Hi, I would like to see if anyone has experience with these two lenses. I'm choosing to buy either one and want to know which one is sharper if taken shots at 35mm. I understand I cannot really compare these two lens (different f stops, build etc), but both seems to be a great general purpose lens for my 40D.
In my opinion the 35mm is a little sharper than my 17-55 at 35mm and at f2.8 which is as wide as the zoom goes. HOWEVER, as a general purpose lens the 17-55mm Kills the 35mm. It has image stabilization in low light and effective sharp range from 26mm thru 88mm. But there is something magical about being able to shoot in light at 1/60s f1.4 3200iso that is hard to resist.
Thank you for your advice. Seems like 17-55 may be a better option unless I shoot at very low night. I agree that the 1.4 is very tempting haha! Very difficult to choose between the two.
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the ultimate general purpose lens for a 1.6x body. If I could only have one lens, that would be it. The picture quality is superb for a zoom. The only negative thing I can say about the lens is that it does tend to "hunt" for focus in very dim conditions. Buy the 17-55mm lens, and if you still crave wider apertures get the 50mm f/1.4. It's a relatively inexpensive way to get a wide aperture and a decent build quality in the same lens. In fact, the cost of buying the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4 wouldn't be that much more than buying the 35mm f/1.4L, and the combo would be substantially more versatile.
Versatility wins hand down, therefore I'd go for the zoom if you're going to use the lens for a variety of tasks. Another vote for the 17-55
Me too.
I have the 35L, and not the 17-55 f/2.8, and for me, that's the right choice, because I've also got good zooms covering that range. None of my zooms are as good as the 17-55 f/2.8 on a 1.6x camera, but most of my shooting is on a full frame, and when i'm using my 1.6x, it's usually for macro or telephoto purposes... but if I was using my 30d exclusively, I'd have the 17-55 first.
Originally Posted by RonG
That's just the point. The 35/1.4L is a magic lens even compared to my 16-35/2.8L II and 24-70/2.8L lenses. Zooms are boring but somehow cannot live without. In terms of sharpness I would want to believe that the 35/1.4L is sharper than the 17-55 both @ f2.8. There're a lot more parameters to consider about beside sharpness alone, i.g. Bokeh, color, CA, etc... Overall the 35L will win optically.
Back to the point, would you be considering the 35/1.4L and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 though. The Tamron has almost the same optical quality but at 1/2 of the price, weight and size. It focuses louder and it does not have IS but that shows on the price. If a 35/1.4L + Tamron 17-50/2.8 are something that you can manage, get them and you'll enjoy both. I'm going to pick up a Tamron 17-50 sometime soon - knowing that it's a lens that I can carry anywhere and abuse as much as I want! Because if i take my 16-35L I'll baby it too much...[]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote