Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              5       6       end
  

Archive 2012 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0

  
 
amonline
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


D. Diggler wrote:
The difference is SOOOO small that clients would never tell.


I can tell. That's all that matters.



Jan 09, 2012 at 08:24 PM
Michael H
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


amonline wrote:
So, from what I have gathered is, 35L OWNERS can definitely see the difference.


I see the difference,and I don't own one. (yet?)



Jan 09, 2012 at 08:33 PM
david1234
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


amonline wrote:
I can tell. That's all that matters.


yep! Will never sell my 35L for that



Jan 09, 2012 at 08:56 PM
joosay
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


If I had to do it all over again, I would have started with the 35 2.0 until I could afford/justify getting the L.


Jan 09, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Trailboy
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


I'd much sooner have the 35 2 and 85 1.8 and £2500 in my back pocket, than a couple of red stripes,an extra stop and a bloody big hole in my front pocket.


Jan 10, 2012 at 02:38 AM
WNStudio
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Hey,

To see real difference and to justify extra $$$ spent we have to make at least 2 tests with these lenses:
1. Side by side test wide open in different lightning conditions- I mean 1.4 vs 2.0. Testing it at the same aperture is pointless. 1.4 is what you are paying for.
2. AF performance esp. in low light conditions.
35L is a very expensive lens, it's good to have cheaper alternative that would work for many of us. From my experience- you won't see a difference unless you try it

Wojtek.



Jan 10, 2012 at 03:11 AM
wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Trailboy wrote:
I'd much sooner have the 35 2 and 85 1.8 and £2500 in my back pocket, than a couple of red stripes,an extra stop and a bloody big hole in my front pocket.


To each their own. If it's not worth it to you, then that's your evaluation. Certainly, there are plenty of other photographers for whom the difference is significant enough that they feel entirely satisfied making the opposite decision.



Jan 10, 2012 at 03:11 AM
Trailboy
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Including me. I think they are better lenses.

But I could do a lot more to improve my photograph with £2500 than a stop, better af, etc



Jan 10, 2012 at 03:26 AM
wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Trailboy wrote:
Including me. I think they are better lenses.

But I could do a lot more to improve my photograph with £2500 than a stop, better af, etc


When I said "make the opposite decision," I meant "make the opposite decision to yours." That is to say, there are many photographers--several of which have posted in this thread--who absolutely do choose the 35L (and might also choose the 85L) over their slower-aperture counterparts, because the faster lenses satisfy their particular photographic needs.

Certainly, it is not everyone's priority to pay the price to get f/1.4 over f/2, or f/1.2 over f/1.8. I would say a majority of photographers out there probably don't shoot in conditions or in a manner that would give them a significant benefit with the faster lens of the pair. I regularly discourage people from buying the 85L over the 85/1.8 for exactly this reason--I find a lot of people covet the 85L, and quite a number of them buy it, without really having concrete reasons or realistic expectations about how their photography would benefit.

But that said, that doesn't mean no one should use them or that they are a poor value. They're just a poor value for those photographers who don't really need them. For those who do, and for those who understand and enjoy how to shoot in ways that exploit their unique qualities, the 35L and 85L are absolutely worthwhile. You just have to know whether you are one of those people. It's the same thing with camera bodies. I've lost count of how many people have looked at my 5D2 and thought I was absolutely daft for spending thousands of dollars just to take "better" pictures, when I could have just bought a Rebel or a point-and-shoot megazoom, or even just used my mobile phone's camera. To them, they simply don't see what the fuss is all about. "Why would you spend so much money to carry all that stuff around when you could just take the photo with your mobile?" They have little to no appreciation for the difference. (Ironically, if I show them the resulting photos, they then coo and exclaim how amazing my camera must be, as if I had nothing to do with the way it turned out!)

And that's exactly how you feel about the difference in the lenses. To you, it's not worth it, just like it's not worth it to those people to buy a DSLR.

With occasional exceptions, there is no such thing as a "better lens." There are only "better lenses for what I/you/he/she wants to do." The 35/2 is not a better lens than the 35/1.4L, and vice versa.



Jan 10, 2012 at 03:49 AM
Trailboy
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Trailboy wrote:
I'd much sooner have the 35 2 and 85 1.8 and £2500 in my back pocket, than a couple of red stripes,an extra stop and a bloody big hole in my front pocket.


My first letter in my post says 'I', which, I think we can agree, says everything.



Jan 10, 2012 at 04:29 AM
DingAnSich
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


who cares buy um both


Jan 10, 2012 at 05:50 AM
Chris Beaumont
Offline
• • • • •
[X]
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


I say this as an owner and lover of the 35 f/2, but you've left out the massive elephant in the room.

There's a big big reason all your subjects are centered, the f/2.0 gets very soft, very quickly away from centre wide open.

The f/2.0 is an incredible lens, I love it, but it has a narrow range of operation.



Jan 10, 2012 at 05:07 PM
lhdvries
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Interesting thread-I just returned from returning my 35L to B&H after deciding the 35f/2.0 was all I needed.


Jan 10, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Lily L
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


I'm very interested in getting a 35 f/2.0 even though I currently own a 35L. Anyone selling? I found a killer deal on Craigslist yesterday but it was gone in a snap. I want to use it for travel so I don't have to hual a big lens around, and of course I don't want to risk damaging the L lens.

Thanks for creating the side-by-side comparison. The differences are not significant, but if I look closely I can tell all the photos on the right are sharper and very slightly more contrasty.



Jan 10, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Andrew Welsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Is it sad I shoot my 35L at f/2 most of the time? I'd say about 40% of my shots at f/1.4 just look like poo because the focus ain't right.

Owned both... 35/2 sat in my bag unused because AF was a dog in any light besides daylight. The whizzing and whirring didn't bug me so much. Hunts a lot.. 35L locks on like a laser. Also a big reason I own 85/1.8 over 85L

Non-photographer clients will likely never be able to tell the difference between an f/2 and f/1.4 shot at 35mm



Jan 10, 2012 at 11:36 PM
ChadAndreo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Andrew Welsh wrote:
Is it sad I shoot my 35L at f/2 most of the time? I'd say about 40% of my shots at f/1.4 just look like poo because the focus ain't right.

Owned both... 35/2 sat in my bag unused because AF was a dog in any light besides daylight. The whizzing and whirring didn't bug me so much. Hunts a lot.. 35L locks on like a laser. Also a big reason I own 85/1.8 over 85L

Non-photographer clients will likely never be able to tell the difference between an f/2 and f/1.4 shot at 35mm


Only when you have to shoot at iso 6400 instead of 3200.



Jan 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM
david1234
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


I shoot at 1.4 all the time on mine. Love the look, always always tack sharp, sharpest lens i own...


Jan 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM
erikburd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Based on the bokeh alone, I could tell that the L lens was used for the right images. I know that the 35 f/2 is no slouch, but I preferred the 35L for my needs.

I'm not surprised that the IQ is so close, and it shows how good that lens really is.



Jan 11, 2012 at 12:16 AM
lovinglife
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


whats the point of comparing them in bright daylight?
try some night time shots and compare the bokeh, colors, and rendering

Even my point and shoot yields excellent images in daylight..



Jan 11, 2012 at 12:38 AM
dwweiche
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 35 L vs. 35 2.0


Your husband is *almost* smiling in one of those photos


Jan 11, 2012 at 01:11 AM
1      
2
       3              5       6       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              5       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.