Tempted: 35L

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Those two lenses must be screamers on the 5DII.

perryge wrote in post #7355340
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Those two lenses must be screamers on the 5DII.

I hope so, I haven't had much of a chance to use them yet.

Although I would prefer to have a 35L above any of the other wide/middle primes, the 50 f/1.4, if not as sharp wide open, is still a good focal length and much less expensive. I myself would love to have a 35L - there's one on the FS forum here for $950 that I want now - but I just can't afford it right now.

Can't say what it would be like coming from the 28 and 50, but I would ideally like to have the 35 and 50 both.

I hope you like 'em Tim! The 24LII certain won't be any worse than the 24L at least.

I want a good wide angle, but I think I'm gonna pass on the 24LII. I'm eyeing the new 17 TS-E, the ZE 21 Distagon, the 17-40L again as a budget option, or even an adapted Nikon 14-24.

Shot with a 35mm today (ableit on a Nikon D90) to get a feel for the focal length. Before getting my 1D, I was shooting with a 40D. So, judging the focal length isn't going to be too off for me.

I like it. The feel of the lens at 35mm seems pretty nice. Now, will I miss the 28 and 50mm lenses? I don't know. But because of what Perry said about the 35L's build being questionable for an L lens, I may save up for the 35L II.

Either way, the lens is on my radar big time, now.

The build is fine, I only said it didn't feel as nice as the other Ls and that the ring had a little play.

I just took the 35L on a MKIII for walk, curious how I would like it as I've hardly used it on that camera. I was very pleasantly suprised, the balance and handling exceptional and just from playing around with it I am sure I'll like it better than on FF for shooting people as well, actually for the medium shots on people and events, this combination would be really good.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

drPheta wrote in post #7354393
divinemethod, what did you find missing in the 35L that the 50/1.4 had?

Because I use FF I felt that I needed a "normal" focal length. But because you have a MKIII, I think you would be extremely pleased with the 35L because I always wish for the 50 1.4 to have the same performance as the 35L and the 50L isn't as great as the 35L from a days worth of use, so I stuck with the 50 1.4 -- I feel I need both lenses and use them enough. On 1.3x the 35L would be married to the body for my style of shooting.

The build is most definitely L-class. The only thing is that the outer shell is smooth plastic rather than textured, which makes it feel different than a lot of the other L's. It's built just as solidly, though.

I find it perfect for my 5D Mark II, not to wide, not to long. I found 50 to long in close environments and 24/28 to wide.

Well I really liked the 35L on my 5D, being that it's wide but doesn't distort the perspective much when photographing people but I didn't expect to like it as much as I did/do on the MKIII. I can feel very confident now going out with the MKIII, 35L and 135L, all in my tiny Think Tank Urban Disguise 20 bag and a wallet full of memory cards and carry it comfortably all day. IQ wise it's one heck of a package, I need to get a Rodenstock polarizer for those lenses and I'm set.

A couple more from the MKIII 35L this evening.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

perryge wrote in post #7354378
I had the EXACT same two lenses, I loved them, and I thought the EXACT same thing about the 35L being a perfect (albeit much more expensive) hybrid/intermediary between them. Oh boy, was I wrong. The 35L didn't last a week, I didn't like the focal length at all - not wide enough like the 28, and not long enough like the 50. I returned it after massive disappointment.

I say keep the two primes, especially because you already like them .

finally someone who is likely to confirm my fears - 35L is one really fine lens, even not suitable in terms of focal lenght for everyone - often, it seems to be in the middle of nowhere to me -

24L/50L(or ZE...or another prime) will do it for me

rcaq wrote in post #7365904
finally someone who is likely to confirm my fears - 35L is one really fine lens, even not suitable in terms of focal lenght for everyone - often, it seems to be in the middle of nowhere to me -

24L/50L(or ZE...or another prime) will do it for me

It's obviously a personal decision. For me, I honestly don't think I'd like the 35L on full frame...I'd probably sell it and get the Sigma 50 f/1.4 instead and pocket the cash. However, I really like having a fast normal prime, and the 35L on my 1DII is absolutely perfect for that. (And the image quality is simply stellar...better than any 50mm I've seen on the market) I LOVE the FL on 1.3x. In fact, it's probably my favorite lens right now. However, if I moved to full frame exclusively, I'd want a good 50mm. If I moved to full frame, I'd probably sell my 85L too, since I prefer normal and ~100-135 for my portrait primes...so I'd probably just use a 100 f/2 or 135L in that range.