Are you happy with your 35L?

okay here's what i think. there is some copy variation with both the 50 1.4 and the 35L and terms like "sharp, tack sharp and usable" are subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

everything i've seen and read here today leads me to believe that the link posted by Quad is pretty much on the money.

"The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L 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)."

ed rader

nicksan wrote in post #4820372
Well, the wife gave the green light, so looks like I am going. (By myself of course...wouldn't have it any other way)

There might be a chance that a MKIII and 100-400 will be on the ground, maybe a pair of sneakers...while I am being eaten by the "cat".

Bronx Zoo...Saturday morning...come and get it!

damn dude -- you have more to fear from your wife than you do a lion !

ed rader

I was also looking to get this lens. When I was in B&H over Christmas I ended up taking the plunge, on testing I found that my copy was not even close to being sharp till f2. I then went back and exchanged for another copy. Same results. Rather than going back for a third I went for my second choice lens the 50 1.2 and on testing found it sharper at 1.2 than the 35 at 1.4.

I'm sure there are good copies out there, just need the time to look for them (like with a lot of other lenses)

Ed, I think I agree with your assessment. It's NOT the sharpest lens at 1.4. I'm not sure why it's considered one of Canons best lenses. Clearly there are sharper models(135, 300 f/2.8...), especially wide open.

That said, I never noticed mine wasn't anything special wide open. Thats because when I'm shooting below f/2.0 the lighting usually sucks. So, I'm also shooting at a detail destroying ISO1600 or higher. The colors and contrast are better than my 50 1.4, so I consider it a much better lens.

Stop pixel peeping and look at the overall image quality!!!!

No Ed, took both with the 5D, doesn't really matter though, everyone has their prefrences.

thatkatmat, thank you for your postings.
It really helped me decide though I have not decided yet.

I guess IQ difference is minimum. What matters is which focal length I like better. hmmm

I don't hesitate to use this lens wide open, but it's best at 1.8 - 2.2. That being said, there is more to a lens than sharpness. My 35L produces better color than any of my lenses. The AF and build are both fantastic as well.

JC4 wrote in post #4821915
Ed, I think I agree with your assessment. It's NOT the sharpest lens at 1.4. I'm not sure why it's considered one of Canons best lenses. Clearly there are sharper models(135, 300 f/2.8...), especially wide open.

That said, I never noticed mine wasn't anything special wide open. Thats because when I'm shooting below f/2.0 the lighting usually sucks. So, I'm also shooting at a detail destroying ISO1600 or higher. The colors and contrast are better than my 50 1.4, so I consider it a much better lens.

Stop pixel peeping and look at the overall image quality!!!!

i hear you. i'm not really a pixel peeper....and on the rare occasion i do PP i don't think i do it correctly .

i think it's difficult to make short lenses sharp wide open and easier with the longer lens.

i just wanted to make sure that my lens is performing like it should and like i said earlier the only thing i really questioned was its performance wide open.

so thank you everyone for your help !

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4822872
...i think it's difficult to make short lenses sharp wide open and easier with the longer lens...

Bingo!

Couldn't live without my 35 1.4L. Wide angle lenses especially fast wide angle lenses because of the nature of the glass are much more difficult to make as sharp as say a telephoto like 135L which is one of the sharpest of Canons lenses.

When you shoot allot with a telephoto lens its very hard to retrain your eye to see in the W/A world. It can be a tough transition. Instead of taking photos at the zoo on animals which is what a telephoto will do very well with a W/A turn the lens like Winogrand did on the folks looking at the animals. It can just take time to start seeing wide angle shots. Where a telephoto flattens perspective a W/A spreads it so now you have other things to be aware of when composing shots.

A great way to train you vision is to put the 35L on your 5D and just go out and shoot with just that lens. Leave all your other glass at home. You will learn to see differently. To see what will make good images with that particular focal. Its a very different way of seeing.


Looks like Ed beat me to the punch about its harder to design and make sharp fast wide angle glass ...

dang it! Now I have to buy another lens.

amyandmark3 wrote in post #4819353
For you guys with better trained eyes than mine, are the examples posted by thatkatmat pretty similar in IQ in regards to 35L vs. 50 1.4? And are they representative to what you'd experience in other every day photography? They honestly look pretty similar to me and seem that you could make them almost identical with some PP, but I'd like to hear the feedback of more experienced people.

Reason: I'm considering buying a 35L (or 24L) for my 40D and would like to think that the 35L/24L would perform SIGNIFICANTLY better than a lens that costs $800'ish less (B/H pricing).

I'm in no way a pro pixel peeper but I can see a clear difference between those sample shots of the 50f/1.4 and the 35f/1.4L wide open!
Geez! I have GOT to get this lens!

ChucklesKY wrote in post #4825120
I'm in no way a pro pixel peeper but I can see a clear difference between those sample shots of the 50f/1.4 and the 35f/1.4L wide open!
Geez! I have GOT to get this lens!

chuckles,
I see a difference too, not as big of a difference as I expected though. I'd be interested to know if there was a bigger difference than is displayed by Mat's pics of his plant in more common everyday photos one might take of family around the house, scenery outside, etc... particularly on a crop camera.

If you buy one soon, make sure to post some pics as I'm always very interested to see lots of examples taken with a 40D and any lens I'm considering buying... thanks.

amyandmark3 wrote in post #4825862
chuckles,
I see a difference too, not as big of a difference as I expected though. I just wanted to know if there was a bigger difference than is displayed by Mat's pics of his plant in more common everyday photos one might take of family around the house, scenery outside, etc... particularly on a crop camera.

If you buy one soon, make sure to post some pics as I'm always very interested to see lots of examples taken with a 40D and any lens I'm considering buying... thanks.

Well, brother, thats exactly why I chose that shot and not a box or a chart or whatever else....Figured a plant on my kitchen table was a pretty good example of an everyday type of thing with indoor light and such....LOL

thatkatmat wrote in post #4825899
Well, brother, thats exactly why I chose that shot and not a box or a chart or whatever else....Figured a plant on my kitchen table was a pretty good example of an everyday type of thing with indoor light and such....LOL

Mat,
I apologize, I was not knocking what you shot, I actually appreciate it very much that you took the time to do this test. To be honest, I didn't see the amount of difference between the 2 lenses that I would expect, which has made me a bit more cautious about buying the 35L since (to my eyes) it so narrowly outperforms a lens that costs $800 less in your test samples. I have looked through the 35L and 24L archives dozens of times and see some extremely nice pictures, particularly portraits by professional photogs. (something I won't need from this lens), I'm just looking for more real world examples LIKE YOURS to try and come to a conclusion as to whether or not it's worth the huge chunk of change FOR ME to buy a 35L or 24L. Again, I really appreciate your efforts as it is examples like yours that help people like me make decisions like this. Thanks again for your effort!