Quality of 35mm f2 v f1.4L

[I Simonius]

I'm still agonising over whether to get the 1.4 35mm, but can I justify the amount it costs?

I have seen the ratings on Fred Miranda and on Photozone.de and cannot decide.

I don't need 1.4, I don't REALLY need the faster focus, not the £700 extra need it.

So that only leaves the image quality. The reviews are inconclusive on this, yes the 1.4 is warmer (so what?), but what else differentiates it?

The problem with the reviews is that most haven't tried both, they have one and are satisfied with it

It's the comparison I need - any one had both?

[drisley]

Apparently the 35/2 is very close to the L in image quality.
The only major drawback image quality wise is it's bokeh due to it's 5 aperture blades (like the 50/1.8II) although most won't notice.
The only reason I didnt buy the 35/2 was because of all the descriptions of the horrible noise it's AF makes.
To make your decision easier, the 35/1.4 can't be found anywhere new.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx

[lkorell]

Even though most of the stores list the 35 1.4 as out of stock, they can be ordered and received within a few days.

Just made it a hard choice again, sorry. :cool:


Lou

[Tom W]

The 35/1.4 will give you an advantage at very wide apertures (plus the 1.4, obviously), but that image advantage diminishes as you stop down. The solid build and smooth operation are the other advantages that the L lens gives you.

[ducdubbq]

think of it this way. you can get the 35/1.8 AND something else or THREE something elses for the same price as the 35/1.4. the way you wrote it didn't sound like you wanted to spend the extra money. then you shouldn't. if you won't feel good about the purchase......yada. yada. yada.

if you wanted the USM, isn't there a 28/1.8 thats USM quiet??

[I Simonius]

Apparently the 35/2 is very close to the L in image quality.
The only major drawback image quality wise is it's bokeh due to it's 5 aperture blades (like the 50/1.8II) although most won't notice.
The only reason I didnt buy the 35/2 was because of all the descriptions of the horrible noise it's AF makes.
To make your decision easier, the 35/1.4 can't be found anywhere new.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx

As I'd never even considered bokeh before I read about it on this site - I doubt it justify's the extra cost for me, also as you say, it can't be found anywhere - well actually I do know ONE supplier who claims to have it in stock (last week) but I ain't tellin'!

Th eonly thing that would convince me it was worth the extra dosh was if it reallly was noticably better in resolving power, contrast etc

As said before faster f stop and quiet autofocus aren't enough.

Mind you, if thjerer are no 1.4s to be found it may mean that Canon have recognised the demand for a 'standard' FL prime on the 1.6s and be redesigning it - who knows?

[I Simonius]

Even though most of the stores list the 35 1.4 as out of stock, they can be ordered and received within a few days.

Just made it a hard choice again, sorry. :cool:


Lou

Thanks Lou :evil:

[I Simonius]

think of it this way. you can get the 35/1.8 AND something else or THREE something elses for the same price as the 35/1.4. the way you wrote it didn't sound like you wanted to spend the extra money. then you shouldn't. if you won't feel good about the purchase......yada. yada. yada.

if you wanted the USM, isn't there a 28/1.8 thats USM quiet??

I don't mind spending the dosh IF it will get me a lens that is that much better at what matters to me

I looked at the 28mm reviews and wasn't imprressed, but you're right of course. I have tried the 35mm f2, but the AF is archaic, let's be honest, you can hear the timbers creak when it moves. In its favour though are its SIZE (important to me for this FL) and possible its quality versus the 1.4. If it's virtually tthe same at identical appertures then that'll do - but is it? MTFs mean nothing to me, I need to see pics or get opinons from those who've used both.

Thing is, 21 years ago - I used to be a decent photographer and they didn't have L lenses at this FL then ( as far as I can remember), but having had a completely different career for the last 21 yrs (kids) - It seems it's all I can do now to hold the B****y camera steady :evil: :)

It's all new, how to expose for digital is very similar but there are important differences, things you can correct in PHSP which you had to get right oin film - where's the film gone- I was used to that :D but seriously I wouldn't want to go backto all that darkroom stuff - I hated it - what I liked was taking pics.

Now doing it for MY PLEASURE I want the best lens at my favourite FL but I am not going to pay OTT just for one stop extra I don't need, the fast lenses are always very overpriced unless you really need that extra speed _ I don't - I have the 50mm 1.4, I can get out of any tricky lighting situation wit that if I absolutely must

What I REALLY want and wonder if canon is designing is a f2 35mm lens for my 20D
WITH USM AF and excellent build quality, i.e. the 35mm 1.4 @ f2 (+hence without the huge size + price tag)

(i.e.standard prime for DSLR but which WILL fit full frame - for when the30 or 40D with full frame comes out:-) no DSLR fit only PLEASE canon - I won't buy it!)

[drisley]

Even though most of the stores list the 35 1.4 as out of stock, they can be ordered and received within a few days.
Just made it a hard choice again, sorry. :cool:
Lou
Where? I've contacted both BH and Adorama, and neither have it.

[Tom W]

www.keh.com has it, but they've bumped the price up to $1269 USD.

[drisley]

Simon, I have the 28/1.8 and it's a very good lens. Built exactly like the 85/1.8, super fast and ultra quiet FTM USM.
I looked at the 35/2 but it was the loud AF that turned me off.
Also, the 28/1.8 has much nicer bokeh (7 blade aperture)
http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/28mmtest
I did some tests, and the 28/1.8 is about the same sharpness as the 50/1.8II.
Someday, however, I still wouldnt mind that 35/1.4L.

[I Simonius]

Simon, I have the 28/1.8 and it's a very good lens. Built exactly like the 85/1.8, super fast and ultra quiet FTM USM.
I looked at the 35/2 but it was the loud AF that turned me off.
Also, the 28/1.8 has much nicer bokeh (7 blade aperture)
http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/28mmtest
I did some tests, and the 28/1.8 is about the same sharpness as the 50/1.8II.
Someday, however, I still wouldnt mind that 35/1.4L.

I think all in all the thing that tips it for me is even if I forked out for all the 1.4 advantages, as small as they may be, and to hell with the money, I still don't like its size. So bulky for a 35mm 'discreet' lens when I don't need that extra stop

Thanks for the link to the 28mm shots but unless they were the full size I couldn't really tell anything from them

I think I need to get gpod at just using the lenses I have got (except I would rather practice wit a 35mm) The shots I am currently taking with the 50mm 1.4.look soft to me, and lacking in definition

I am blaming my focussing and shutter speeds and exposure at the moment, akthough this afternoons shots in bright sunlight have me baffled- they should have come out better _ I thought I had the hang of it - talk about back to schoool!! - although I did set myslef a bit of a challenge shooting very contrasty subjects, e.g. person wearing white sitting in sun under trees with shadows.. Also strong pink tinge to some.

But this is off topic - will post separately when I had uploaded them

[drisley]

Thanks for the link to the 28mm shots but unless they were the full size I couldn't really tell anything from them
Unless you are only going to print poster size images, web-size should give you a very good idea since it represents print size of about 5x7 to 8x10.
100% pixel peeping on a monitor is like mashing your face into a huge poster.
Here (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/28mm.jpg) is a much larger image that represents a very large print.
Basically I took some images this weekend and compared the 28mm to the 50/1.8II.
I found the 28mm to actually be sharper than the 50/1.8II at about f2.5 and above.
From f1.8 - f2.2 I found the 50/1.8II to be of similar sharpness, but the DOF is so shallow, it was rather hard to compare.
HERE IS A COMPARISON (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=73782)

[kraterz]

Get the 35/2 unless you shoot 85% of the time at f/1.4. You will save a wad of dough which you can use to go on a vacation and shoot some excellent pics.

[I Simonius]

Unless you are only going to print poster size images, web-size should give you a very good idea since it represents print size of about 5x7 to 8x10.
100% pixel peeping on a monitor is like mashing your face into a huge poster.
-snip- is a much larger image that represents a very large print.
Basically I took some images this weekend and compared the 28mm to the 50/1.8II.
I found the 28mm to actually be sharper than the 50/1.8II at about f2.5 and above.
From f1.8 - f2.2 I found the 50/1.8II to be of similar sharpness, but the DOF is so shallow, it was rather hard to compare.
]

WONDERFUL shot, of your lad? what a lovely face!

I DO expect to do large prints, 10*8 is something I would never print, I know that the 20D won't go as large as I'd like (A1) but by the time I can afford a camera that can I should have had enough experience to justify the cost. I am today making prints from my old negatives, large and enjoying the results.

Talking of 50mms here's a shot
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=73773
from my 50mm1.4

I took alot of shots this weekend and either the lens or my technique sucks
Most likely my technique, gotta work on it

[I Simonius]

Get the 35/2 unless you shoot 85% of the time at f/1.4. You will save a wad of dough which you can use to go on a vacation and shoot some excellent pics.

yeah - thinking of it - but might go for the 28 after drisley's posts ( Thanks for taking tha time drisley!)
I tried the f2 35 for a month and it was alright, but along way off great, cool and exposure varies at different f stops
but again, difficult to tell if my technique was at fault.

I am having trouble with either the focus or speed in my shots. Things just don't have the detail. The shots I took at the weekend were far from detailed, even sharpened, at the point of focus, and taken at 250th, so somethings wrong somewhere

[I Simonius]

Simon, I have the 28/1.8 and it's a very good lens. Built exactly like the 85/1.8, super fast and ultra quiet FTM USM.
I looked at the 35/2 but it was the loud AF that turned me off.
Also, the 28/1.8 has much nicer bokeh (7 blade aperture)
http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/28mmtest
I did some tests, and the 28/1.8 is about the same sharpness as the 50/1.8II.
Someday, however, I still wouldnt mind that 35/1.4L.

