-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
35mm f/1.4L is pretty bad wide open! Is the 24mm f/1.4L II better?
- Thread starter akin_t
- Start date
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=726&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&Lens=708
So for $300 more, you get a lens that is the equal of your 35mm f/2, and can open up wider, where edge performance is not typically an issue in real-world shooting anyway, plus has AF.
And you additionally get a lens which is the equal of your 21mm Distagon, though at a different length-- the same Distagon which gives you performance you like, albeit with a lot of moustache distortion and no AF.
I think I'd always spend the $300 extra in that situation. Every last time.
May be I did not express myself clear enough, I was saying I treat the 35L as a F2 lens not a F1.4 lens due to soft corner wide open, so I would rather just get a Zeiss F2 and shoot at F2 so I can enjoy the Zeiss build quality, corner to corner sharpness, and color I like, which is what I did at the end after comparing them, and actually I didn't consider the two "equal" even using them both at F2, I much prefer the Zeiss build quality, color and micro contrast, so the only reason I was considering the 35L was the F1.4, so if I am not going to use it at F1.4, there is no reason I would buy it, just like I didn't buy the F1.2 prime so I can stop it down, I get the F1.2 lens for it's F1.2 performance, I would rather get the Zeiss F2 or the new Nikon 35 F1.4 instead as I also shoot with D3, of course the $300 saving was just a joke, you know for anyone willing to spend some $ on TSEs, Zeiss 21, Zeiss 100, 1D, 1DS, D3, 14-24G 24-70G, 70-200 F2.8 IS II........., the $300 wouldn't be a deciding factor. I was actually saying the so-called "$300 saving" Zeiss 35 F2.0 actually gave me more satisfactory lens than the 35L, whether that's what other will agree or not but that's how I look at it personally.
Yeah I see what you're saying ... Why buy a f/1.4 lens if you're always going to shoot it at f/2?
I would love to use the Zeiss, but sadly auto-focus is a must have for me.
Anyway, the pictures I posted are SOOC and are usable (most images are, it's just that we want exceptional images for the price we pay right?) and can be sharpened to taste without having any artifacts.
I'll keep using it and get a feel for its sweet spots, if I feel the lens isn't up to snuff, I'll consider sending it to Canon ... Since everyone else is having excellent results by f/1.6 (which I doubt, but hey ... I'll take your word for it).
bhollis
Senior Member
There may be some variation among copies of the 35L. Some folks claim theirs are pin sharp at f/1.4, while others say they have to stop down some to get really sharp images.
Below is a shot taken with my 7D and 35L wide open at f/1.4. It's been cropped to about 1/2 of the original size. Focus was on the eyes. Is it sharp? Certainly sharp enough for my needs.
Finally, make sure you're not confusing missed focus with a soft lens. At f/1.4, dof is very, very thin, and precise focus is critical. Personally, particularly when shooting in low light, I find that I'm only able to nail focus with my 35L at f/1.4 about half the time.
Below is a shot taken with my 7D and 35L wide open at f/1.4. It's been cropped to about 1/2 of the original size. Focus was on the eyes. Is it sharp? Certainly sharp enough for my needs.
Finally, make sure you're not confusing missed focus with a soft lens. At f/1.4, dof is very, very thin, and precise focus is critical. Personally, particularly when shooting in low light, I find that I'm only able to nail focus with my 35L at f/1.4 about half the time.
AOKH
Senior Member
I agree that, based on your picture 1 and that fact that it is SOOC, the lens is an good performer. Disregarding some of your focus problems (picture 2 plus the first picture you posted), I don't see much of a sharpness issue. So it does boil down to personal expectations, as you say. I find it will give me good shots where my f/2.8 lenses will not do, and under difficult lightning. That alone is worth it to me. Following is an example where I feel the ability to use the lens near wide open gives it a nice diffuse background that couldn't have been achieved at this focal length otherwise. This sample not particularly sharp, but I think you'll see what I mean. Any way, to each his/her own I guess. Regards.
