Canon 35mm f/1.4 L - UPDATE: I LOVE THIS LENS!

[JJphoto]

Denise


I used my 35mm on my XSi as a walk around indoor lens(sometimes out door too). at 1,4, it's not very sharp, but color and quality of bokeh are very impressive. I'v almost never used my 50mm 1.4 again since I got the 35mm1.4. I especially like the feeling of this combo holding in my hand, not too big not too small, not too heavy not too light, not too bulky, not too thin, just perfect. I only wish Canon will improve the shutter lag of the Rebels, it's just damn too slow like a P&S(well it's not that bad, but it would be nice if they can just make it a little faster!)

[ddt0725]

However, I don't understand your logic. You think an 85L is too big so you go for a 35L?

Uh, yeah! I'm sorry, I was talking the 85mm f/1.2 L II. I am sure you have rented itso you are aware that it not onlyheavierbut larger. Not to mention the price tag. Plus I am quite happy for nowwith the 85mm that I have.

Were both lenses on your original wishlist, or are you buying the 35L instead?

Yes, both are on my list. The 85mm L II has now been moved down a number of notches if I do get it at all. I think after I buy a couple others that I also have my eye on, I will be pretty well set. All depends on what Canon comes out with this year yet.

[ddt0725]

Denise


I used my 35mm on my XSi as a walk around indoor lens(sometimes out door too). at 1,4, it's not very sharp, but color and quality of bokeh are very impressive. I'v almost never used my 50mm 1.4 again since I got the 35mm1.4. I especially like the feeling of this combo holding in my hand, not too big not too small, not too heavy not too light, not too bulky, not too thin, just perfect. I only wish Canon will improve the shutter lag of the Rebels, it's just damn too slow like a P&S(well it's not that bad, but it would be nice if they can just make it a little faster!)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Thank you! Your reply has been very helpful! Not very sharp? That is the first I heard someone say that about this lens although many have raved about the color and bokeh. This size &amp; weight does sound like it would be very comfortable using.

Thanks!

Denise

[JJphoto]

Not very sharp? That is the first I heard someone say that about this lens

Denise, At f1.4,at least my copy does produce softer images, and I think Bryan has the similar statement in his review of this lens, you can check it out. I guess this is the one major part the second version can be improved.

[Brendan7]

Not very sharp? That is the first I heard someone say that about this lens

Denise, At f1.4,at least my copy does produce softer images, and I think Bryan has the similar statement in his review of this lens, you can check it out. I guess this is the one major part the second version can be improved

Is there a lens that's sharp-sharp at f/1.4? Probably not. But my copy of the 35L that I rented comes quite close...

[ddt0725]

Not very sharp? That is the first I heard someone say that about this lens

Denise, At f1.4,at least my copy does produce softer images, and I think Bryan has the similar statement in his review of this lens, you can check it out. I guess this is the one major part the second version can be improved.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

That's right, I remember reading that now and at 2.0 it is very sharp. Overall though, this lens sure seems to be perfect. I think if Canon would have slapped a rebate on it this time around, it would be an incentive for me to purchase it now rather than later.

Denise

[Keith B]

My "copy" of this lens is sharp at 1.4.


Remember that the DOF is very shallow at 1.4 and the slightest move you make between focus locking and taking the shot is going to cause an out of focus shot.

[Keith B]

Here is a good testimonial on the sharpness of the 35. It is Roger's Take from LensRental on the 24L MKII:


Roger&rsquo;s take:I have to say I&rsquo;m impressed with the Mk II version. I liked the 24 f/1.4 well, not&ldquo;wow this is great&rdquo;, more like&ldquo;this is a nice lens when you need that aperture and focal length&rdquo;. The 24 Mark II is clearly better than the Mk I in my opinion. It is a bit sharper in the center and and markedly sharper on the edges wide open (especially if you shoot a full-frame camera). The corners still aren&rsquo;t the best on a full frame body, even stopped down to f/5.6 they are a bit soft, but I like it far better than the original. The contrast and color throughout the range is best described as &lsquo;vibrant&rsquo;. Overall its a clear improvement on the original. But I&rsquo;ll be honest: its still not quite as good as the 35 f/1.4. Close, but not quite.


I always go to the Roger's Take when I want an unbiased, straight forward layman's opinion of a lens. I still don't understand MTF charts and quite frankly don't care to.


Edit:


Adding Roger's Take on the 35L itself


Roger&rsquo;s Take:This is the wide angle member of the Holy Trinity of L prime lenses: the 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2, and 135 f/2.0. Its as close to a flawless lens as I&rsquo;ve shot with: sharp even in the edges, contrasty, with smooth out-of-focus highlights. I find myself trying to find a way to frame a shot at this focal length, just so I can use this lens. If you&rsquo;ve ever asked the question &ldquo;why would you shoot with a prime lens when zooms are so much more convenient&rdquo; this lens will demonstrate the answer for you.

[clemmb]

A referb. at Adorama

[neuroanatomist]

A referb. at Adorama

...for $1330. J&amp;R has it brand new for $1 more...