Canon 35 f/1.4 L

[Dave Throgmartin]

I posted a thread a while asking some questions about the Canon 35mm f/2. I tried the 35mm f/2 at Calumet a couple weeks ago:

f/2


2012_04_06_4085 f/2 by dthrog00, on Flickr

f/2.8


2012_04_06_4086 f/2.8 by dthrog00, on Flickr

It is certainly true that taking pictures of my 18-135 lens on the counter probably isn't the best lens test, but regardless the f/2 sample does look pretty good.

I know some forum members use the 35L and I was just curious what you think of it. I understand there's a significant cost hit, but at the same time I've really enjoyed the 135L and this lens appears to be on a similar level and has a very useful focal length. The primary goal would be to get a really good lens for "normal" use on my crop camera today, but at the same time would give me an excellent starting position if I ever chose to go full frame in addition to improved sharpness at wide apertures, reduced CA, and superior autofocus.

Finally, do you find stitched panoramas processed with Photoshop Elements hold up ok as far as the join areas go? I have the 18-135 where I'd want to go wider, but when trying for maximum quality using a 35L stitched photo would appear to be an option too.

A sample 35-ish focal length I took that same day is attached. The Chicago sky line is seen in the distance. Obviously f/8 wouldn't be a necessary use for the 35L and I'm generally happy with the picture as is but I wonder what difference in resolution would be available.


2012_04_06_4025 by dthrog00, on Flickr

Dave

[Daniel Browning]

...I wonder what difference in resolution would be available.

You didn't post the full size image or a 100% crop, but I don't think you need to. We can assume that it's pretty sharp. In the type of image you posted, I think the L would show slightly more resolution/contrast than the 35/2. They look very close in the ISO 12233 crops at f/8, but that's only at the equivalent resolution (for APS-C) of 8 MP. You're shooting 18 MP, which is much harder on a lens, so I think the 35L would pull ahead more. But still, I would not consider the difference to be anywhere near enough to offset the increased cost and weight. If you mostly plan to shoot at f/8, I would definitely recommend against upgrading just for that tiny bit of increased contrast. That said, the 35L does have a variety of other advantages too, such as less flare, less distortion, build quality, focus ring, faster AF, etc.

[HDNitehawk]

The 35mm F/1.4L is a great lens, on a full frame body. The aspects that make it great decrease when you put it on a crop body. It's narrow DOF, its low light abilities coupled with a camera like the 5D II make it a very special lens. On a crop body it would still be a very good lens, but some of the potential you are paying for will not be utilized.

It is probably over due for an upgrade, I would be the first in line for a 35mm F/1.4L II. That wouldn't stop me from buying the current version.

I agree with Daniel, you will gain some resolution and contrast. It will come with a premium price.

For me it ranks at the top of my list for lenses I need for full frame, on a crop body it would be a focal length I am not often drawn to.

[Dave Throgmartin]

The Chicago sky line pic was actually a 18-135 pic. That lens is limited to stopping down and going more for full clarity. I was hoping if I went with either prime it would open some new doors to shoot fast. That picture resized to 1000 x 1000 1:1 pic is below. (NOTE: I actually posted the wrong pic 4025 instead of 4026 oops... they were similar)


2012_04_06_4026_1000x1000 by dthrog00, on Flickr

The only 35 f/2 pics I took that day were at Calumet. I just tried out the lens that day.

[HDNitehawk]

I am assuming the second pic was taken just a few seconds later from the exact same location as the first. They are both at 32mm and the second is heavily cropped.

Yes you would see a difference in resolution if you are cropping this much. In your first picture it would probably only be real noticeable on very close inspection. On your cropped picture you would see the difference. My 35mm F/1.4 L is sharper than any L series zoom I have used at 35mm. The thing about L lenses is they tend to cost 3 times as much as common lenses. If the improvement you get out of them was 3x as good it would be wonderful. In reality you are gaining fractional improvement. If you want one of the best lenses out for that focal length, go for it.

Personally I would prefer the 24mm F/1.4 L for panorama’s or landscapes.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Rick,

Correct, they were from basically the same position at the same time. I just posted a 100% crop to show center sharpness of what the superzoom gives me.

I agree that 24mm is a very useful focal length, but it is a shame the prime offerings are so few and far between. Even the new slower IS 24mm is supposed to be over $800!

I'm going to set the superzoom to 35mm for a while and see if I'm happy with it before pulling the trigger on either the 35mm f/2, 35 f/1.4 L, or Sigma 30mm.

Dave

[Dave Throgmartin]

What about everyone else's 35L pics? Daniel's pictures with the 24L II were outstanding. I'm curious what are some of the best the forum members have taken with the 35L.

Dave