35mm 1.4 shall i keep it?

so i went out and bought the 35mm 1.4, but im quite disappointed with it. The CA is horrendous wide open... should have done more research though this was an impulse buy. i really like the 35mm focal length. The big question is should learn to live with it (by correcting CA each time though for the price of the lens I am expecting more out of it) or go exchange it for the 24mm 1.4 II?

Try another copy of the 35L ?

If the 35mm focal length is what you need, then a 24mm II isn't likely to work very well.

I'd either have Canon look at the lens or exchange it. Somethings wrong if it exhibits really bad CA.

Of course it sorta depends upon how you used it and what you consider "horrendous CA". You can cause CA in almost any lens with really severe contrast situations. And if you view the image at 800% it will look pretty horrendous.

post pictures...

i would have canon look at the lens,,35L on full frame is magic,,on a crop,,its right at the best 50 mm focal legnth you can buy. IMHO,,35L IS ONE OF CANONS VERY BEST LENS IN ITS LINEUP........personal​ly i would spend some more time with it,crop with your feet and get a better feel

hoanglong wrote in post #8717208
so i went out and bought the 35mm 1.4, but im quite disappointed with it. The CA is horrendous wide open... should have done more research though this was an impulse buy. i really like the 35mm focal length. The big question is should learn to live with it (by correcting CA each time though for the price of the lens I am expecting more out of it) or go exchange it for the 24mm 1.4 II?

the 35L gets very sharp @ f2.

ed rader

I also was not that impressed by the 35L on my 5d2. I opted for the 50L for my walkaround and the 24L II for when I go wide. The 50L produces much sharper images at all stops, smoother bokeh and is better in low light wide open. I sold my 35L and bought the 24L II and I love the wider angle. You do have to watch out for people at the edges, they do look distorted!

Here is a my comparison of the 35L and the 50L:
https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=753​809&page=3

post pictures.

woof wrote in post #8718533
I also was not that impressed by the 35L on my 5d2. I opted for the 50L for my walkaround and the 24L II for when I go wide. The 50L produces much sharper images at all stops, smoother bokeh and is better in low light wide open. I sold my 35L and bought the 24L II and I love the wider angle. You do have to watch out for people at the edges, they do look distorted!

Here is a my comparison of the 35L and the 50L:
https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=753​809&page=3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=121

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8718804
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=121

Wow! According to that site, in that comparison the 50L looks horrible. I have taken thousands of images with my 50L and none of them even comes close to the level of blur and chromatic aberration that is apparent in "The-Digital-Pictures" sample lens. I have heard stories of bad copies of the 50L, and it looks like this guy has one. Maybe I just got lucky with my tack sharp copy. My direct comparison of my 35L vs my 50L shows the 50L far superior across the board. Perhaps my 35L (which I bought from B&H) was crap. Either way, it is scary the amount of poor quality control that is coming from Canon in these very expensive lenses.

woof wrote in post #8719135
Wow! According to that site, in that comparison the 50L looks horrible. I have taken thousands of images with my 50L and none of them even comes close to the level of blur and chromatic aberration that is apparent in "The-Digital-Pictures" sample lens. I have heard stories of bad copies of the 50L, and it looks like this guy has one. Maybe I just got lucky with my tack sharp copy. My direct comparison of my 35L vs my 50L shows the 50L far superior across the board. Perhaps my 35L (which I bought from B&H) was crap. Either way, it is scary the amount of poor quality control that is coming from Canon in these very expensive lenses.

My copy of the 35L is very sharp wide open. Does exhibit some CA in certain circumstances but by f/2 its RAZOR sharp and the CA is for the most part gone.

And I've heard stories of soft 35Ls but that would be my copy. Well I think any time you mass produce anything theres always going to be some variation and if you look at some of the glass you can compare some of Canons L primes to they are a bargain compared to say Leica M which has amazing QC but they don't produce the same #s that Canon does.

I've been very lucky in the fact that all of my Canon Ls have been good outta box. The SHARPEST Canon lens I've ever shot with is the 200 2L. Almost NO CA in any circumstance.

I dug up these comparison shots when I was trying to decide between my 24LII and the 35L:

24L II cropped, wide open f/1.4, 1/8000th, iso100

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Why is there a difference in the density in the black on the railings? Looks like one has a shadow across it and the other doesn't.

It's not much different. The darker area in the 24L shot makes the CA less visible. The 35L is not a master at controlling CA; none of the canon wide angle lenses are really top in that regard. However, the CA usually disappears if you stop down. CA is common with most fast primes when wide open, including the 85L.

form wrote in post #8719339
It's not much different. The darker area in the 24L shot makes the CA less visible. The 35L is not a master at controlling CA; none of the canon wide angle lenses are really top in that regard. However, the CA usually disappears if you stop down. CA is common with most fast primes when wide open, including the 85L.

I agree but hardly scientific.