35mmf2 v 1.4L - who actually knows?

[I Simonius]

I have seen the very informative reviews on the 85 mm lenses 1.8 v.1.2L in which it is pretty much stated that unless you need the speed the f2 lens is actually a better performer

Does the same apply for the 35mm lenses?
i.e. unless you need the speed does the35mm f2 lens perform as wel as the 35mm 1.4?
(at similar apertures obviously)

I have read all the reviews I can find but none do this direct comparison, none are MTF rated (yeah I know!) and as I can't get the f1.4 just to test, I ask are there any out there who have owned both and can compare them for me?

thanks :)

[viknijjar]

i have the f2...i would trade my soul for a 1.4

[Bodog]

Photodo claims these rating are MTF based. There no direct comparison between the two, but the 1.4 rates a 4 and the 2 a 3.9. Awfully close in real world use. http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

[I Simonius]

i have the f2...i would trade my soul for a 1.4

yes but WHY?
The ACTUAL reasons - other than it's an 'L' lens :)

[I Simonius]

Photodo claims these rating are MTF based. There no direct comparison between the two, but the 1.4 rates a 4 and the 2 a 3.9. Awfully close in real world use. http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
Doesn't look worth the cost difference based on MTF alone but are there any real world users out there??

[Pekka]

35/2 is not very good wide open. It has very coarse focusing system. It is very noisy. It's a nice lens on some occasions.

L is not all about sharpness. When you compare 85/1.2L vs. 85/1.8 and say 1.8 version is "actually a better performer" because sharpness at f1.8 is about same is simply false. 85/1.2L has a manual focus ring which is best there is. It is sharp at 1.2 - and it HAS f1.2, f1.4 and f1.6. The sharpness does not go away on frame edges as it does with 1.8 version (See MTF curves). It balances very well with 1D series cameras. It is built like a tank.

[I Simonius]

35/2 is not very good wide open. It has very coarse focusing system. It is very noisy. It's a nice lens on some occasions.

L is not all about sharpness. When you compare 85/1.2L vs. 85/1.8 and say 1.8 version is "actually a better performer" because sharpness at f1.8 is about same is simply false. 85/1.2L has a manual focus ring which is best there is. It is sharp at 1.2 - and it HAS f1.2, f1.4 and f1.6. The sharpness does not go away on frame edges as it does with 1.8 version (See MTF curves). It balances very well with 1D series cameras. It is built like a tank.

I dig that, and have no probs coughing up the extra for that if that's what I want
My question really relates specifically to the 35mmf2 resolution etc versus the f1.4L IN PRACTICE
I've seen the MTF and as always with those things they are pretty inconclusive unless there's a huge disparity twixt the twain

The focusssing on the 35mm is crap. I have been playing with one for a week now. My concern is do I really want t pay LOADS o' money just for a decent USM on it?

I don't really need the extra speed, and am not bothered enough by the build quality alone to pay that much for it

That leaves me the question of whether it is a better performer optically within the same fstop range as the f2, at least enough to warrent the extra cost.

With the 85 mm the optical performance within the same fstops seems close enough to wheight the decision onto build quality and speed. Easy dcecision, as you know what you're paying for

With the 35mm I haven't got enough feedback,providing this optical information, to make a decision wheighted in this direction

:(

[schmoelzel]

35/2 is not very good wide open. It has very coarse focusing system. It is very noisy. It's a nice lens on some occasions.

L is not all about sharpness. When you compare 85/1.2L vs. 85/1.8 and say 1.8 version is "actually a better performer" because sharpness at f1.8 is about same is simply false. 85/1.2L has a manual focus ring which is best there is. It is sharp at 1.2 - and it HAS f1.2, f1.4 and f1.6. The sharpness does not go away on frame edges as it does with 1.8 version (See MTF curves). It balances very well with 1D series cameras. It is built like a tank.

I think Pekka has hit the nail on the head!!! With certain lenses, just the feel and confidence that they exude to the photographer make up for the high price. If you do this for a living, you want to be confident each time out that the camera and the lens will give you exactly what you want at any given moment. There are some really 'great' consumer class lenses out there but the L glass as that something extra that is hard to define (not to mention the top notch optics!). I was fairly sceptical myself at first but once I had my first L lense, I immediately felt more confident that the end result would be good.......didn't always happen but that's the fault of the operator and not the tool. We also have to remember that this is an art-form..............the camera and the lens are just the tools to help us translate what our eyes see at any given moment. I recently purchased a 1D and I can say that while it may not make my picture taking better, it makes me want to go shoot a lot more, with confidence that I can achieve the output that I am striving for..........(man, it must be a holiday because I sound like a first year philosophy professor!!:lol:

[I Simonius]

Agreed, and when I first used my 70-200L it brought a smile of satisfaction for those reasons, however optical >>> is something one would hope for, I have no way of knowing how these specific lenses compare in thjis regard unless someone can give me the lowdown
:)

[Pekka]

See http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

[schmoelzel]

Sorry.......I guess I really didn't answer the question too well!! :) I think the only way to really find out if the L glass is worth the price is to try it........I have the 85F1.8 and I like it a lot. But I have also read and viewed so many photos from the 85F1.2 that I am sure that I would like it even more..........same focal length but one is built for quality all-round (optics, build etc) For instance, I have tried the both the 50mm Canons (f1.8 Mark 1 and II). I own the cheaper one and while the optics are good, I hardly use it because it just feels cheap! I can't sustain any confidence in shooting because it is noisy and doesn't instill confidence in me that it will give me the shot I want (even though it usually performs well). The Mark I version is built much better and feels better. Optically I think they are of the same quality but this one gave me more 'feel'.....I wanted to use it and I did (when I had the chance). I think in regards to the 35mm lenses, the f1.4 is superior to the f2 in every way. Just as the 135F2 has a magic about it, so does the 35F1.4. Properly taken shots seem to 'pop' from the background with unique clarity and colour. (ok......I really must go and take some pictures instead of this verbal diarreah!!)

[Andy_T]

The only thing better in the 85/1.8 than in the 85/1.2 I've read about so far is the AF speed of the 85/1.8 (1.2 has to move a lot more glass).

Definitely important for indoor sports (one of the main application areas of the lens), but maybe not so for portraits.

Best regards,
Andy

[I Simonius]

cheers guys- I guess you're saying gget one and try it...
:-)

[edsarkiss]

the 28/1.8 USM is a nice lens, and won't break the bank. on a 1.6x camera, it's more "normal" than a 35.

[I Simonius]

the 28/1.8 USM is a nice lens, and won't break the bank. on a 1.6x camera, it's more "normal" than a 35.

That was my other consideration but the lens reviews online weren't that favouable

[I Simonius]

resurrecting a very very old thread but I was jus lookin and ..
well in case anyone still wonders

having now had both lenses I can categorically say that IRL there is a world of difference between the two 35mm lenses, the L gives much nicer colour was the first thing I noticed, the focussing is quiet (35f2 is horribly noisy IMO) and the general IQ is what you'd expect from an L lens

[airfrogusmc]

Here they both are at f/2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=122&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2

The 35L is as good at 1.4 as the 35 2 is at 2 but sharper and much less ca at 2.

[Jannie]

I looked at a lot of photos shot with the 35mm lenses before I decided to give up my 16-35 to get a 35L 1.4 and have been very pleased.

[gardengirl13]

I have used both, owned one. Personally since I don't have a lot of cash the 2.0 is a great workhorse, but sadly what I need it for the AF wasn't enough, even the 50 1.8 beat it! So I sold it to try the sigma. Big mistake! Now I just got a 28 1.8, I hope that suits my needs. I have rented a 35L and loved it! But the copy I bought seemed a bit off with focusing. Not nearly as bad as the sigma. It focused where it should just fine, but the CA and lighting stunk big time. In low light it was great and in great light it was great, but inbetween is did some weird haloing type thing. It worked ok for scenes but for a subject like a person you couldn't even see the details in the face. It was very strange (of course the copy I got was very obviously used then returned so the other person must have sent it back for the same reason.)

Now with money issues I couldn't try another copy so I went with the 28 instead. But if i'm not happy I'll be getting another copy of the L. I don't care if I go into debt for it.

[p360]

www.the-digital-picture.com wrote:

"The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens trails the far less expensive Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Lens in center sharpness by a very slight amount. However, the 35 L is far sharper in the corners even on a 1.6x FOVCF body. The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens has better contrast and saturation than the f/2 version."

[KPBara]

and the general IQ is what you'd expect from an L lens

I am happy with the 35/1.4 but just wondering, per your original question, if you find it as sharp as 35/2 at similar apertures.

I am confused by the digital picture's quote above, because their ISO chart comparison shows the opposite, that the 35/1.4 is actually sharper at f1.4 than the 35/2 at f2.

Gardengirl, I hope you like the 28/1.8. I found it to be quite nice, fast/accurate focusing, and sharp except for halation wide open. I splurged on the 35/1.4 after selling the 28, but if I had tested them side by side, I might have just kept the 28 because it was so compact and well built.

[twistedlim]

Skip the 28 1.8 and go with the sigma 30 1.4 if you are using a crop body. My 30 1.4 front focused but sigma fixed it and it is every bit as sharp (if not sharper) than the 35 1.4s I have used. More contrast wide open also. I also beg to differ with Pekka about the sharpness of the 35 2.0. I have used a couple and they were rock solid sharp wide open in the center. The edges need stopping down but I don't really buy prime at that focal length for its edges at 2.0 anyway. The biggest difference is having 1.4. One stop is a "HUGE" difference when shooting in available light. Twice as fast. You can't beat that. Bottom line from my experience is that the 35 2.0 and 35 1.4 are both very useable wide open, but you get the extra stop with the L ( and the quiet focus motor).

