Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM, Continued

I have no idea why.

aaronwoodallphoto wrote in post #15806071
from an old set, but still like this one.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …nwoodallphoto/8​632702551/
Faith by WudChuK, on Flickr

Love the dark, rich tones, here. Beautiful contrast.

aaronwoodallphoto wrote in post #15810051

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …nwoodallphoto/8​635569505/
Sunset by WudChuK, on Flickr

WOW! EYES - love it!!!

Dizzy321 wrote in post #15802024
Thanks so much!!!!

Love this shot! Super clean man!

reza187 wrote in post #13467407
One from Halloween parade in Harajuku, Tokyo

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/reza_arya/64244​60729/
What doesn't kill me, makes me smaller - Mario - by reza_arya, on Flickr

i like the PP on this pic.. how did you it..

vfxdrummer wrote in post #15810198
Love the dark, rich tones, here. Beautiful contrast.

thanks!

OoF wrote in post #15810137

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/whoisnd/8635607​661/
Holi - 2013 by whoisnd, on Flickr

Whoa, This looks dangerous! Anyone ever get trampled in these crowds?

very cool indeed.
pink zombie party!

Thanks.

None so far... but it was indeed pretty dangerous... especially considering that there were kids as well in the crowd

PhotoManic wrote in post #15805663
I'm considering buying a 35 f/1.4L, would there be much bebifit since I already have 35mm on my 24-70 f/2.8 II. Is that extra DOF worth the plunge? Most of the photos that I like in this thread were shot wider than f/2.8 it seems. What do you guys think?

I have both, and will keep both of them. I find the 35L has a different quality to the photos that creates a nice variety, and I like being forced to shoot at a specific FL with the prime.

I find it just depends on how much flexibility I'll have for space. If I need more flexibility, I'd grab the 24-70. If I can move, and the setting is right, 35L first.

At the National Cherry Blossom Festival:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/donhomer/863245​9619/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/donhomer/863355​6636/

testing my 35L

430ex ii manual mode on-camera flash bounced to the wall.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Hey guys, so I'm going to buy a 35mm lens and I've been looking at the images in this 35L thread and also the images in the Sigma 35mm 1.4 thread. I was wondering what you 35L owners thought of the Sigma 35mm images in that thread? I don't know if it's just my eyes, but the Sigma images seem almost too sharp looking, and it's consistent across all of the images in the thread. It could just be so I thought I'd ask others opinion. The 35L images seem to look more natural and have depth to them. The Sigma 35mm images look flat in comparison, almost unnatural, I seem to really notice it on the images that were converted to black/white. The Sigma is sharp, I will say that, but could they be too sharp and rather lifeless?