EF 35mm f/1.4L and CA

So I'm furiously debating on picking up that 35mm f/1.4L I've had my eye on all year... Or maybe waiting for the new EF 50mm f/1.2L due in November. I have an FD 50mm f/1.2L and I know what this optical design can do. It's sweet. But a little long on a crop body, unfortunately.

I already have an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L which covers 35mm, both at f/2.8. The 24-70mm at 35mm as everybody knows, is better than the 16-35mm at the same focal length. The problem is, they're both at f/2.8.

I have an EF 35mm f/2.0 that I really adore. Problem is, the AF isn't quite all that and the build quality isn't up to my standards/abuse (I've fixed it twice, once for sand/grit in the AF and the second time after dropping-and-popping the AF/MF switch). Really, other than those issues I just love this lens; and thus the focal length. On a crop body it's excellent as a standard 50mm. One downside is it's f/2.0 - getting better over the zooms, but not enough.

I do not own any EF-S capable bodies, nor will I - most likely. Not an option, nor is the much-debated Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (QA/IQ issues notwithstanding).

I really want the 35mm f/1.4L because I LOVE night and natural light photography and already know that this focal length is ideal... The bright aperture is just the ticket. Therein lies the problem... The CA.

On most shots I've seen from this lens in low light or at night it does a very good job. But in some, especially those with highly defined, in-focus point light sources or specular highlights... The CA was just incredibly bad! Talk about a purple fringe, holy cow.

Everything about this lens is awesome. The only real downside, IMO, is the CA in certain cases. Those of you with this lens, what has your experience in this situation been? Can Photoshop adjust (reduce/eliminate) it enough with the built-in tools? Is it really that bad when everything's all said and done?

Discuss...

I just wanted to add that it seems like you need a pretty demanding scene (as described above) to really blow out the CA. Neon and dimmer, out of focus or not quite point light sources all seem to render fairly well. Street lights and headlights say - are where it really has problems.

If you shoot RAW, you can get rid of a lot of that before even converting. You can fix it additionally via PS plugins.

Personally I wouldn't let something that only occurs in certain situations shy me off of a lens I want/need. The 50mm f/1.4 isn't exactly too great with fringing at f/1.4 either but it's workable. When you need f/.4 you need f/1.4.

If you are happy with the 35 f/2........I'd pause before buying the f/1.4.
I'd also wait to see which way the 50 f/1.2 is swinging.

On an FF body I'd sooner get a 24 f/1.4 than the 35 f/1.4.
My copy of the former is a better lens than my copy of the latter.

BTE, if you say "pretty please" I might be induced to spend some time looking for an example of 35L CA.

That's the conclusion I'm coming to. It seems to be a relatively rare occurence under some demanding circumstances. Stopping down obviously helps some as well.

I've never needed to fiddle with the PS/RAW CA adjustments before so I'll have to play with that.

I just want to make sure that my primary purpose (night/low light) isn't affected too much... When it works, it works amazingly:

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/65135040
http://www.pbase.com/c​aveman_lee/image/61561​038
http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/31330209
http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/61054427

But when it's bad, it's bad...

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/51290170
http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/59485882
http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/52589656
http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/56875172

More often than not though, I'm finding it does a darn good job all things considered. And I think in the same situation, a lot of lenses might have issues.

You're right though - f/1.4 is f/1.4! When you need it, you need it.

Why not try the Sigma 30mm 1.4? Less CA than my other Canon primes, in fact I'd go so far as to say none at all.

Double Negative wrote in post #2003328
So I'm furiously debating on picking up that 35mm f/1.4L I've had my eye on all year...

Discuss...

quite a conundrum!

but yes the CA is bad, mind you the CA on the 50f1.4 can get pretty horrid so if that's anything to judge the forthcoming f1.2 by, then they'll be as bad as one another

CA can to some extent be fixed in ACR but to what extent and how successful I don't know. White shirts in bright sunlight is something I have learned to avoid!!!

Double Negative wrote in post #2003328
I do not own any EF-S capable bodies, nor will I - most likely. Not an option, nor is the much-debated Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (QA/IQ issues notwithstanding).

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2004272
Why not try the Sigma 30mm 1.4? Less CA than my other Canon primes, in fact I'd go so far as to say none at all.

That's why.

I asked "why"
Nevermind I probably don't want to know.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2004568
I asked "why"
Nevermind I probably don't want to know.

I answered "why"...because it won't work on his 1 series. The Sigma is only compatible with the crop bodies. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.

I thought someone had posted up that it works on FF???

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2004668
I thought someone had posted up that it works on FF???

If they did they're full of it. It would probably physically mount and function, but vignette heavily since the image circle is smaller than the sensor.

Here's William Castleman's review of the 35 mm f/1.4:

http://www.wlcastleman​.com/equip/reviews/35m​m/index.htm

I don't think that CA is much of a concern with this lens. It can and does present it around the periphery at wide apertures (visible with high-contrast boundaries), but it is considerably better than the 24/1.4 I had in that respect, and is cleaner than the 50/1.4 as well. It's also sharper over more of the field at f/1.4 than my 50 is at f/2.

I have found severe CA's to be very difficult to fix with the automatic tools in photoshop. I often end up using the sponge tool to desaturate the edges where the CA's occur, eliminating the purple. That actually works pretty well. But I don't think you should get too worked up about the CA's on that lens. It depends on your application though.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

I agree, the CA seems to show up in typically demanding scenes so I guess if you keep that in the back of your mind you can learn to avoid it (as much as possible). I played with the CA tools in CS2 and while they work, they're not necessarily a complete fix. In these cases I think many lenses with similar specs would have some issue.

The Castleman article is interesting indeed (I vaguely remember reading it a while ago). The general consensus is that this lens beats the f/2.0 version (which I already love) so that's all the proof I really need.

I may wait until the 50mm f/1.2L makes the rounds as it's only two months away, but that won't be easy. I just might cave in...

As for the Sigma, yeah - it's not compatible with either my D30 or the 1D2N. I don't plan on buying anything less than a 1D series in the future and that's a while away right now.