Thanks for this the 28 1.8 has gone up in my estimation now!
Have you tried the 28 2.8? It is sharper according to photodo but doesn't have the USM though does it?

[drisley]

I haven't tried either the 35/2 or the 28/2.8.
I wish I had so I could hear the noise of the AF. That is what bugged me the most, wondering JUST how loud they were since people seemed to complain so much about that. I find the 50/1.8II about the upper tolerable limit for noise. I've heard many good things about both those lenses when it comes to optics though, other than the 5 aperture blades sometimes not giving the nicest bokeh.
I've heard varying stories about the 28/2.8. Some say it's sharper than the 28/1.8, but others say they are about the same from F2.8 up. For me it was the build and USM that made me get the 28/1.8.
One thing many people discover, including me. When using a wider angle lens, you wont get the same apparent "sharpness" and "detail" when taking shots as you would with telephoto because of the type of photo. Take a wide picture of a room will see apparently less sharp and impressive compared to a nice closeup of somebody with beautiful out of focus backdrop. The out of focus backdrop will often give telephoto images much more punch, and the appearance of sharpness that may seem lacking from a wider angle picture.
In my above comparison images taken with the 28 and 50mm lenses, although the crop looks sharper on the 28mm, when you look at the entire image the 50mm image immediately gives the apperance of being "sharper" because it has a shallower depth of field and a much more blurred background. However, as I found out, that isn't actually the case.

[I Simonius]

I haven't tried either the 35/2 or the 28/2.8.<snip>
In my above comparison images taken with the 28 and 50mm lenses, although the crop looks sharper on the 28mm, when you look at the entire image the 50mm image immediately gives the apperance of being "sharper" because it has a shallower depth of field and a much more blurred background. However, as I found out, that isn't actually the case.

Sharpness/resolution is a big issue for me at the moment
I have just been taking shots all afternoon with th express intent of finding out how much resolving power my 20D+50mm lens set up has.

I still think there's something amiss

I have taken the same shots at 250 or 500 and one is crisp ad the other is not. Tried it many times. Is it normal that tthjer lens has movement in the barrel? (I guess it needs to be frre to AF fast. The only way to do this definitively is to stickit on a tripod (boring!). Still I have to know whether it's me or the kit.

That said I think one cannot underestimate the importance of the best focussing technology as witrh a large aperture tight DOF this wiill make all the difference. No point in buying a sharp lens if it only takes sharp pics at 5.6 and you have to keep the iso high to attain decent crsipness but lose it in noise

[lkorell]

Where? I've contacted both BH and Adorama, and neither have it.



I have asked around and if you order you probably have a 3-4 week waiting period, but that's not too bad if you have the time to wait. I buy locally on that kind of stuff and generally don't wait more than 2 weeks.


Lou

[DocFrankenstein]

I have seen a review somewhere, comparing the 35/2 and the L

There is a HUGE difference in terms of quality.

Advantages of L are numerous:

35/2 is very soft in the corners
it is sharper than 35/2 at 1.4
35/2 is full of chromatic aberrations which are still visible at f/4 and disappear at only at 5.6
I'd *guess* L focuses much more accurately than the f/2

35/2 was on my list, till I read that review

[DocFrankenstein]

Here it is... resolution on 35 L is way better

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

[drisley]

Wow, the 24-70 really shines in those tests.

[cdhender]

Wow, the 24-70 really shines in those tests.

I know right. That review convinced me more than anything to get a 24-70L. Although that 35L does sound like a nice piece of glass. If only it was like, 800 bucks cheaper....

[karusel]

I just bought one (don't have it yet) and I wasn't thinking in terms of 35 2.0 vs. 35 1.4, but more like 35 1.4 or no 35 at all, so hey...

Not sure where I read this, but there was a guy who sold the 2.0 and got the L, that he was totally annoyed by the 2.0 focusing motor and the USM alone is worth the difference.

Not sure I share this guy's views (I've got a 50 1.8 II) but the 35L is the non plus ultra. You get that, you don't need to question yourself none, because you will know, you got the best tool for the job. And that's what it's all about.

[lkorell]

I checked on availability today of the 35 1.4 and it could take up to a month to get one in. But I would keep checking around because there are waiting lists in some shops and if somebody decides not to pick up theirs, it could be yours!

[I Simonius]

snip

Not sure I share this guy's views (I've got a 50 1.8 II) but the 35L is the non plus ultra. You get that, you don't need to question yourself none, because you will know, you got the best tool for the job. And that's what it's all about.

good point!

[drisley]

Personally, I never knew what the fuss was about when people complained of the noise of the non-usm focus motors. I thought the 50/1.8II was fast and not loud at all.
After using USM lenses almost exclusively for a year, when I now end up using my 50/1.8II I'm rather annoyed by the focus noise (I still find the speed ok). I guess it's all relative.