Why no love for the OG 35L

ed rader wrote in post #17930041
the 35L OG isn't sharp until F2. canon makes a 35 f2 with IS which is sharp wide open. in fact all the newer upper end primes are sharp wide open. the 35L OG had its day but times have changed and canon has again set the bar with the 35L II.

Yeah, I completely disagree with this as well. My copy I had a few years back was the sharpest lens I've had. I regret getting rid of it all of the time. 50mm fits my life better I guess.

I owned the lens. "tack sharp" was an expression used a lot years ago yet the lenses today are sharper so I guess it's a matter of interpretation. for me the lens was not usable wide open unless I had no choice. I will also say the sigma 35 is very sharp wide open, totally usable, but like you said it will never focus as accurately or consistently as even the 35L OG.

I also do not think 24-105 is tack sharp wide open, and I have owned several copies. tack sharp wide open to me is 24-70L II.

Everyone knows the recently released tacks are sharper than the old tacks...

A tack-sharp shot from a 35L mkI wide open at f/1.4 is something I'd have to see to believe. I can imagine it might be possible on a low-MP full-frame body like the 5D classic or 1Ds, but I'd be blown away if it could produce tack-sharp 1:1 crops on something like a 7DmkII. Anyone have an example?

"The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Lens is slightly soft at f/1.4, but useable in my opinion. There is a noticeable improvement by f/2.0 (quite sharp)."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I actually recently purchased both a Sigma Art 35/1.4 and Canon 35/1.4 Mk1.

At f/1.4, the Sigma is noticeably sharper than the Canon, even when previewing the photos on my 5D2's LCD screen.

I initially purchased the Sigma but noticed some AF inconsistencies, so I was going to return it. I picked up a used Canon 35 in the mean time.

But comparing them side by side today, looks like some of the shots that I missed on the Sigma, I also miss on the Canon. The Canon seems marginally more consistent in AF performance so far, but I'll need to test it more tomorrow.

I was worried that I wouldn't be able to tell which photos I took with which lens when I was comparing them on my laptop, but I soon realized that would not be a problem because you can easily identify which photos was taken by the Sigma because they were much much sharper.

The Canon also has noticeably more CA, but that's not too difficult to correct in post I guess.

Haven't compared their barrel distortion yet.

Sigma might have a touch less vignetting.

hey we don't need another captain obvious . the comment "tack sharp" was used yesterday referring the the 35L OG.

I rented the sigma. its a super sharp lens but keep your sigma dock handy lol!

I started with the 35L, superb lens, but when the Sigma 35 Art came out and was even better (less CA and a tad sharper) I sold it for the same price and had a totally new and better lens.
Also beacause it was very old and the Sigma came out, I expected that the value would drop.

I started with 35mm for conceptual modelshoots with also an impressive location in the picture, but I noticed models like more close-ups.
Then I bought the Sigma 50 1.4 Art which extremely sharp, had better bokeh and 50mm is more interesting for halfbody fashionshoots.

When I had to shoot a wedding (for once I think?) I sold my 35 Art for the Tamron 24-70 2.8VC.
This lens is great and almost as sharp as the 24-70 2.8L II for a fraction of the price with VC.

But i'm not so into standardzooms, sometimes I think selling it back for a 35 Art, even if I have the 50 Art which is close.
Now and then I shoot miss elections, so 24-70 + 70-200 is a great combo.

Sometimes I miss the 35L as i'm so used to fast primes with bokeh, maybe I'll sell my 24-70 again sometime...

I sold my 35L 2 years ago due to out of the hobby for a while, now i am back should I get the sigma 35A or stick with a used 35L? I dont think i will cough out that kind of cash for the mark2 yet.

I'd rather deal with "a little bit less sharp" than focus inconsistencies. I used to have a Sigma 35A and although it was as good as everyone says it is, I can't rely on focus accuracy and have missed critical shots because of it. Sold it for a 24/1.4L II for about the same price!

The 35L is sharp wide open but it's not as sharp as the newer nano coated canon lenses.

One thing I'd say about the Canon 35L is it simply works and you can eliminate the gut feeling of "will it misfocus??" That lens just lands the shots.

Put the file on print and no one will ever complain that it lacks the micro contrast of the newer 35Lmk2.

To be honest i think I'd rather own a consumer grade 35 f/2IS before buying a Sigma 35A. Why???? because for me 35mm isn't my go to prime and the high ISO capabilities of the new bodies can give you more than enough decent shutter speed in low light at f/2. f/2IS is a remarkable 35mm canon prime.