Canon 35mm f/1.4L?

I have had my eye on the Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens for several years, and now that the price has gone down significantly I'm thinking about buying it, as the new version is too expensive for me. I am not a professional, but I take a lot of pictures of my large family, and mostly want to use this lens for newborn and children photos. I would also use it for food shots for my recipe blog, and probably some outdoors shots at the beach or while on hikes.

I shoot with a 7D and use my 17-55mm f/2.8 most of the time. I also have a 135 f/2L (used for hockey but has not been used in a while) and a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (hardly gets used so I am thinking about selling, but some of my favorite beach shots have been taken with it).

Can anyone offer some advice on whether the 35mm would be a good addition for me? And any advice on starting to use a prime after primarily using a zoom for several years? If I do get this lens, I would expect to use it the most and use the 17-55 when needed.

I am also debating whether or not to get a filter and what kind.

Thank you!

Heya,

I wouldn't get a 35L (mkI) for APS-C. It's still expensive and it's an ancient, albeit good lens. But there are simply a lot of alternatives now. If your budget allows for a used 35L mkI, then your budget allows for a Sigma 35A, Sigma 30A, Canon 35 F2 IS & Tamron 35 F1.8 VC.

Whether a 35mm prime would be good for you is dependent on what you want from it and your goals. 35mm on APS-C is not wide. Put your 17-55 on your camera and set it to 35mm. Leave it there. Shoot with it only at 35mm. See if that's what you like. Then try 30mm, 28mm, 24mm. See what works best for what you're wanting. Then select a lens that is more tuned to that.

What do you need a filter for? If you don't even know what kind of filter you need, then you don't need a filter at all. Keep the lens hood on.

Very best,

Once upon a time, the 35L was a part of the 'holy trinity' and was so esteemed it was, well, holy. Now it isn't good enough to show its face around here at POTN I guess.

I once owned a 35L when I shot with a 1.6X camera (about 7-8 years ago). I don't have one now because I prefer 24mm and 50mm on FF, so that focal length doesn't appeal to me.

I'm kind of two minds about it in your case I guess. The lens itself is pretty good. Don't listen too much to the folks that will speak badly of it. Just as the latest and greatest 70-200/2.8 IS II or the new 100-400L II are wonderful, they don't make the previous versions horrible. And the 35L is still an excellent lens, especially for the speed. What you get is a good, sharp 35mm with Canon's fast and accurate ring-USM. You can get the new 35L II for a lot more money, or you can get the slower 35/2 IS, or you can get the Sigma. I buy Sigma lenses when they offer something Canon flat out doesn't have, but because their AF is not as dependable I avoid them otherwise.

Now for your case.....the 35L is going to behave for you on 1.6X about how a 50/2 USM would work out for a person using a FF camera. I guess that is why I (and Malveaux) kind of hesitate on the recommendation, because it's a lot of money for what is effectively a slower 50mm on FF. I'm not saying "don't get fast primes on 1.6X" exactly, but once you have a few of them you might have been better off with a larger format sensor instead.

If you do pick it up, I would not expect you to turn it into your main lens, at least not once the new lens smell wears off. The 17-55 is a lot more versatile and I think it will be your main lens while the 35L is something you would reach for when you need the speed. At that, the lens will perform well, giving sharpness at the plane of focus while really controlling the DOF for you.

I wouldn't buy the old 35L at any price. If someone offered me one for $500 brand new, I'd still buy the 35mm f/2 IS, which is a beauty of a lens and optically just as good as anything on the market (also much smaller and lighter than f/1.4 options). As far as advice for using primes, as an unabashed prime zealot my only advice would be to ditch all your zooms

Oh, and filters are useless unless you need them to complete weather sealing when you know you're going to be in a sandstorm. The front element of a lens is much, much harder than any filter.

Do you absolutely need f1.4?
If not, buy the 35 f2 IS. You'll be really happy.

Thank you, that was very helpful. I realized that the recommendation to get this lens was given to me before I owned the 17-55, so you are right, I may not end up using it as much as I think.

i just picked ip a 35mm f1.4L for a wicked price..first day out the lens focus is awesome, way nicer than sigma. might not be the sharpest of the 35mm but the pictures are great, love the colour and dof! One thing good about Canon L is if i decide to sell i wont lose much, sigma and tamron have very very bad resale value.