Soft (actually less sharp ) corners wide open simply don't matter when shooting at f/1.4. Ever. Unless you are shooting stars, I suppose.
The samples show clearly that the 35L is at least the equal of the 35 f/2, and in addition at least the equal of the 21mm Distagon, believe it or not. Color is addressable in post. The 35L is simply a far functionally superior lens.
So that leaves build quality. I guess if you can't deal with L-level build, and want to save $300, and don't prefer better image quality, and never use autofocus, the Zeiss is a no-brainer.
Fair enough. If you don't need to shoot at f/1.4, there's a reduced need to buy an f/1.4 lens-- but part of the point here is that it's a superior choice all around.
The 35L is sharp at center at 1.4 but sharpens up a bit at 1.6. It is sharp corner to corner at 2.8, but very usable at 2.0. The 24LII is a tad worse in the corners than the 35L at similar apertures and the old 24L is significantly worse.
I would always prefer a 35f1.4 with good f1.4 center shapness over a 35f2.0 because it gives me more versatility and flexibility, but I fully respect other people's preferences, opinions and different needs than mine.
Leica's Noctilux 50mm f1.0 is not sharp at the corners af f1.0 but still people are willing to pay USD 10k for this little wunder.
I would always prefer a 35f1.4 with good f1.4 center shapness over a 35f2.0 because it gives me more versatility and flexibility, but I fully respect other people's preferences, opinions and different needs than mine.
Leica's Noctilux 50mm f1.0 is not sharp at the corners af f1.0 but still people are willing to pay USD 10k for this little wunder.
David C Harris
Leading Member
Ditto. It seems Canon designed the 35/1.4 to be used primarily wide open and in less-than-perfect lighting conditions. It is primarily not a landscape lens (though it can be when pressed into service) and it is a semi-affordable lens (unlike the $10K Leica), so it does have its compromises. CA and edge sharpness are those compromises.
For the shooting I do, I'm more than willing to live with those compromises. I don't have it yet, but I do have its longer FL brothers and can't wait to add the 35/1.4 to my kit. It's not the best lens for everyone, but I believe it's the best lens in that FL for me. Here's one of my better shots @ 85mm:
For the shooting I do, I'm more than willing to live with those compromises. I don't have it yet, but I do have its longer FL brothers and can't wait to add the 35/1.4 to my kit. It's not the best lens for everyone, but I believe it's the best lens in that FL for me. Here's one of my better shots @ 85mm:
Kellen
Well-known member
Well designing a 135/2 lens is pretty small beans compared to a 35/1.4, durr.
Just a reality check...you do know that 24mm and 35mm lenses are different tools right? I'm not a pixel peeper myself, so I may be overstating such minor issues as focal length and perspective, but I've done a little research (which seems like more than you have done) and both lenses look VERY SIMILAR. Do you really need that extra little bit of detail for your needs, or is it just something to ***** about?
Personally, I think it's silly to disguise bragging ("I've got this really expensive stuff! I'm so awesome! I don't think it's that great, but ya know I can afford that stuff so everybody should be impressed by me!") as complaining, but that's just me...I don't own any L glass (and "only" shoot on an XSi) but I somehow manage to get consistently publishable shots. Professionals either learn to take advantage of the limitations inherent to their equipment, or pay for higher performing tools if their needs demand it. We don't go onto photography forums and complain about our fast wide angle lenses not being "tack sharp" wide open, and we certainly don't compromise in the name of sharpness.
Regards
Next time you mean to help, try not coming off as a little insecure *****, okay? I really don't give a damn if you shoot with an XSi or a disposable.
How you concluded that I'm bragging simply because I'm not pleased with the performance of a lens wide open is seriously beyond me. This is a gear forum after all, if you don't like a thread don't visit it. I didn't force you to open the thread or reply to it.
Go kick rocks or something, owning a 35L is nothing to brag about on this forum.
