Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: value of canon 35 1.4 L?  (Read 7270 times)
eatstickyrice
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


WWW
« on: February 15, 2006, 04:10:41 AM »
ReplyReply

For some time now I've been eyeing canon's 35 1.4 L. However, I have a good 16-35 2.8 L already. I'm wondering if anyone in the forum might own both of these lenses and let me know their opinions of the value of owning both? I don't need the extra light necessarily. Part of my wondering is that a review of my portfolio would quickly show that I take a lot of zoomed in photos of people (for travel photography), but have been taking few of people within the context of their environment. I'd really like to improve in this area, and am wondering if their might be added benefit the 35 1.4 L would offer me over the 16-35 2.8 L. Maybe I'm just turning into a lens junkie!

Thanks,
Rick
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 804


« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2006, 07:01:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I'll respond since I just got my 35mm f/1.4 L in the mail a couple hours ago! I've fired off some quick tests and peeped on the monitor. I've got a 17-40mm f/4 L and a 24-105mm f/4 L IS to compare it to, as well as a 35mm f/2. I haven't done exhaustive tests yet, but even the early indication test shots are enough to show that it absolutely kicks the crap out of all of them, especially down under f/5.6. Color and contrast are great, as is the bokeh.

I'd say that if you shoot stopped down to f/11 on a tripod for landscape shooting, there will be some slight advantage to the 35mm L over the 16-35mm. However, if you shoot indoors at f/4 or f/2.8, the 35mm L will give you a noticeable improvement. I've shot with a friend's 16-35mm and it wasn't that great at f/2.8 or f/4. The 35mm f/1.4 L is bitingly sharp in the center, sharp wide open and peaking at f/2 or f/2.8 and staying perfect all the way to f/11.

I may be suffering from a slight case of excitement about the new lens, but I can definetely say that it is very good!

Hope this helps!

Sheldon
Logged

Peter Jon White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2006, 10:36:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For some time now I've been eyeing canon's 35 1.4 L. However, I have a good 16-35 2.8 L already. I'm wondering if anyone in the forum might own both of these lenses and let me know their opinions of the value of owning both? I don't need the extra light necessarily. Part of my wondering is that a review of my portfolio would quickly show that I take a lot of zoomed in photos of people (for travel photography), but have been taking few of people within the context of their environment. I'd really like to improve in this area, and am wondering if their might be added benefit the 35 1.4 L would offer me over the 16-35 2.8 L. Maybe I'm just turning into a lens junkie!

Thanks,
Rick
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At 35mm, in the center of the frame, at f/2.8, the 35L is the sharper lens, by a small but clearly visible amount when viewed at 100%. In the corners, the 35L is a bit soft, but much better than the zoom.

At f/8, in the center of the frame, the images are identical to my eye at 100%. But in the corners, the 35L still has the advantage, since it's virtually as sharp in the corners as it is in the center, and the zoom is still noticeably softer in the corners than in the center at f/8.

I'm very happy with the performance of the zoom. But let's face it. The 35L is one of the best lenses I've ever used, and I'm very happy with my M Summicrons. The 16-35L is one of the better zooms available, in my opinion. But it can't compete with the 35L, except stopped down in the middle.

I'm making the comparison on a 5D. If you want the best image quality possible, get the 35L. I just doesn't have any weaknesses that I can find, though my wallet's feeling a bit limp these days. I got it last month.
Logged
davidh4976
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2006, 07:16:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I picked up a 35mm f/2 about a year ago thinking that I would use it for situations where I wanted to be traveling lighter and smaller.  I find that I hardly ever use it because of the convenience/verstility of the 16-35.  This is on a D60.
Logged
eatstickyrice
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2006, 08:40:40 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks to everyone for their input.

rick
Logged

soboyle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2006, 11:09:57 AM »
ReplyReply

My copy of the 35 1.4, which I just got earlier this week, beats my 17-40 at all apertures, viewed at 100% its noticible, not by a huge margin, I think I happen to have an exceptionally good 17-40, but contrast and sharpness is better at all apertures. Will be using this lens a lot.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad