Reading mode: Light Dark

35mm f/1.4L is pretty bad wide open! Is the 24mm f/1.4L II better?

Go to last post
A

akin_t

Senior Member
Messages
3,322
Reaction score
518
Location
US
I mean, I've know lenses get better when they're stopped down ... But heck, my 135mm f/2L is already excellent at f/2; with my 35mm f/1.4L however, I have to stop down to f/2.8 before I'm satisfied with sharpness and lack of fringing.

I mean, I buy a fast prime because I want to shoot it wide open. With my 35L I usually have to shoot at f/2 and even then I'm compromising. Of course the fringing isn't apparent unless it's a high contrast subject but still it's annoying.

Does anyone else have this issue? Does anyone know if the 24L II exhibits this behavior too wide open?
 
I just posted this in another thread. The short answer is yes. I've always loved the 35mm view but the 35L on a 5DII is lacking. I use a Voigtlander 40mm for that view on my 5DII.

But, the 24LII on a 7D is fantastic. Perfect wide open. Sharp without any loss of contrast. Consistent AF. It's what I wish the 35L was, but isn't, on the 5DII. The 24LII/7D combination might well be the best wide-normal combination of any camera made today.

Tom

http://www.kachadurian.com
http://www.kachadurian.com/blog
 
Thomas Kachadurian said:
I just posted this in another thread. The short answer is yes. I've always loved the 35mm view but the 35L on a 5DII is lacking. I use a Voigtlander 40mm for that view on my 5DII.

But, the 24LII on a 7D is fantastic. Perfect wide open. Sharp without any loss of contrast. Consistent AF. It's what I wish the 35L was, but isn't, on the 5DII. The 24LII/7D combination might well be the best wide-normal combination of any camera made today.

Tom

http://www.kachadurian.com
http://www.kachadurian.com/blog
Click to expand...
Yeah. I love the lens, it's actually my most used one. I just sometimes wish it were a little wider.

I'm usually not picky about sharpness and all that jazz as post processing can fix most image quality issues; what I cannot stand however, is the irritating fringing I see at f/1.4 through f/2, it's unacceptable for a lens of this price in my opinion.

I think it's ridiculous that Canon can charge this much money for that kind of performance. I'm considering actually replacing it with a 24L II, I just see no point in owning a f/1.4 lens when you cannot shoot at f/1.4
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=121&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&Camera=453

Hm, well if those crops are anything to go by, it appears I won't see a huge difference in wide open performance with a 24L II.

I shoot a 7D so maybe that's the reason but the difference in fringing is really not that huge in my opinion.

Why are these lenses so expensive when their performance isn't even great wide open?

I guess I should just avoid shooting against bright backgrounds ...
 
Try the 35mm 1.4 with the hood before getting rid of it, being an older design and with a big front element it may be more hood sensitive than other newer lenses.

The 24mm is supposed to be better but it's a different focal, the 35 is easier to use in many cases and much more useful.

Just compare your 35 with a 50, hooded, both at f/2, same framing (not same camera position). If the 35 is noticeable worse then you have a bad sample.
--
Click Click ....
 
akin_t said:
I mean, I've know lenses get better when they're stopped down ... But heck, my 135mm f/2L is already excellent at f/2; with my 35mm f/1.4L however, I have to stop down to f/2.8 before I'm satisfied with sharpness and lack of fringing.
Click to expand...
If you need f2.8 on a 35L to get sharp images I'd check you don't need considerable microadjustment. Mine is +7 on the 7D, +14 on the 1DsIII. Its plenty useable at f1.4 and sharp at f1.6.

Andrew
 
MysticX said:
Try the 35mm 1.4 with the hood before getting rid of it, being an older design and with a big front element it may be more hood sensitive than other newer lenses.

The 24mm is supposed to be better but it's a different focal, the 35 is easier to use in many cases and much more useful.

Just compare your 35 with a 50, hooded, both at f/2, same framing (not same camera position). If the 35 is noticeable worse then you have a bad sample.
--
Click Click ....
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure my copy is consistent with others: Soft wide open with bad chromatic aberrations. By the time I stop down to around f/2.5 the sharpness is decent and the chromatic aberrations go away. By the time I stop down to f/2.8 I have no complaints with regards to optical quality.

Still, I really want that quality at around f/1.8 at least that's the point of owning a fast prime.

Oh and I always shoot with the lens hood on. I won't be getting rid of it, just voicing my disappointment in general. I just don't understand how my 135L is amazing at f/2 while the 35L requires closing the aperture down 2 stops before satisfaction is guaranteed.
 
Mine is certainly not soft wide open, and sharp from f/1.6. Still, I tend to use it moslty in low light, in less than optimal light for ultimate IQ. I am very pleased with it, though.
akin_t said:
I'm pretty sure my copy is consistent with others: Soft wide open with bad chromatic aberrations. By the time I stop down to around f/2.5 the sharpness is decent and the chromatic aberrations go away. By the time I stop down to f/2.8 I have no complaints with regards to optical quality.

Still, I really want that quality at around f/1.8 at least that's the point of owning a fast prime.

Oh and I always shoot with the lens hood on. I won't be getting rid of it, just voicing my disappointment in general. I just don't understand how my 135L is amazing at f/2 while the 35L requires closing the aperture down 2 stops before satisfaction is guaranteed.
Click to expand...
 
You probably just have lower expectations than I do is all.

The lens has horrible fringing at f/1.4 through f/2. I'm not alone on this, you can check out the Flickr group for the lens. Now I notice fringing isn't always a problem, as it depends on the scene, but when the conditions are met, the fringing is bad.

Sharpness is a different issue, it really depends on how large you need the image to be. The shot below was taken at f/1.4 and it's not soft per se, but the sharpness is not excellent either.




AOKH said:
Mine is certainly not soft wide open, and sharp from f/1.6. Still, I tend to use it moslty in low light, in less than optimal light for ultimate IQ. I am very pleased with it, though.
akin_t said:
I'm pretty sure my copy is consistent with others: Soft wide open with bad chromatic aberrations. By the time I stop down to around f/2.5 the sharpness is decent and the chromatic aberrations go away. By the time I stop down to f/2.8 I have no complaints with regards to optical quality.

Still, I really want that quality at around f/1.8 at least that's the point of owning a fast prime.

Oh and I always shoot with the lens hood on. I won't be getting rid of it, just voicing my disappointment in general. I just don't understand how my 135L is amazing at f/2 while the 35L requires closing the aperture down 2 stops before satisfaction is guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
akin_t said:
You probably just have lower expectations than I do is all.

The lens has horrible fringing at f/1.4 through f/2. I'm not alone on this, you can check out the Flickr group for the lens. Now I notice fringing isn't always a problem, as it depends on the scene, but when the conditions are met, the fringing is bad.

Sharpness is a different issue, it really depends on how large you need the image to be. The shot below was taken at f/1.4 and it's not soft per se, but the sharpness is not excellent either.



Click to expand...
You can't expect to get perfect sharpness every time at 1/50th second.
Subject movement as much as camera shake.

Andrew
 
Might well be. I never use it under good lighting conditions, so good IQ is relative in that regard. ISO 3200 and f/1.4 is for capturing the mood of the scene with decent IQ IMO. For great IQ, I'd think ISO 100 and f/5.6 would be better. Different purposes, different expectations. Regards.
akin_t said:
You probably just have lower expectations than I do is all.
Click to expand...
 
Mine is very sharp at F1.6. The sample you posted was shot at 1/50. That's marginal for camera shake, and for subject movement. If you can't get really sharp shots at F1.6 at 1/100 or faster, there's something wrong. The 35L is a really sharp lens. It does get a lot of fringing wide open. That's pretty common for these kind of lenses. It's also easy to correct in post.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 
akin_t said:
I mean, I've know lenses get better when they're stopped down ... But heck, my 135mm f/2L is already excellent at f/2; with my 35mm f/1.4L however, I have to stop down to f/2.8 before I'm satisfied with sharpness and lack of fringing.
Click to expand...
Never tried this lens but I read a lot about that. You are better off going FF.
akin_t said:
I mean, I buy a fast prime because I want to shoot it wide open. With my 35L I usually have to shoot at f/2 and even then I'm compromising. Of course the fringing isn't apparent unless it's a high contrast subject but still it's annoying.