I also have the 17-55 f2.8 is but wanted a prime for indoors

Thank you, yes I also want the 35mm for indoors. Sometimes my 17-55 isn't great in low light with kids. Such a tough decision!

lilitalia wrote in post #17801503
Thank you, yes I also want the 35mm for indoors. Sometimes my 17-55 isn't great in low light with kids. Such a tough decision!

You don't list a flash unit in your signature, but if you don't have one then getting a flash (and a set of color gels) that you can bounce will do a lot more for your indoor photography than a fast prime.

Couple a bounced flash unit and a fast zoom (like your 17-55) while learning how to blend ambient and flash light sources can open up the ability to make excellent photos almost anywhere. And then you are not stuck with super shallow DOF all the time.

To me, a super fast prime like the 35L should be considered as a tool to provide very thin DOF when you want it. When you use it as a tool to solve low light levels, then you get very thin DOF whether you want it or not. In other words, it isn't really a solution for not knowing how to use flash well.

lilitalia wrote in post #17801503
Thank you, yes I also want the 35mm for indoors. Sometimes my 17-55 isn't great in low light with kids. Such a tough decision!

In low light, indoors, flash is the better answer. A fast prime gets you a little more light for the same settings, but really you will still be at higher ISO even with a faster prime, and it will still be difficult to focus accurately and quickly in truly low light like in a dark house. I used to do just fast primes inside at high ISO. I can shoot ISO 3200, 6400, 12800 no problem and get clean images. But frankly, flash and lighting is a far better tool for this job, and when I look back at snap shots of the kid around the house in poor light, I definitely appreciate my snaps that had lighting far more than my ones at ISO 12,800 and super wide aperture (though some are still quite nice).

I often shoot with manual focus indoors in low light, it's more accurate for me (plus I use a lot of manual glass). But I also use AF. AF fails if there just isn't enough light. So I bring the light. Or I turn on lights, and then stop them out with camera settings and expose the subject with lighting/flash.

Flash in general, when well used, is a lot more useful inside and makes typical in-door snap shots of family, friends, whatever, much nicer, than simply using a fast prime and high ISO.

Here's how spontaneous snap shots go in my house with cheap old gear, but specifically, using flash (note, not using flash directly, usually bounced off a wall or ceilling, or off camera and behind a small modifier on a stand... I keep them in my house in rooms for this purpose, I don't care how that looks because I like my "snap shots" later!).

Example, with a cheap 58mm F2 manual lens with a little fill flash in a dark house, against a back lit far window (flash was off camera, above and behind an umbrella on a stand):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Bd3x​hd

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zNL7​kG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/voVm​xb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rbDs​cb

I don't see why the original 35L would be bad all of a sudden, I did think it was a bit soft wide open but useable. Considering that, if I was buying a 35 today I too would probably go with the 2.0 IS.

You may want to also consider a 24LII. The used price seems to be dropping and its an outstanding lens if you think you may prefer a bit wider. Its very sharp, even wide open.

I own the original 35L and bought it used, it may not be as sharp as the 35L II but I can overcome that with a little help from CaptureOne, Photoshop and a little commonsense. If I were only shooting the kids and landscapes I would probably buy a used 35/2 IS and save for a FF DSLR.

Thank you all for your responses. I decided to get it, and B&H will take returns until February 1st so that gives me a while to try it out and make sure it's what I want.

lilitalia wrote in post #17800767
I have had my eye on the Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens for several years, and now that the price has gone down significantly I'm thinking about buying it, as the new version is too expensive for me. I am not a professional, but I take a lot of pictures of my large family, and mostly want to use this lens for newborn and children photos. I would also use it for food shots for my recipe blog, and probably some outdoors shots at the beach or while on hikes.

I shoot with a 7D and use my 17-55mm f/2.8 most of the time. I also have a 135 f/2L (used for hockey but has not been used in a while) and a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (hardly gets used so I am thinking about selling, but some of my favorite beach shots have been taken with it).

Can anyone offer some advice on whether the 35mm would be a good addition for me? And any advice on starting to use a prime after primarily using a zoom for several years? If I do get this lens, I would expect to use it the most and use the 17-55 when needed.

I am also debating whether or not to get a filter and what kind.

Thank you!

Consider getting the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM instead. Its sharper and has less chromatic aberration than the 35L f/1.4. Its also much less expensive and much lighter in weight. The 35mm L is long in the tooth. Unless you absolutely need the shallow depth of field of f/1.4, the 35mm f/2 IS with the addition of image stabilization may be a better option for you. Another alternative in the same price range of the 35mm f/2 IS is the new Tamron 35 F1.8 VC .