my 5dmkII.

Amazing.

Many lenses can be sharp wide open on 5DmkII ;)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Many lenses can be sharp wide open on 5DmkII ;)

The LCD makes everything look sharp. :lol:

Darn you guys, now I'm saving for another lens. :p

[Tareq]

Damn, i will head to NY this year and i am not having 35L, but i hope i can be fine with TS-E 24 and 50 and 16-35 and .......

[sabesh]

Damn, i will head to NY this year and i am not having 35L, but i hope i can be fine with TS-E 24 and 50 and 16-35 and .......
16-35L-II and 135L is all ya need for NYC (for tall buildings and people shots). Cheers.

[Tareq]

16-35L-II and 135L is all ya need for NYC (for tall buildings and people shots). Cheers.

I have 16-35L mk1, but i will not carry 135L, can 70-200 be enough?

[MigsVuitton]

Ok, so I totally jumped the gun. Though the performance of the lens is so much better, my Sigma 1.8 macro actually is on par in terms of image quality with the 35L. Am I crazy here?!?! I bought that lens for 300 shipped. Well, I should say on par as the color is a little less vibrant but nothing to be too concerned about.

And it actually handles CA a lot better than the 35L. I'm stunned. Both are very sharp at their widest.

I was planning to sell the sigma, but now I'm thinking maybe I should keep it and exchange the 35L for an 85L and pay the difference.

Download a full size jpeg from my sigma lens here as well as one from my 35L: http://migsvuitton.com/blog/downloads/sigma1.8canon35L/

What do you guys think? I'm not trying to be a jerk (with thinking the sigma lens is close to the 35L), but I just want to make the right decision with my second L glass. Currently own the 24-105L but have been itching for a prime L lens for awhile.

[lz7j]

In my eyes, the 35L image looks better. Color rendition, micro contrast looks better on the L.

As far as sharpness, it's really hard to tell from that image alone. Maybe you should shoot a brick wall or a lens box ;)

If you're happy with the sig 24 1.8, by all means, sell the 35L and upgrade to the 85L - there's definitely no regrets there :)

[MigsVuitton]

Ok, never mind... I'm just having late night crazies... now I'm thinking, "sell the 24-105 to help pay for a 85L, so it's a 35L 85L wedding combo"

Ahhhh!! Goodnight!

[Treat me like a tourist]

I have 16-35L mk1, but i will not carry 135L, can 70-200 be enough?

Tareq, take the 70-200 its great for zooming in on buildings when your on top of the rock or the Empire State Building.
Oh and stop spending money, your meant to be saving for a medium format wide angle lens :)

[echo]

Ok, never mind... I'm just having late night crazies... now I'm thinking, "sell the 24-105 to help pay for a 85L, so it's a 35L 85L wedding combo"

Only problem is you will miss your zoom even though the 35L and 85L murders it IQ wise :)

[Tareq]

Tareq, take the 70-200 its great for zooming in on buildings when your on top of the rock or the Empire State Building.
Oh and stop spending money, your meant to be saving for a medium format wide angle lens :)

70-200 is one of the must lenses for travel in my bag anyway :D
And don't worry, if i don't spend a lot in NY, then i can come back home and save sooner for a new hassy lens, in fact i have money for the lens now but i will not rush, the weather in UAE will be nice after October, so i will be back fresh and ready to go out and test new lens i will buy by the end of this year, but hey, i have something else to buy, oh no, my list is growing faster these days ;)

[sabesh]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3741050266_13b9de7eb3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3741050266/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/3741064788_bd20b804e9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3741064788/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2513/3740269921_82de172534_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3740269921/)

[x2x3x4x5x]

Only problem is you will miss your zoom even though the 35L and 85L murders it IQ wise :)
I used a friends 70-200 for about 20 minutes a few weddings back. I forgot it zoomed so I used it at whatever FL he shot last with.

In short, you won't miss zooms. As far as I'm concerned zooms don't exist anymore.

[DL.Photography]

I used a friends 70-200 for about 20 minutes a few weddings back. I forgot it zoomed so I used it at whatever FL he shot last with.

In short, you won't miss zooms. As far as I'm concerned zooms don't exist anymore.

^I've been having the same issue. Been using my 35L so much lately that when I put on the 24-105, I left it @ 24 and zoomed with my feet (because I forgot it actually zooms)

[airbutchie]

My first shot with my 1DsMk2 + 35L (wide open)... Not bad for a first shot on a new, (used) body...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/airbutchie/Shoes/_S4E9978.jpg

- airbutchie

[The Ghost of FM]

My first shot with my 1DsMk2 + 35L (wide open)... Not bad for a first shot on a new, (used) body...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/airbutchie/Shoes/_S4E9978.jpg

- airbutchie
That's the oddest looking duck I've ever seen! :D

Congrats!

Cheers!

[J-B]

Every aspect of the 35L is perfect. I must have a really good copy because it doesn't even get any sharper past f/1.6. I get literally the same level of detail and sharpness at f/1.6 as I do at f/4+.

Lucky you, my copy is noticeable sharper from f2.
f1.4 - f1.8 is acceptable, but not as tack sharp as f2 and beyond.

[airfrogusmc]

I used a friends 70-200 for about 20 minutes a few weddings back. I forgot it zoomed so I used it at whatever FL he shot last with.

In short, you won't miss zooms. As far as I'm concerned zooms don't exist anymore.

First year I was digital I had a 35L and an 85L on ff. That is a great combo.

My 35 is very sharp wide open but really smokes at 1.8-11...

[Karizmatik]

Ok, so I totally jumped the gun. Though the performance of the lens is so much better, my Sigma 1.8 macro actually is on par in terms of image quality with the 35L. Am I crazy here?!?! I bought that lens for 300 shipped. Well, I should say on par as the color is a little less vibrant but nothing to be too concerned about.

And it actually handles CA a lot better than the 35L. I'm stunned. Both are very sharp at their widest.

I was planning to sell the sigma, but now I'm thinking maybe I should keep it and exchange the 35L for an 85L and pay the difference.

Download a full size jpeg from my sigma lens here as well as one from my 35L: http://migsvuitton.com/blog/downloads/sigma1.8canon35L/

What do you guys think? I'm not trying to be a jerk (with thinking the sigma lens is close to the 35L), but I just want to make the right decision with my second L glass. Currently own the 24-105L but have been itching for a prime L lens for awhile.

The colors (Not even just saturation) look so much better on the 35L in that shot IMO. As far as sharpness? As said, it is hard to tell on that image, but I would say the Canon has it.

Not just hating or being biased either, as I own neither lenses and have a few Sigmas myself.

[whakojacko]

2 shots from this weekend
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/3745341640_de7ac65378_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/3745341640/)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2666/3744546061_284227f480_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/3744546061/)

[DL.Photography]

^Very nice, but why does the emblems look crooked (especially the S)

[whakojacko]

^Very nice, but why does the emblems look crooked (especially the S)

dunno, not my porsche ;). Looking back that S is awkwardly off-Ah well. If the owner gave it to me Id be happy to fix it ;)

Another one from this weekend:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/3742816982_a03b07f9e4_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/3742816982/)

[phamster]

I've been too busy for a few weeks to look in much but some great photos!

I thought I'd post a few taken in the studio

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/553890871_g8mS7-XL.jpg
On 5D2 ISO800 at f/2.2

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/588021076_ztGGn-XL.jpg
On 5D2 at ISO800 wide open at f/1.4

Mike
i like the mask over the door !!!

[phamster]

h


[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3165872432_588244b177_o.jpg

randomly nice !! great moment

[phamster]

Only problem is you will miss your zoom even though the 35L and 85L murders it IQ wise :)

agree..

i have the 24-70 and 35L and 85L.. i shoot the 24-70 for weddings.. i only have one full frame body.. but echo is right.. fast pace.. i need the zoom

[QuickSilver86]

Please can you post some RAW?

[airfrogusmc]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_3778.jpg

[phamster]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_3778.jpg

wow.. nice.. fan of your stuff..

phamster

[Stealthy Ninja]

I keep flip flopping about this lens. Sometimes I think it's too expensive, sometimes I think "well I'm only going to get one "indoor" prime, it might as well be a good one".

Currently trying to work out which "indoor" (ie no flash) prime to get.

24L II, 35L or 50L (85L is too much and too long).

:confused:

Well, I have time to decide . . . because I don't have enough money. :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

I keep flip flopping about this lens. Sometimes I think it's too expensive, sometimes I think "well I'm only going to get one "indoor" prime, it might as well be a good one".

Currently trying to work out which "indoor" (ie no flash) prime to get.

24L II, 35L or 50L (85L is too much and too long).

:confused:

Well, I have time to decide . . . because I don't have enough money. :lol:


If you're FF I'd say 35L. I love my 24L but the 35 is the one lens I could shoot just about everything I shoot with if I had to.

[airfrogusmc]

wow.. nice.. fan of your stuff..

phamster

Thanks Pham!

[Stealthy Ninja]

If you're FF I'd say 35L. I love my 24L but the 35 is the one lens I could shoot just about everything I shoot with if I had to.

