Considering the 35L...

...as a general purpose and walk around lens for my 5D2. I shoot landscapes, birds and other wildlife mostly but am interested in all genres. I am not a "fine art" photographer but aspire to be one someday.

I consider the lenses I have now to be a little too long or a little too wide. That's why I'm considering adding the 35L. Image quality and sharpness are my top priorities.

Any thoughts, opinions? Feel free to post pics with this combo or perhaps a different lens you prefer. Impress me!

Any reason not to buy a Sigma 35f/1.4? It is better in every way.

The 35L is ideal if you need wide apertures. If you are shooting landscape and wildlife, you may not get the bang for the buck, since you're paying a premium for 1.4. Why not use your 17-40 at 35mm? (please don't get me wrong...the 35L is a nice lens)

I'd say, try your 17-40 at 35mm for a few outings and see what you're missing, and if the 35L will fill the void. You could also consider a 50mm. It's a focal range you don't currently have covered and it comes in affordable varieties.

Agreed, why do you want the 35L? If large aperture is important, sure, but the 17-40 for general purposes, holds its own with the 35L.

And yes, the stigma is a decent alternative to the 35L, but it is certainly not " better in every way" than the 35L.

ETS wrote in post #15952987
...as a general purpose and walk around lens for my 5D2. I shoot landscapes, birds and other wildlife mostly but am interested in all genres. I am not a "fine art" photographer but aspire to be one someday.

I consider the lenses I have now to be a little too long or a little too wide. That's why I'm considering adding the 35L. Image quality and sharpness are my top priorities.

Any thoughts, opinions? Feel free to post pics with this combo or perhaps a different lens you prefer. Impress me!

If the 17-40 is too wide, how will the 35L help?

-F

Thanks for the responses!

O.K., I did consider the Sigma but 2 things bothered me.
1. the problems some here are having with it.
2. the minimum aperture is f16. I don't think I want that limitation.

As for the 17-40L, that is what I am using now as a walk around. I was wondering if the 35L would be better. ie sharper and less distortion. If not, I would like to know that. My wife complains that my 17-40 makes people look fat and it often does (even at 40mm though it's probably my fault). Would the 35L do the same?

Would you really require stopping down beyond f/16 anyway?

The 35L is a wonderful all-purpose lens with a wonderful perspective.

The Sigma is excellent, but I had some issues with mine. I may try it again one day though, the sharpess and all that is superior to the 35L and if I got one that didn't shift like crazy in artificial light, it would be a near perfect lens IMO.

Invertalon wrote in post #15953151
Would you really require stopping down beyond f/16 anyway?

The 35L is a wonderful all-purpose lens with a wonderful perspective.

The Sigma is excellent, but I had some issues with mine. I may try it again one day though, the sharpess and all that is superior to the 35L and if I got one that didn't shift like crazy in artificial light, it would be a near perfect lens IMO.

I will be using it for landscapes occasionally, so I would like to be able to stop down beyond f16 sometimes.

Can always use hyperfocal distances to maximise DOF...

With the 35L on a 5D2...

at f/8, focus at approx 17ft and everything from 8.44 to infinity is in focus.

at f/11, focus at 12ft and everything from 6ft to infinity is in focus.

at f/16, focus at 9ft and everything from 4.25ft to infinity is in focus.


Beyond f/8 or so diffraction will start creeping in.. Beyond f/16 it would get quite soft anyway.

ETS wrote in post #15952987
Image quality and sharpness are my top priorities.

The sigma 35 has better iq and sharpness.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15953036
And yes, the stigma is a decent alternative to the 35L, but it is certainly not " better in every way" than the 35L.

True. The 35l has faster af. But that is about all.

Great lens, arrived this Saturday morning was straight in the bag and out to a wedding..first impressions are what a nice focal length in a prime and so bright through the viewfinder, lovely for shooting into the sun too with little flare.

I'm happy I didn't go the Sigma route as the 35L is doing all I ask of it and didn't fancy my chances at the siggy focusing lottery.

Also have a 17-40 that I really like but don't really use it much at 35mm, its all about 17mm for me..

Do you need 1.4? If you do then you need the 35L or s35.

Check out some of Dankata shots on the s35 in this section https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=124957​0&page=206

Canon 35L https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1121099

I own the 35mm f/1.4L and the 17-40mm f/4L.Both are excellent lenses which I wouldn't part with. I tried the Sigma 35mm. I didn't buy it.

kipliq wrote in post #15953337
Do you need 1.4? If you do then you need the 35L or s35.

Check out some of Dankata shots on the s35 in this section https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=124957​0&page=206

Canon 35L https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1121099

I don't specifically need 1.4 but bigger than f4 would be nice. I forgot to mention that part. And thanks for the links. Dankata does amazing work.

ETS wrote in post #15953779
I don't specifically need 1.4 but bigger than f4 would be nice

Try the 35 f2.0, some good stuff on that thread and cheap too..