Which 35mm? Advice needed please...

Hello everyone,

Again, apologies if my question is dumb...

I'm wanting to buy myself a 35mm.

Last year I tried out a 35mm 1.4 L mk i. I liked it a lot....I took a lot of my favourite photos I've managed so far with it. But at the time, I was also trying out a 24-70 f2.8 mk ii, and because of various reasons (versatility/sharpness/how much money I had to spend at the time...) bought the 24-70 and didn't buy the 35 1.4.

But I still can't get rid of the notion that I need to get a 35mm......because of how much I liked the images it produced.

And now there's the mk ii version as well.

(I've tried the Sigma 35 1.4 and didn't like it at all)

So......inevitably, my question is:

Is the Canon 35mm 1.4L mk II really worth spending all that extra money on, as compared to getting a mk I version?

It would be a huge investment for me.......but I am possibly considering it as an option.

I'd appreciate your thoughts and advice......and again, forgive me for the probable dumbness of this question.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.

Oh......has anyone tried the Tamron 35mm 1.8? Does anyone have an opinion as to whether its any good or not?

Thanks

Owenmorris wrote:

Hello everyone,

Again, apologies if my question is dumb...

I'm wanting to buy myself a 35mm.

Last year I tried out a 35mm 1.4 L mk i. I liked it a lot....I took a lot of my favourite photos I've managed so far with it. But at the time, I was also trying out a 24-70 f2.8 mk ii, and because of various reasons (versatility/sharpness/how much money I had to spend at the time...) bought the 24-70 and didn't buy the 35 1.4.

But I still can't get rid of the notion that I need to get a 35mm......because of how much I liked the images it produced.

And now there's the mk ii version as well.

(I've tried the Sigma 35 1.4 and didn't like it at all)

So......inevitably, my question is:

Is the Canon 35mm 1.4L mk II really worth spending all that extra money on, as compared to getting a mk I version?

It would be a huge investment for me.......but I am possibly considering it as an option.

I'd appreciate your thoughts and advice......and again, forgive me for the probable dumbness of this question.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.

Out of curiosity, what did you not like about the Sigma?

As for the other two, it's so hard to say.  It's all a value proposition.  They are both good, version II is better.  Is it enough better for the price difference?  That's all up to you.  If it were me, I would be buying the Sigma if I bought a 35mm 1.4, but I had one and liked it a lot.

I've tried the Sigma twice now.

And both times, when using my Speedlites in E-TTL mode....the Sigma created wildly inaccurate exposures......whereas my previous Canon 24-70 mk i (which I had for comparison when I first tried the Sigma) and then last year, my Canon 24-70 mk ii just worked perfectly with the E-TTL.

So that's exactly what put me off. Which is a shame. But there we go.....

My vote for 35 f2 IS!

Thanks again for your reply.

Yeah....the 35 f2 is is definitely on my mind. I honestly don't think I can justify the expense of the 1.4 mk ii.

So the f2 is, might well satisfy my 35mm cravings.

My only possible concern is, that because I have a 24-70 mk ii.......will the difference from f2.8 to f2 be noticeable enough? I'm thinking not just in the amount of light entering (man....my technical terminology just gets worse)....but the shape/perspective thing (again, rotten terminology!).....One of the things I really liked when I was trying out the 1.4 mk i was the different (less flat) shape an image had when compared to using my 24-70 at 35mm (but obviously at 2.8).

Am I making any sense?

Owenmorris wrote:

Thanks again for your reply.

Yeah....the 35 f2 is is definitely on my mind. I honestly don't think I can justify the expense of the 1.4 mk ii.

So the f2 is, might well satisfy my 35mm cravings.

My only possible concern is, that because I have a 24-70 mk ii.......will the difference from f2.8 to f2 be noticeable enough? I'm thinking not just in the amount of light entering (man....my technical terminology just gets worse)....but the shape/perspective thing (again, rotten terminology!).....One of the things I really liked when I was trying out the 1.4 mk i was the different (less flat) shape an image had when compared to using my 24-70 at 35mm (but obviously at 2.8).

Am I making any sense?

24-70 2.8 II is a fantastic lens! Interestingly I bought 35 f2 IS when I had 24-105 f/4 IS. At that time, I was not happy with sharpness I got from 24-105. So I thought of complementing it with a faster (aperture wise) lens like 35 f2 IS. Btw, 35 f2 IS also focuses very fast! Later at some point I bought 24-70 2.8 II. But you can tell 35 f2 IS is so good that I haven't yet sold it Here are some points to consider based on my experience with these two lenses.

24-70 2.8 II

-excellent zoom, very versatile, razor sharp especially for a zoom.

-accurate focus, fast focus, outstanding build quality, outstanding flare performance,

-consistent hit rate, shall give you a very high rate of keepers

-extremely ideal for events, weddings etc where accuracy matters and you don't have another chance!