Yeah dude, I'm thinking the same thing actually. :)

70-200 2.8L IS first though. :)

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah dude, I'm thinking the same thing actually. :)

70-200 2.8L IS first though. :)

I say get the 35L instead.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I say get the 35L instead.

LOL yeah, maybe I will. Depends on how much money flows in.

I'm waiting to see if Canon update the 70-200, so I might end up going crazy and getting the 35L first. :lol:

[x2x3x4x5x]

http://i27.tinypic.com/b4g8qe.jpg

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ Awesome shot dude. I like quirky/funny shots like that. :D

[echo]

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/599672885_uwKmB-XL.jpg
f/2.2

[dajli]

love it more and more. needs a lot less PP than i'm used to. some samples from a boat trip this week:


http://dajli.com/potn/sample2.jpg


http://dajli.com/potn/sample3.jpg


http://dajli.com/potn/sample4.jpg


http://dajli.com/potn/sample5.jpg


http://dajli.com/potn/sample6.jpg


http://dajli.com/potn/sample7.jpg

[Jaetie]

^

i love the film-esque colours.

[philcozz]

love it more and more. needs a lot less PP than i'm used to. some samples from a boat trip this week:

Very nice.

[merp]

Well I went through all 146 pages, seen some great photography! I will be picking up this lense in november =) Guys have some amazingggg stuff =)

[Karizmatik]

^

i love the film-esque colours.

Ditto!

It is so subtle and delicate, very, very nicely done.

I would ask you for a tutorial, dajli, but I doubt you'd tell me :lol: (I wouldn't either!)

[sabesh]

LOL yeah, maybe I will. Depends on how much money flows in.

I'm waiting to see if Canon update the 70-200, so I might end up going crazy and getting the 35L first. :lol:
I think that the 35L will be updated before the 70-200/2.8IS.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I think that the 35L will be updated before the 70-200/2.8IS.

Well, most people who follow rumours would disagree with you. Why do you think the 35L would be replaced first?

[echo]

Actually, it would kind of make sense to release an updated f/2.8 IS with a new 1D... Hmm

35L is amazing, not a lot else could be done but am willing to be surprised :)

[WhyFi]

Well, most people who follow rumours would disagree with you. Why do you think the 35L would be replaced first?
Because the 35L's sister lens, the 24L, was updated to MkII already.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Because the 35L's sister lens, the 24L, was updated to MkII already.

Yeah, that could be a good reason. The talk now days is the 70-200 2.8L IS being replaced. Though it could be the 35L too (maybe both). :)

However, I think the 24L had more to improve over the 35L right?!

:)

[Tareq]

And what will they replaced 70-200 2.8L IS with? maybe 70-200 1.8L IS? or 70-300 f2L IS? there are 4 versions of 70-200 so far, to my opinion, i prefer if they replace another lenses not 70-200 or 24-70 or 16-35, time to replace 135L or 35L or 100 for example, and from the zoom i prefer if they can produce 70-300 better aperture or replace 100-400, if they replace 70-200 i will never buy the new one, i didn't bought 200 1.8 neither 200 2.8 and never 200 f2L, even i didn't bought 70-200 f4IS which is better than 2.8IS.

[airfrogusmc]

Its all physics and a zoom lens with that much glass and an aperture of faster than 2.8 will be incredibly difficult to make that wouldn't have an incredible amount of spherical and chromatic aberration plus all the flair. I'd say the 35L will get a face lift first even though I don't know if it really needs one.

[Stealthy Ninja]

And what will they replaced 70-200 2.8L IS with? maybe 70-200 1.8L IS? or 70-300 f2L IS? there are 4 versions of 70-200 so far, to my opinion, i prefer if they replace another lenses not 70-200 or 24-70 or 16-35, time to replace 135L or 35L or 100 for example, and from the zoom i prefer if they can produce 70-300 better aperture or replace 100-400, if they replace 70-200 i will never buy the new one, i didn't bought 200 1.8 neither 200 2.8 and never 200 f2L, even i didn't bought 70-200 f4IS which is better than 2.8IS.

They won't REPLACE the 70-200 2.8L IS with anything, they'll make a mark II version.

The 4 versions here are actually very logical, not overlapping or anything. If you don't need IS they have 2 versions for you, if you need IS they have 2 versions for you. Since a lot of people like this range (and Canon do it so well) it's logical to have lenses like this.

It definitely can be improved on. Increase the sharpness at f/2.8 so it matches the f/4 IS more (which is sharper than the 2.8) and improve the IS system (which is beat by the f/4 IS).

A lot of people now choose the cheaper (ie less profits for Canon) f/4 IS version because the IS is better and lets you shoot slower (I know the subject blur thing...). It is also sharper than the 2.8L IS, making it a very awesome lens indeed.


