Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM

bajaiman wrote in post #9820867
Just got my 35L today... did quite a bit of test shots. When I shot wide open the percentage of getting the focus right where I wanted was about 40% ... When I stopped it down to F2 the hit percentage got better to about 90% ...

When the focus spot on the lens is very sharp wide open...its just too bad that its not very consistent at all...

Gonna send it to Canon for calibration soon ... if I've spent this much for a lens I wanted to be working perfectly wide open otherwise I could've get the 35mm F2 for about 1/5th of the price....

How does it's focus performance at 1.4 compare with your 85L's forcus performance at 1.2 or 1.4? That would be a better guage, I would think. The depth of field gets so shallow below 1.8 that I still have to concentrate on nailing a good contrast point to nail the focus that wide, on both my 35L and 50 at 1.4.

JH

woolbr8stl wrote in post #9818451
I found this guy at the St Patrick's Day parade in Dogtown, St Louis

5d2-35L-f2- ISO 250- 1/800 & 1/1600

I love bulldogs. Did you actually find him? Or is he your's?

Not sure how I felt about the umbrella in the reflection, but the overall feel is workin' for me:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

icebat wrote in post #9821838
I love bulldogs. Did you actually find him? Or is he your's?

He's not mine. He was at the St Patrick's Day parade in St Louis on Wed

sunking39 wrote in post #9822552
That's better, isn't it?

I dont know what I did there. I did remove the protection filter (German B W worth 100$). Could that be the reason my images with this lens aren't always sharp? I'm not sure, because the other lens have the same filter too and they dont suffer from that. And also, this was the only good photo in this last test, the other 10 or so were also extremely soft. Even more than others. The other thing is that I used 100 ISO.

BTW: Great photo Migs! I also dont like the umbrella but if you hadnt toldme, im not sure i would have noticed (maybe yes). But besides that, its great.

Its probably a combination of both the filter and ISO. I have a B+W filter as well and I take it off every now and then because it was giving me inconsistent results. As for ISO, generally the lower ISO photo will produce a better result than a higher ISO photo given that the exposures are correct.

First off, that's a horrible image to judge focus on. I also use a B+W filter and never noticed a difference. I've literally setup shots with/without (20 seconds apart), and seriously cannot see a difference at 100% crop. But, I guess it depends on the situation. I dunno. Mine always stays on and I feel my photos are pretty sharp.

Also, it appears that the shot posted above is shot at ISO 100, which rules out high ISO issues.

What camera you using again, Sunking?

Grimlock wrote in post #9824484
First off, that's a horrible image to judge focus on. I also use a B+W filter and never noticed a difference. I've literally setup shots with/without (20 seconds apart), and seriously cannot see a difference at 100% crop. But, I guess it depends on the situation. I dunno. Mine always stays on and I feel my photos are pretty sharp.

Also, it appears that the shot posted above is shot at ISO 100, which rules out high ISO issues.

What camera you using again, Sunking?

Just so we're clear, Sunking was asking us if his picture from the post above is sharper than the one he posted up a day or so ago.

The picture above is ISO 100 with the filter off.

The picture from a few pages back is ISO 1600 with filter on.

I'm just stating that, yes, the picture looks better above than the one he posted a day ago. And its partly because of the lower ISO and "maybe" because of the removal of the filter.

And sunking is using a 40D.

i want this lens too!!!

s2kennyc wrote in post #9824602
Just so we're clear, Sunking was asking us if his picture from the post above is sharper than the one he posted up a day or so ago.

The picture above is ISO 100 with the filter off.

The picture from a few pages back is ISO 1600 with filter on.

I'm just stating that, yes, the picture looks better above than the one he posted a day ago. And its partly because of the lower ISO and "maybe" because of the removal of the filter.

And sunking is using a 40D.

Ok, yea ... you're right. Sorry. I wasn't trying to be snappy, I promise.

I'll go back to lurking now.

Grimlock wrote in post #9825412
Ok, yea ... you're right. Sorry. I wasn't trying to be snappy, I promise.

I'll go back to lurking now.

No worries Jerry. Just trying to be helpful here.

LMAO @ marloon. Thanks for that vivid description, it definitely makes your odd photo really look different now.. LOL

Grimlock wrote in post #9824484
First off, that's a horrible image to judge focus on. I also use a B+W filter and never noticed a difference. I've literally setup shots with/without (20 seconds apart), and seriously cannot see a difference at 100% crop. But, I guess it depends on the situation. I dunno. Mine always stays on and I feel my photos are pretty sharp.

Also, it appears that the shot posted above is shot at ISO 100, which rules out high ISO issues.

What camera you using again, Sunking?

The other images are two pages back, check them out and tell me what you think.
Maybe you could also recommend a another subject and setup to judge the sharpness.
And I would appreciate your advice on what to do.