-its heavy and not as inconspicuous as a lighter prime like 35 f2. this can make it not so appealing if you just want to carry camera and a lens for casual shooting and a walk some place

-does not have image stabilization so not ideal for video

-indeed very expensive though I think that price is really fine for the quality of this zoom

35 f2 IS

-super sharp, I think its tar sharper than 24-70, relatively lightweight, very good build quality probably on par with L lenses

-excellent IS and very handy for video

-f2 is really nice for low light and bokeh. agreed 1.4 and 1.2 lenses shall give you even more bokeh but bokeh from this lens has been very pleasing in my opinion and not that different from 1.4 lenses

-image quality from 35 f2 IS is a different class and each photo is unique and beautiful. IQ from sigma 35 f/1.4 is really really nice and sharp but does look a little clinical in the sense that you can tell hey this is the image from Sigma 35

-35 f2 IS has manual override whereby you can be in AF and yet use MF to override in the middle of your video. Sigma 35 does not have that. you either do AF or MF and in the middle of video you will have to stop and flip the switch and do manual focus if the need be.

-very likely you would pick this one over 24-70 for casual shoots

-excellent price compared to any other 35mm for the quality+features this lens offers

Having said all of this, yes, many will find keeping both redundant so its not like if you have one you are going to miss another. In terms of usability, versatility etc I guess 24-70 has more uses and offers almost similar image quality except the bokeh + video part that 35 f2 can do much better. What I mean is I have known a few folks who sold 35 f2 after they bought 24-70 because they found themselves not using 35 f2 as much. But each person is different. I find myself using 24-70 for events or so. But use 35 f2 exclusively for many casual occasions and totally enjoy its being lightweight and yet offering outstanding IQ not to mention IS with it.

Thank you again for your reply!

I can definitely see how the 35 f2 would be a much less of a big deal than the 24-70 as a walk around/unobtrusive (is it "obtrusive" or "intrusive"?) lens on a Canon body. I do like that vibe very much. There have been a few occasions when my (wonderful) wife hasn't been best pleased when I've taken my camera with the 24-70 attached, out for the night with us....

I'm going to try one out I reckon.

Thanks again.

Owenmorris wrote:

Thank you again for your reply!

I can definitely see how the 35 f2 would be a much less of a big deal than the 24-70 as a walk around/unobtrusive (is it "obtrusive" or "intrusive"?) lens on a Canon body. I do like that vibe very much. There have been a few occasions when my (wonderful) wife hasn't been best pleased when I've taken my camera with the 24-70 attached, out for the night with us....

I'm going to try one out I reckon.

Thanks again.

Sure, not in the same league as 35 f2 IS but 40 pancake is another one to consider for its size, weight and yet exceptional image quality. not ideal for video though.

Just to confuse myself further:

Has anyone tried (and possibly liked) the Tamron 35mm 1.8?

Its difficult to find more than the odd review of it anywhere.

Or should I really be sticking with Canon?

Thanks

Owenmorris wrote:

Just to confuse myself further:

Has anyone tried (and possibly liked) the Tamron 35mm 1.8?

Its difficult to find more than the odd review of it anywhere.

Or should I really be sticking with Canon?

Thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y16e1CHkt0

Owenmorris wrote:

Hello everyone,

Again, apologies if my question is dumb...

I'm wanting to buy myself a 35mm.

Last year I tried out a 35mm 1.4 L mk i. I liked it a lot....I took a lot of my favourite photos I've managed so far with it. But at the time, I was also trying out a 24-70 f2.8 mk ii, and because of various reasons (versatility/sharpness/how much money I had to spend at the time...) bought the 24-70 and didn't buy the 35 1.4.

But I still can't get rid of the notion that I need to get a 35mm......because of how much I liked the images it produced.

And now there's the mk ii version as well.

(I've tried the Sigma 35 1.4 and didn't like it at all)

So......inevitably, my question is:

Is the Canon 35mm 1.4L mk II really worth spending all that extra money on, as compared to getting a mk I version?

It would be a huge investment for me.......but I am possibly considering it as an option.

I'd appreciate your thoughts and advice......and again, forgive me for the probable dumbness of this question.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.

I've had the 24-70 f2.8L II for about a year now, and it has really grown on me. Very versatile with beautiful image quality. I'd never owned a 35mm prime until I picked up the new Canon 35 f/1.4L II last week. It is a game changer for me... It makes my photography almost effortless: rock solid AF, scar-your-eyes sharpness, and (when coupled with low-light champ 6D) the ability to shoot in ridiculously low light! Is it worth it? For me, absolutely!

I bought the 35 F/2 IS & haven't regretted it.

Its ability to take good photos in almost no light is remarkable.  I'm on a 6D which probably helps as the pixel density is quite low & I have no built in flash.

If you need low light capability, light weight & reasonable cost, it's a no brainer to me.  BTW, it's my only none L lens...

I have the new 35 f1.4 for about 2 months now. It's great. If you want the best autofocus, contast, sharp and bokeh then get the mark II version.

It's fantastic!

________

Fotograf nunta Brasov