The 24-70 also has it's problems and replacing it (especially with an IS version) would have a LOT of people buying it (Canon want profits above anything else).

The 16-35 won't be replaced because it's already at Mark II stage. Doesn't make sense.

135L maybe, but it is known as one of their best lenses. The 200 2.8L is at mark II stage, so perhaps they'll replace the 135L, but I doubt it (plus, it doesn't really need it, how could they improve on it? Nano coating?).

70-300 wouldn't be better (more range usually = less quality). Though a 100-400 replacement (or perhaps something like 200-500) would be a welcome change.

As for the 35L... I actually hope they do make a mark II. It does seem pretty likely to be the next WA -> Normal L prime to be replaced. Which would suit me OK indeed.

Sorry to go off topic a bit, I think perhaps this talk should move to the rumours forum. :)

[Tareq]

They won't REPLACE the 70-200 2.8L IS with anything, they'll make a mark II version.

The 4 versions here are actually very logical, not overlapping or anything. If you don't need IS they have 2 versions for you, if you need IS they have 2 versions for you. Since a lot of people like this range (and Canon do it so well) it's logical to have lenses like this.

It definitely can be improved on. Increase the sharpness at f/2.8 so it matches the f/4 IS more (which is sharper than the 2.8) and improve the IS system (which is beat by the f/4 IS).

A lot of people now choose the cheaper (ie less profits for Canon) f/4 IS version because the IS is better and lets you shoot slower (I know the subject blur thing...). It is also sharper than the 2.8L IS, making it a very awesome lens indeed.


The 24-70 also has it's problems and replacing it (especially with an IS version) would have a LOT of people buying it (Canon want profits above anything else).

The 16-35 won't be replaced because it's already at Mark II stage. Doesn't make sense.

135L maybe, but it is known as one of their best lenses. The 200 2.8L is at mark II stage, so perhaps they'll replace the 135L, but I doubt it (plus, it doesn't really need it, how could they improve on it? Nano coating?).

70-300 wouldn't be better (more range usually = less quality). Though a 100-400 replacement (or perhaps something like 200-500) would be a welcome change.

As for the 35L... I actually hope they do make a mark II. It does seem pretty likely to be the next WA -> Normal L prime to be replaced. Which would suit me OK indeed.

Sorry to go off topic a bit, I think perhaps this talk should move to the rumours forum. :)

Good points, but really we can't predict mostly what Canon will replace, maybe they will give us some signs or maybe you people are so smart to predict what will be a new lens, but to my opinion, i don't always go for newer lenses because it is sharper and better quality, i have 24-70 and i am very happy with it, and i know my 70-200 f2.8IS is not better or sharper than f4IS but i NEED 2.8, and even if Canon will produce 2.8L IS mkII i will not sell mine, as this mkII will be so expensive and i don't have money to buy same better lens again and add little more budget, so i better buy another lens that i don't have it in range [mostly in primes], so i will go with 35L, 85L, 400, 500,.... over 70-200 f2.8IS mkII or 24-70 f2.8IS or 24-105 f2.8IS or whatever, now i am mostly looking to growing my prime line and i don't need to replace all or most of my zoom lenses with better newer versions, it is my only opinion, others are free to choose and go with whatever.

[sabesh]

<snip>
However, I think the 24L had more to improve over the 35L right?!
Nope, both were on par. My 24L-II now has better corner performance and is sharper wide open.

Here's an opinion of 24L vs 35L:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Compared its sibling, the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx), the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM Lens was a bit less sharp at comparable apertures until stopped down to f/5.6 or so. The 24mm L was slightly sharper in the corners. Colors again were similar. Distortion on the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM Lens is low. Proneness to flare is relatively low - starting with very little wide open and increasing to noticeable at narrow apertures.

[Cl!ckFoto]

Ugh, you guys are making me want to grab a copy of this bad boy. Although it is between the 24L and 35L. Not sure which to go for with the 1DII

[dajli]

^ i love the film-esque colours.
Very nice.
Ditto!
It is so subtle and delicate, very, very nicely done.
I would ask you for a tutorial, dajli, but I doubt you'd tell me :lol: (I wouldn't either!)

Thank you all very much, glad to hear you like them! Karizimatik, i can give you a short summary. :)
It's a bit different on each image, but basically it's done like this:

a curve that lightens everything, and deepens the blacks
the TRA action "pool party" with a ca 50-70% opacity
color balance with a mask that gives some areas a more blueish tint.
and then some increased and/or decreased saturations here and there.

thanks again!

[Misiek]

The 35L is such an impressive lens on a FF body that it probably won't get any replacement. Imo lenses that should be "done" are:

- 50 1.4 (soft wide open
- some kind of 35 2.0 with USM

[Tareq]

The 35L is such an impressive lens on a FF body that it probably won't get any replacement. Imo lenses that should be "done" are:

- 50 1.4 (soft wide open)
- some kind of 35 2.0 with USM

- Done with 50 f1.2L
- Maybe, i prefer to go with 35 1.4 but it will be a cheaper option for whom need.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Nope, both were on par. My 24L-II now has better corner performance and is sharper wide open.

Here's an opinion of 24L vs 35L:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Compared its sibling, the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx), the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM Lens was a bit less sharp at comparable apertures until stopped down to f/5.6 or so. The 24mm L was slightly sharper in the corners. Colors again were similar. Distortion on the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM Lens is low. Proneness to flare is relatively low - starting with very little wide open and increasing to noticeable at narrow apertures.

I'll have to take your word on that. :)

The one test I've seen comparing the 24L to the 24L II, the 24L II killed the original one (sharpness wise). Especially in the corners. That's why I thought perhaps the 24L had more to fix. :)

Even the reviewer above said the 24 is less sharp than the 35L... but then says the corners in the 24 are sharper... ??? How does that work again?! :lol: Does the overall lack of sharpness in the 24L mean the corners are as good as the 35L or better?

I think I'll wait to see if the 35L is replaced.

[GeneMan88]

I think I'll wait to see if the 35L is replaced.

Why wait? Think of all of the great shots you'll get with it now! I've given up on the "latest & greatest" thinking. Canon suddenly makes a 35L II, does this mean the 35L I is "garbage"? The proof is in the pudding... look at all of the photos posted thus far, the 35L of now is a great lens. Why worry about how much more improvement there will be with a "35L MkII"? Just use and enjoy the lens... and worry less about what is unknown or just guesses/rumors. Just my penny... and a dull one at that.

[airfrogusmc]

I'll have to take your word on that. :)

The one test I've seen comparing the 24L to the 24L II, the 24L II killed the original one (sharpness wise). Especially in the corners. That's why I thought perhaps the 24L had more to fix. :)

Even the reviewer above said the 24 is less sharp than the 35L... but then says the corners in the 24 are sharper... ??? How does that work again?! :lol: Does the overall lack of sharpness in the 24L mean the corners are as good as the 35L or better?

I think I'll wait to see if the 35L is replaced.

Center sharpness on the 24L(original) is better than the 35L (center) but the 35L is better at the edges. I own both and this is my experience and they are both better than the zooms with those FLs.

[airfrogusmc]

Why wait? Think of all of the great shots you'll get with it now! I've given up on the "latest & greatest" thinking. Canon suddenly makes a 35L II, does this mean the 35L I is "garbage"? The proof is in the pudding... look at all of the photos posted thus far, the 35L of now is a great lens. Why worry about how much more improvement there will be with a "35L MkII"? Just use and enjoy the lens... and worry less about what is unknown or just guesses/rumors. Just my penny... and a dull one at that.

I agree it could be years of waiting and maybe then it wont get replaced.

[Tareq]

What is the problem if one lens is less sharpness in corners? i may understand if the sharpness in center is not that top notch, but in corners or edges, i rarely look at corners, even with crop the corners are gone and replaced with new corners sharper, so why many people would like to have 100% coverage frame is in full sharpness? Does it because they paid that much on lens so they expect it to have 100% sharpness on the full whole frame.
I am sure even 24L II or 35L II both can be again improved more, so why not you people wait until you can get 24L mk5 or 35L mk6 which both will be perfect in all aspects and performances and features, sure with that 35L mk6 you will get sharpness at f1.4 [or maybe it will be f1.0] as sharpness at f32, so why not wait longer or forever to have the ultimate lenses of the current lenses line.

[sabesh]

I'll have to take your word on that. :)

The one test I've seen comparing the 24L to the 24L II, the 24L II killed the original one (sharpness wise). Especially in the corners. That's why I thought perhaps the 24L had more to fix. :)

Even the reviewer above said the 24 is less sharp than the 35L... but then says the corners in the 24 are sharper... ??? How does that work again?! :lol: Does the overall lack of sharpness in the 24L mean the corners are as good as the 35L or better?

I think I'll wait to see if the 35L is replaced.
The reviewer meant that the 24L is less sharper in the centre than the 35L (not by much). He also states that the 24L is sharper than the 35L in the corners.

I can tell you that the 24L-II is a tad bit sharper than the 35L overall (I have both). That being said, does it really matter? Just get the FL you prefer. I just think that the 35L is due for an upgrade as the 24L just got upgraded (these two lenses are considered siblings and have very similar performance in their Mk.I versions). Not sure why we are even discussing "my hunch is better than your hunch" stuff here. Cheers.

What is the problem if one lens is less sharpness in corners? <snip>
Kinda matters to some people: Landscape shooters for one. Also to those who frame the subject to one side (rule of Thirds). Cheers.

Back to topic. Some more 35L pics (click on pics for access to EXIF info):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3454/3737939858_0449fb777e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737939858/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/3737171389_f9285d530d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737171389/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/3737969870_4172b32217_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/3737969870/)

[Tareq]

Kinda matters to some people: Landscape shooters for one. Also to those who frame the subject to one side (rule of Thirds). Cheers.

Back to topic. Some more 35L pics (click on pics for access to EXIF info):




Then they have to change their minds, i shoot landscapes a lot when possible and using 16-35L mk1, so i never thinking that i must replace it with 16-35L mk2 because it is sharper or go and buy 35L, just i am happy with 16-35L and even i never care if those corners are soft, also they should break those rule to avoid corners ;)

Nice shots anyway, but a bit noisy!

[sabesh]

Then they have to change their minds, i shoot landscapes a lot when possible and using 16-35L mk1, so i never thinking that i must replace it with 16-35L mk2 because it is sharper or go and buy 35L, just i am happy with 16-35L and even i never care if those corners are soft, also they should break those rule to avoid corners ;)

Nice shots anyway, but a bit noisy!
Good points!

Not noise: Film grain/effects added (Fujifilm Superia 100). Not a big fan of super clean digital images :) Thx.

[airfrogusmc]

My experience with both lenses is pretty consistant with this which show the center sharpness of the 24L is better than outstanding. According to thses test the 24L beats the 35L in center sharpness which is what I've also find with mine.
24L
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/152-canon-ef-24mm-f14-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1
35L
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/336-canon-ef-35mm-f14-test-report--review?start=1

[Stealthy Ninja]

Why wait? Think of all of the great shots you'll get with it now! I've given up on the "latest & greatest" thinking. Canon suddenly makes a 35L II, does this mean the 35L I is "garbage"? The proof is in the pudding... look at all of the photos posted thus far, the 35L of now is a great lens. Why worry about how much more improvement there will be with a "35L MkII"? Just use and enjoy the lens... and worry less about what is unknown or just guesses/rumors. Just my penny... and a dull one at that.

Well, in my case the waiting isn't because I want to. ;) The wife had "the money talk" last night... darn it. :lol: I can't afford the 35L now and by the time I save enough, the 35L II should be out I think. ;)

I agree it could be years of waiting and maybe then it wont get replaced.

I might not be able to afford it for a few years anyway. :lol:

The reviewer meant that the 24L is less sharper in the centre than the 35L (not by much). He also states that the 24L is sharper than the 35L in the corners.

Airfrog says the opposite... so I guess it depends on your copy.

I can tell you that the 24L-II is a tad bit sharper than the 35L overall (I have both). That being said, does it really matter? Just get the FL you prefer. I just think that the 35L is due for an upgrade as the 24L just got upgraded (these two lenses are considered siblings and have very similar performance in their Mk.I versions). Not sure why we are even discussing "my hunch is better than your hunch" stuff here. Cheers.


Yeah, who know's what will happen with Canon rumours and stuff. It's fun though (for me at least).

[airfrogusmc]

Airfrog says the opposite... so I guess it depends on your copy.


Check the charts on my previous post #2209. ;)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Yeah, the 24 is a bit sharper in the centre (above 1.4) but less sharp in the corners according to those charts.

But the Digital picture review said basically the opposite.

Compared its sibling, the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens, the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM Lens was a bit less sharp at comparable apertures until stopped down to f/5.6 or so. The 24mm L was slightly sharper in the corners.

This shows that visually the differences must be minor (not sure how the Digtial picture tests their lenses, but I didn't see any charts there, so maybe it's more "real world" testing over "science" testing). The charts on photozone show a difference (so you need to test it more scientifically to "see" the difference).

So it seems they are comparable. Since the 24L II seems to improve on the 24L, so it makes sense to update the 35L (however that doesn't mean that Canon are going to do what we think). :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah, the 24 is a bit sharper in the centre (above 1.4) but less sharp in the corners according to those charts.

But the Digital picture review said basically the opposite.



This shows that visually the differences must be minor (not sure how the Digtial picture tests their lenses, but I didn't see any charts there, so maybe it's more "real world" testing over "science" testing). The charts on photozone show a difference (so you need to test it more scientifically to "see" the difference).