Does anyone else have this issue? Does anyone know if the 24L II exhibits this behavior too wide open?
Click to expand...
I found the 24L II excellent on a crop body. See my review here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=37120530

All images there are available for download full size. Processed in LR3 with default sharpening. Many wide open, some f/1.8.

Here are two images that are not posted there. Note that the focus is not even in the center. Not bad, I would say. I messed up with the MA, so there is slight backfocus, and some focus shift, I guess.

CA is corrected automatically by LR but it was not bad to begin with, and I do not see LoCA or PF that are hard to correct.







 
What a coincidence, I love 35mm focal length too and I was messing around with the Canon 35 F2 and 35 F1.4L, lucky I have friends own those lenses and generous enough to let me play with them on my own, after playing with them for a week, I ended up with a Zeiss 35 F2.0, I also consider the 35L a F2 lens, especially on my 1DS2 and 5D2, corner gets pretty soft wide open, so might as well get a Zeiss 35 F2 and I can use it as F2 lens. at least I save myself $300 and get the excellent Zeiss build quality and legendary Zeiss color and sharp edge to edge optic, I already have the TSE 24, Zeiss 21, Zeiss 100, Samyang 14 and bunch of old AIS lenses on my Nikon platform already, so Manual focus is never a problem for me.
 
Mine's a little soft wide open but sharpens up a lot by f1.6. If it's not bitingly sharp at f2 there's something wrong. Purple fringing is a problem wide open but thats the case with the 85L and 50L too, though I get the impression the 24L II may be better in this regard (not formally tested it).

The 24L II is just a little sharper wide open (maybe just my copy). The 35L does have rather erratic AF compared with the other L primes IMO, you can work around it but the odd shot is just way OOF for no good reason.
 
Dan_168 said:
What a coincidence, I love 35mm focal length too and I was messing around with the Canon 35 F2 and 35 F1.4L, lucky I have friends own those lenses and generous enough to let me play with them on my own, after playing with them for a week, I ended up with a Zeiss 35 F2.0, I also consider the 35L a F2 lens, especially on my 1DS2 and 5D2, corner gets pretty soft wide open, so might as well get a Zeiss 35 F2 and I can use it as F2 lens. at least I save myself $300 and get the excellent Zeiss build quality and legendary Zeiss color and sharp edge to edge optic, I already have the TSE 24, Zeiss 21, Zeiss 100, Samyang 14 and bunch of old AIS lenses on my Nikon platform already, so Manual focus is never a problem for me.
Click to expand...
Some times I wish I never got the Zeiss 21mm, it's so nice I only want to buy more and the upcoming 35 1.4 looks like it will be hard to resist....

canon rumors have intial reports, and further info on more Zeis lenses...

http://www.canonrumors.com/
 
Okay, so please ignore the composition, lighting and all that other jazz that I got wrong.

These is just for optical analysis if you will. In both pictures, focus point was placed over the subject's left eye.

SOOC, imported into LR and exported with default settings. I didn't sharpen or apply any post processing whatsoever, just so we have a baseline.

Would you consider these sharp? I actually don't mind the sharpness in these cases, it's the fringing @ f/2 in the second picture that I despise.









100% Crops







 
Picture 1 usable although not pin sharp IMO (hopefully, you have room for some additional sharpening here). In picture 2, IMO, the nose and not the eyes are in best focus, which is a little distracting. The fringing is not a huge deal to me in that picture.
akin_t said:
Okay, so please ignore the composition, lighting and all that other jazz that I got wrong.

These is just for optical analysis if you will. In both pictures, focus point was placed over the subject's left eye.

SOOC, imported into LR and exported with default settings. I didn't sharpen or apply any post processing whatsoever, just so we have a baseline.

Would you consider these sharp? I actually don't mind the sharpness in these cases, it's the fringing @ f/2 in the second picture that I despise.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top