I mentioned the 24L II because I have been craving a little more FoV from my 35L, I've made threads talking about going full frame for that reason ... Not that I expect you to know that. It's just the automatic insinuation that I don't know what I'm saying simple because I don't bother to reveal every little detail to you is nothing short of absurd. Idiot.
Edit: Oh and thanks to the rest of you who posted something meaningful.
How you concluded that I'm bragging simply because I'm not pleased with the performance of a lens wide open is seriously beyond me. This is a gear forum after all, if you don't like a thread don't visit it. I didn't force you to open the thread or reply to it.
Go kick rocks or something, owning a 35L is nothing to brag about on this forum.
I mentioned the 24L II because I have been craving a little more FoV from my 35L, I've made threads talking about going full frame for that reason ... Not that I expect you to know that. It's just the automatic insinuation that I don't know what I'm saying simple because I don't bother to reveal every little detail to you is nothing short of absurd. Idiot.
Edit: Oh and thanks to the rest of you who posted something meaningful.
Kellen
Well-known member
I expected nothing less.
I see, so I'm an idiot for assuming that you didn't "bother to reveal" something as relevant as wanting a different FOV?
Oh that so big of you. Belittling me and then calling names? Classy.
Yeah yeah, when you're done you can leave the thread.
sparkling elk
Leading Member
in different light situations (multiple light sources) i found the 35L not perfect. focussing on 1D3 wide open and at close distances was difficult. i thought it was only me...
even i liked its contrasts and colours very much, i sold it. i am on the edge to get the 24L instead to use it together with the sharp 50L and 135L (my trinity).
i am really curious how the 24L will behave, but i guess it will be better.
--
Eckhard Aland
http://www.flickr.com/photos/proud-elk/collections/
Vance Zachary
Veteran Member
It's not the sharpest fast prime wide open available but it is still quite useable at at that aperture. I have noticed that focus with this lens is slightly less reliable than 50/1.4 or even the Sigma 85 1.4 wide open. 35 1.4 does get much sharper at 1.6 but 1.4 still isn't that bad.
full size 5D II f1.4 1/340sec ISO 800
100% crop of the above image
full size 5D f1.4 1/500sec ISO800
100% crop of the above
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
full size 5D II f1.4 1/340sec ISO 800
100% crop of the above image
full size 5D f1.4 1/500sec ISO800
100% crop of the above
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Vance Zachary
Veteran Member
Oh, only default LR 3 sharpening added.
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Sebastian1x
Forum Enthusiast
If you nail the focus (and at least for model photo) you need to print very very big to see any wide-open quality issues. Yes there is some CA and but it does not disturb me much at all, I can not see this as an issue at least for model & street photo, I seriously doubt any one will. All in all this is a really good lens, the only real down-side is the price.
If you feel you need to step down to 2.8 well then there is something wrong with your unit, go get it fixed. If it works it should it really rocks.
Sebastian
If you feel you need to step down to 2.8 well then there is something wrong with your unit, go get it fixed. If it works it should it really rocks.
Sebastian
Vance Zachary
Veteran Member
Most owners have no problem making very useable images at 1.4.
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Evidently so. I mean, the pictures that come from mine aren't necessarily bad. They can be used, I just would have liked similar performance to my 135L.
I used to complain about that lens, but once I got the hang of it and shooting in much better light, it's probably the best thing I've bought for my camera. The images just look much much different than what I get with my 35L, then again, I'm still learning so there's most likely a bad technique issue somewhere.
I'll keep practicing and see how it goes. As always, thanks for the input guys.
akin_t wrote:
The shot below was taken at f/1.4 and it's not soft per se, but the sharpness is not excellent either.
not 35 f/1.4 is pretty bad. the photographer is.
use a point and shoot for this kind of pictures. they are always sharp, if you flash.
The shot below was taken at f/1.4 and it's not soft per se, but the sharpness is not excellent either.
your picture lacks any composition skills and just says: i was there. that's p+s-land.
not 35 f/1.4 is pretty bad. the photographer is.
use a point and shoot for this kind of pictures. they are always sharp, if you flash.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum