35/1.4L vs. 17-55/2.8 IS @35mm

Hi all,

I'm looking to treat myself to a superb lens this Xmas, even if it's redundant in terms of coverage. I shoot with a 40D, and the 17-55/2.8 IS is on my camera most often. I think it's a fine lens, versatile and consistent, though the images don't pop the way they do with my 85/1.8 or 70-200/4L. In terms of IQ, can I expect the 35/1.4 to be in a different league than the 17-55 at the same focal length?

Thanks for your expertise.

I sold my 17-55 f2.8 IS after buying a full frame body and selling off the EF-S glass. As a result, I got a 35 L and find it outstanding on both my 40D and 5D II. If you plan to stay with crop, you could consider the Sigma 30 (which I have also used), but make no mistake, the 35 L is a much better lens and will stay with you no matter which body you have in the future. I don't think you will be disappointed, and it will fit into your lens lineup very nicely indeed.

Cheers, jrscls.

I actually had the Sigma a few years back, but wasn't blown away by it. Sharp enough, and a good value, but a yellowish cast and less than superb overall IQ. I will indeed be going full-frame sometime in the next year or two, so I appreciate the advice.

jabber wrote in post #9144079
Hi all,

I'm looking to treat myself to a superb lens this Xmas, even if it's redundant in terms of coverage. I shoot with a 40D, and the 17-55/2.8 IS is on my camera most often. I think it's a fine lens, versatile and consistent, though the images don't pop the way they do with my 85/1.8 or 70-200/4L. In terms of IQ, can I expect the 35/1.4 to be in a different league than the 17-55 at the same focal length?

Thanks for your expertise.

Interesting thread. I actually sold my first 35L primarily because I found it almost indistinguishable from my 17-55 past f/3.2. I believe I had solid copies of both lenses. So from my own experiences, no, you shouldn't expect the 35L to be in a different league at all. Infact, pretty much the same league. Some others may disagree, but I should hunt down some comparison shots I did a couple of years back.

Nevertheless, a few forumites here do know I regret selling the 35L, as I ended up craving for f/1.4 - 2.8 more than I had expected. But honestly, for all situations past f/3.2, I'd head for my 17-55 any day.

Thanks for that, Collin. Has anyone else here worked with both of these lenses? (Do any others think the 35L is perhaps overhyped?) If the 35 results aren't obviously different from the 17-55 in terms of IQ, I'm certainly not going to go for it. If they are, I'm interested.

I dont have experience with the 17-55 but you don't buy a 1,4 lens to use it at f4 or something! even a consumer grade lens will look great a f11

you can use it at higher f-stops ofcourse but remember that you pay for the f1.4! if this isn't important then by all means save yourself the cash!

jabber wrote in post #9144240
Thanks for that, Collin. Has anyone else here worked with both of these lenses? (Do any others think the 35L is perhaps overhyped?) If the 35 results aren't obviously different from the 17-55 in terms of IQ, I'm certainly not going to go for it. If they are, I'm interested.

Overhyped is probably not the right word - the 35L is certainly an amazing lens! I think the theme here is moreso that the 17-55 is a very amazing zoom. If you look around for reviews, there are a few magical zooms in Canon's lineup (17-55, 70-200 f/4L IS etc.) which are known to have image quality comparable to equivalent primes in Canon's professional lineup.

I will be buying a 35L again, probably within the next four weeks, but it will primarily be there for when I need to shoot in low-light. If you are really not that pleased with your copy of the 17-55, perhaps your copy is not as good as it could be. Perhaps you may want to try a 35L regardless; that will be the best way to appease your curiosity.

I do like the 17-55, and of course it does have reasonably good low-light functionality, too. I also think I have a pretty good copy . . . still, the results don't jump out at me like they often do with the 85/1.8. I guess that's the difference I'm looking for.

The "jump" effect is often caused by shots taken at wider apertures, which tend to give your shots that 3D look.

A quick search on my external drives yielded this. Ignore the boring composition, that is not the purpose of the shots. The 17-55 also had a UV filter on, while the 35L did not. These were shot RAW, with a straight conversion to JPEG in DPP. Default sharpening.

Full

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

100% crops, centre

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Thanks a lot, Collin--I appreciate the time you've taken with this.

jabber wrote in post #9144349
I do like the 17-55, and of course it does have reasonably good low-light functionality, too.

The 35L is 4x better in this regard, you just have to pay attention to your DoF, especially with multiple subjects.

jabber wrote in post #9144349
I also think I have a pretty good copy . . . still, the results don't jump out at me like they often do with the 85/1.8. I guess that's the difference I'm looking for.

It's probably the isolation that you're getting. For me, there's really two questions that you should be asking yourself: 1) Do I want/need the f/1.4 - 2.5 range for isolation/low light? B) Am I going to be comfortable enough with this FoV? Forget about 'sharpness this and that'

I think when you tried the 35L on, it wouldn't get off anymore .

WhyFi--Yes, the low light advantage, for indoors shooting, certainly appeals to me, and I'm definitely comfortable with the FoV. But those aren't enough to make me splurge on the 35L. The isolation and sharpness characteristic of the 85 (or 70-200) are part of the effect I'm after, to be sure, but those lenses also have more impressive contrast and saturation than my 17-55. Thanks for your thoughts.

^^^ Sounds like you've got your wallet open already It's a fantastic lens, I don't think that you'd regret it.