So it seems they are comparable. Since the 24L II seems to improve on the 24L, so it makes sense to update the 35L (however that doesn't mean that Canon are going to do what we think). :lol:

My exprience is similar to what the photozone found. I have no plans to up grade to the 24LII and I doubt I would up grade to a 35LII if and when one becomes available.

[Stealthy Ninja]

My exprience is similar to what the photozone found. I have no plans to up grade to the 24LII and I doubt I would up grade to a 35LII if and when one becomes available.

Makes sense, it's not like the lenses are terrible. :)

[airfrogusmc]

Makes sense, it's not like the lenses are terrible. :)

Both are some of the best glass you can get in those focal lengths from anyone.

[sabesh]

Makes sense, it's not like the lenses are terrible. :)
LOL, quite true. We're picking nits here :D

[pianomav]

here's a sample from the 35L. Sort of candid shot...she was just standing next to the window and i took her picture.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3396748241_0d054d6207.jpg

[sabesh]

<snip>
Yeah, who know's what will happen with Canon rumours and stuff. It's fun though (for me at least).
True. Check this out:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/07/ef-35-f1-4l-discontinued/

Cheers,

Sabesh.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Saw that. :) Next rumour is that the 70-200 2.8L IS will be coming in September. :)

Maybe I was right and the 70-200 is first... or maybe they'll come at the same time.

If the 35L II, the 70-200 2.8L IS AND the 24-70 2.8L IS (or markII) come out in the same announcement, I think my head will explode with excitement, shock and wonder (wonder how I can afford them all). :lol:

[lz7j]

True. Check this out:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/07/ef-35-f1-4l-discontinued/

Cheers,

Sabesh.

Yep... me and Sabesh already put a downpayment on our 35L MK2's! ;)

[Misiek]

35 1.2? :)

[Tareq]

35 1.2? :)

The trinity primes [85, 50, 35], time for them to produce 85 1.4 and 35 1.8 and 35 1.2, if they should produce only one then definitely 35 1.2!

[airfrogusmc]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_0084.jpg

[sabesh]

Yep... me and Sabesh already put a downpayment on our 35L MK2's! ;)
LOL! I wish they announced it already ;)


<snip> If the 35L II, the 70-200 2.8L IS AND the 24-70 2.8L IS (or markII) come out in the same announcement, I think my head will explode with excitement, shock and wonder (wonder how I can afford them all).
LOL, I hear ya!

[alt4852]

if they keep the same spread as they did with the 24L-35L and 24L-24L II, the new 35L should be released this december..

..which is a pity because i want it now, and i think i'll purchase one this week as i'm in the market for a fast general purpose prime.

(unless that is, someone here can convince me to get the 50L instead.. which will be a tough sell since i really like the 35mm focal length. ;))

[Stealthy Ninja]

I agree, after much thinking and testing, I'm sold on the 35L as a good all purpose length over the 24L and the 50L. 50L is a little long for me (FF). 24 is a touch too wide. 35 is JUSSST right (as goldielocks once said).

[gwunwai]

http://jaswai.smugmug.com/photos/538465732_Z8JUm-L.jpg

http://jaswai.smugmug.com/photos/540503102_GzQJw-L.jpg

[*Knowledge*]

An impromptu shoot, nothing special 'cept it was taken with the 35L Mark I. :lol:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2494/3767620767_e20136b8c1_o.jpg

[Stealthy Ninja]

Arrgh, darn lenses. I was all set on (one day) getting the 35L. But today I went out and more often than not I was shooting at 28mm... making the 28 1.8 a fine choice (and much cheaper too).

Now I is totally confused. ???

[Tareq]

Arrgh, darn lenses. I was all set on (one day) getting the 35L. But today I went out and more often than not I was shooting at 28mm... making the 28 1.8 a fine choice (and much cheaper too).

Now I is totally confused. ???

Good Luck in your choices and decision. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

Arrgh, darn lenses. I was all set on (one day) getting the 35L. But today I went out and more often than not I was shooting at 28mm... making the 28 1.8 a fine choice (and much cheaper too).

Now I is totally confused. ???

Here they both are wide open
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=253&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Both at f/2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=253&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

[Stealthy Ninja]

Dang the 35L is sharper (IMHO) wide open at 1.4 than the 28 at 1.8.


F2 the difference is even more pronounced.

Mind consider yourself made up. :)

[DL.Photography]

At 3x the price, I would hope so :D

Dang the 35L is sharper (IMHO) wide open at 1.4 than the 28 at 1.8.


F2 the difference is even more pronounced.