[I Simonius]

I am happy with the 35/1.4 but just wondering, per your original question, if you find it as sharp as 35/2 at similar apertures.

I am confused by the digital picture's quote above, because their ISO chart comparison shows the opposite, that the 35/1.4 is actually sharper at f1.4 than the 35/2 at f2.

Gardengirl, I hope you like the 28/1.8. I found it to be quite nice, fast/accurate focusing, and sharp except for halation wide open. I splurged on the 35/1.4 after selling the 28, but if I had tested them side by side, I might have just kept the 28 because it was so compact and well built.

I think the f2 is supposed to be a tiny bit sharper in the centre at about f5.6, but I couldn't see the difference IRL and as far as the rest of the IQ goes the overall impression from the f1.4 lens is an immediate and obviously better IQ, IMO

[Grimes]

I'll chime in here because I have tried the sigma 30mm and have the canon 35mm f/2.

My Sigma copy had horrible focusing issues, even after calibration. The Canon 35mm has noisy AF, but it is quick and does the job for me (no sports shooting).

In terms of sharpness, the Sigma was sharper, but the Canon is nothing to sneeze at either.

Since you are debating between the 35mm f/2 and the L version, I would look closely at your budget and what you REALLY need. I found the f/2 version is plenty for me, and if I ever need to "step up", I can just sell it.

Related issue: I really, really want a Corvette - but I drive a Camaro instead. Does it perform the same, or have the same feel as a vette? No, never. But will it get the job done, put a smile on my face, and be totally worth the price? Definitely!

[ed rader]

That was my other consideration but the lens reviews online weren't that favouable


i've owned both. the 35L is a better lens but not by much. basically the 28 @ f2.2 compares to the 35 @ f2.

plus the 28mm is much smaller, much cheaper and has very accurate ring USM focussing just like the 35L.

the 35L is a big lens too. in my bag i had a hard time telling it from the 17-40L.

ed rader

[pixel_junkie]

i've owned both. the 35L is a better lens but not by much. basically the 28 @ f2.2 compares to the 35 @ f2.

plus the 28mm is much smaller, much cheaper and has very accurate ring USM focussing just like the 35L.

the 35L is a big lens too. in my bag i had a hard time telling it from the 17-40L.

ed rader

True ^ But there's a clear difference in color rendition. The 35L produces rich in color, contrast and saturation images. The 28 is more neutral, the colors are colder, more flat. It is difficult to make an image pop with the 28, maybe if you put some effort into it in PP ... The images from 35L often don't need much PP, they're just right. I also have owned both as well as a SIGMA 30 which has the color characteristics of the 35L but not the accurate and reliable AF. To me it is the best of both worlds - great colors, very very sharp but then also very accurate AF like the 28 and as a bonus a very high quality build and feel.

[airfrogusmc]

The 30 1.4 isn't close or in the same league.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=121&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=405&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&Camera=396

Here they both are wide open on 30Ds.

[madhatter04]

Try looking at the galleries/groups from the different lenses on Flickr. I find that these groups offer a much more varied and true "sample" of images taken with specific lenses rather than people posting pics taken with their alleged bad copies.

[gardengirl13]

Well the 28 went back. I bought it used and it had a crack in the plastic window. Well the crack was on the inside not the outside so I'm assuming it was dropped or something similar. The focus was horribly soft for a prime. Even stopped down to f/8 it was real soft. I may try a new one, or I may just pony up the money for the L again. The one I had the colors and everything about it was great, but the focus on it wasn't right.

I hate to say it I may also try the sigma again. Aside from the massive focusing issues with them they are a good lens for crops. I just worry that if sigma can't fix it if I get another bad copy then what? I can't sell a lens that sigma can't fix.

[amfoto1]

I'd also recommend the 28/1.8. It's a great "normal" lens on 1.6X crop sensor cameras.

Mine saw little use on full frame/film in the good/bad old days. It's just not my favorite focal length (I carried a 24mm and a fast 35mm in my film camera kits, no 28 or 50 usually.)

However, it gets lots of use now, on my 1.6X DSLRs.

It's nice and compact, quiet, fast and sharp. Even the lens hood is compact. I'd like to have the 35/1.4L if/when I'm shooting full frame DSLRs, but not sure I want to carry it around all the time.

I really, really wish Canon would come out with a 35/2 USM that's more the mid-grade built quality of the 28/1.8. That would be ideal and worth more to me than the current model.

[gardengirl13]

Yeah I've been saying that for years. If they'd make a 35 1.8 USM I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I'd even settle for them keeping f/2.

[airfrogusmc]

Here the 35L is at f2 and the 35 2.

The 35L is clearly sharper with less CA at 2 and about as sharp at 1.4 as the 35 2 is at 2 and the L is better at 1.6 and much better at 2.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=122&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2