Mind consider yourself made up. :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

At 3x the price, I would hope so :D

Yeah, you get what you pay for. :)

Could be an expensive year and a half. :shock:

[alt4852]

yea, i was really struggling over whether or not to order because i really do expect the 35L II to come out this december, but after mulling about it for a bit, i realized that it's replacement will probably be like the 24L II: out of stock in most places, and $1700 or so. the 35L could use a refit, but the current one is already really great and for roughly $1200, i think it's still worth it. i haven't seen many on the used market, but maybe i'll go that route and compete with stealthy for one if he's buying used. ;)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Well, I have a few other lenses I want to get first. But it's on my list (probably a mark II will be out by the time I can afford it anyway).

[airfrogusmc]

At 3x the price, I would hope so :D

Yep good glass has always been pricey and probably always will. I can't understand why someone spring 3 or maybe 8k on a body and try to go the cheap route when it comes to glass. I just don't get it. And some of Canons better Ls are a bargin if you compare them to say Leica M glass and two or three of them are in that league. I think the 35L is one. The 85L being another and the 200 2L for sure.

[airfrogusmc]

Well, I have a few other lenses I want to get first. But it's on my list (probably a mark II will be out by the time I can afford it anyway).

My advice is skip the others and go directly to the 35L.

[Stealthy Ninja]

My advice is skip the others and go directly to the 35L.

LOL... maybe I will. ;)

Gotta get me a 1200mm first though. :p :lol: ;)

[alt4852]

i'm just sad canon didn't make a FD 35L. i was thinking about upping my FD 50mm f/1.2 to the L version, but i'd prefer to get something wider and the FD 24L is a bit too wide for general use in my opinion. :(

[Stealthy Ninja]

I agree the 24 is a bit too wide generally. It makes you get too close and distorts faces etc.

35 forces you back a little and gives you better perspective (yet is wide enough for most things).

16mm is the best overall, but Canon don't make a 16mm prime. :lol: joking

[DL.Photography]

I agree the 24 is a bit too wide generally. It makes you get too close and distorts faces etc.

35 forces you back a little and gives you better perspective (yet is wide enough for most things).

16mm is the best overall, but Canon don't make a 16mm prime. :lol: joking

You can opt for the 14L II, but then again you may have to sell your car for it =D

[Stealthy Ninja]

No sorry, cannot take 14L MUST be 16L prime only. :p

I'd love a 14L but it's not really worth the cash for myself.

[Tareq]

35 f2, it is not sharp wide open but from that website i can see when stopping down above 4 then the sharpness is going with 35 f2 over 35L.
Also there is Sigma 30mm, isn't it good enough?
I will always go with L or non-L if there is no L version.

[Tareq]

No sorry, cannot take 14L MUST be 16L prime only. :p

I'd love a 14L but it's not really worth the cash for myself.

To be honest, i feel you try to find many excuses to have and own 35L, so you keep showing that you want it so badly but then you say you can't afford, then disappear and then come back when you own one, i want this lens so badly as well and i can really afford it, but in fact i have another choices more top on my list.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Tareq, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were being nice... so...

To be honest, i feel you try to find many excuses to have and own 35L, so you keep showing that you want it so badly but then you say you can't afford, then disappear and then come back when you own one, i want this lens so badly as well and i can really afford it, but in fact i have another choices more top on my list.

The quote you quoted said I didn't think the 14L (note, it's quite a different lens to the 35L) was worth the money for me (and it's not, because I only buy lenses I need, not heaps of lenses for no reason). Keeping with that theme. I always have to save for what I buy because, well... I'm not rich. ;)

"I can't afford it" = "I need to save for it", not "I'll die of starvation if I buy it". :lol:

Also, who said I want it so badly? I am trying to decide between the 28 1.8, 24L II and the 35L (as I don't have money to burn). I take it I'm allowed to post wherever I want while I make up my mind right?! :p

Despite being a highly trained ninja :rolleyes: I certainly won't be "disappearing" until I own one. :lol:

[Vacant Theory]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/3776919697_5def434e09_o.jpg

[Stealthy Ninja]

Is it just me or is that a touch over sharpened?

Nice photo though. :D

[Vacant Theory]

Is it just me or is that a touch over sharpened?

Nice photo though. :D

You are right, it is a tad over sharpened, did it on purpose 'cause this picture is ment for Facebook...and that's one ****ty site for pics...my signature looks blurry as f**** on facebook but the picture itself looks just sharp enough :)

THX btw

[GMCPhotographics]

I agree the 24 is a bit too wide generally. It makes you get too close and distorts faces etc.

35 forces you back a little and gives you better perspective (yet is wide enough for most things).

16mm is the best overall, but Canon don't make a 16mm prime. :lol: joking

A24mm lens is NOT a lens for a single person portait....but it is the perfect focal length for "people in their environment" or documentary photography, which is why the 24-70 lens is so loved by the press.