I own them both and they are both great lenses. The 35/2 is close in performance but it's just like racing - you pay a huge premium to get that extra tenth or two on the track.
amonline wrote:
So, from what I have gathered is, 35L OWNERS can definitely see the difference.
Let me offer (something of) a counterpoint.
I own and LOVE my 35L. I use it for my work (professional, travel-based photojournalism for mainstream magazines and newspapers; previously weddings, corporate events, and non-profit work).
With my 5Dmk2 (and previously 5D), it is used in ~85% of my professional work.
But let's put this out there: The 35 f/2 would probably be enough for everything I do (and I have discerning editors, particularly in the print/magazine area).
At quick glance, at those sizes (and most print/web sizes), I don't see the differences unless I go into analytical mode and try to sniff out the difference. This is, ultimately, my test of a lens/system.
So why spend 5x the price for the L? Here is my concise answer: It makes my work EASIER.
Faster/quieter AF. More reliable build. Ability to gain exposure at the boundaries of extreme low-light shooting. And I'll be the first to say that the returns are of the diminishing type-- at exponential price increase.
The bottom line is that I can afford the difference-- the compounding value of making my life and work just a little easier adds up. If this was just recreational fun, and money was a consideration (it would be), I'd just use the 35 f/2.
But the extra $1K in cost (and consider I've had this lens now for years) so that every "day" at work is, say 1% easier... is a bargain.
That's where this very, very, very happy owner of the 35L comes down: The optical qualities as seen in the final product are really not so different. But the making-my-life-easier value, while minor, makes it easily worth it for me given the amount of time I spend with the lens. Don't fool yourself: You're paying a ton for diminishing returns, as is the case in many areas of life and production.
I do not own any of the 2 lenses but I can tell the difference by looking at the picture. On the last and second last picture, 35L did have better contrast and colour and I can see the difference straight away.
On the other note, I did rent 35L but it doesn't seem to do magic to me or probably I prefer the 24L FL
Look at the corners with the 1.4 wide open and the 2.0 open. Besides the fact that the 1.4 is twice as fast, the corners are usable wide open. If you have a 1.6 crop camera the difference is not so noticable. I love the 2.0, it carries nice and is very unobtrusive. It definitly has its place. But it does not really replace the 1.4. Did I mention it is TWICE as fast? Guess so. Look at the corner crops from "The Digital Picture" I am not knocking the 2.0. I have one, use it, and like it a lot.
I loved the 35 f2.0 on my 5D and tempted by the great reviews I couldn't resist a deal on a used L when I picked up my 5d2 recently. At first I was slightly surprised that IQ is so close. Now actually I'm quite pleased - 5d + 35f2 and 85f1.8 makes an awesome lightweight travel setup with minimal IQ difference!
35mm f2.0 is very discreet and paired with a beat up 5D I have few worries about damage. Now I don't want to part with either!
I can see better bokeh and colours with the L, it's nicer to use (esp for video). There's also a certain satisfaction with having the current 'best' option. But that said, don't go hungry to get the L and don't feel disappointed if you only have the 2.0! The L looks professional, but most non-photographers won't see the difference in a well taken and processed image. Both take awesome images, enjoy the one you have. Or get both :-)
I always buy the fastest lens available. This rule has two exceptions: (1) that I can afford and (2) fits the job I have for it. I think most of us can see the difference in the two lenses in your photos. Not dramatic maybe, but certainly noticeable.
I was recently confronted with the need for a fast medium length telephoto (say about 85mm) to do indoor sports in very bad lighting. My f/2.8 lenses just weren't stopping the action. The only candidates I knew of were the legendary 85L and its lesser kin the 85 f/1.8. In this case my "buy the fastest lens" dictum failed on both exceptions: I really couldn't afford the 85L and more important it became obvious that the 1.8 focused much faster. Since my goal was to stop basketball action in poor light (as opposed to creating superb portraits in controlled lighting), the 85mm f/1.8 was actually the better lens for the task.
So as Wickerprints notes there are no bad lenses just those most suited for the task.
As an aside, I note that Sigma has a new 85mm 1.4? Anyone know anything about it?
The rendition of the house/building number 3553 in photograph pair #3 suggests that the right hand side set is 35L. That to me was the most obvious difference in bokeh in all the pairs.
Both of the photos in the pairs generally look quite good, with the exception of some flare issues that might or might not be related to the specific lens. As for colors and so forth, it is hard to say what is better or how things might look with different post-processing.
It took me a while to get in the financial position to get a 35L and I dearly love this lens. The 35 F2 seems very interesting though. Still, I'm a build kinda guy. I like my lenses built like brick shit-houses.
Kai on Digital Rev TV has an amusing but interesting face-off between the 35L and the 35 F2.
I saw the difference right away as well. Just much more clarity right off the bat in the first image. Ive owned both. Just got my 35L back from calibration and its a beast.
kellystonelake wrote:
Yeah, Tom got it - the right side on all images is the L.
Boy, that's a surprise. While I wrote that the differences seemed largely insignificant to me, I presumed that the images were mixed up left/right. If someone offered me money to make guesses about which were and were not the L examples, I most certainly would not have come up with the idea that all of the left side images were done with the L.
I own three non-L primes and two L primes. There is a lot of "L worship" that is not necessarily justified in many cases. When a good non-L alternative exists, I buy that and use it. (And, by the way, my print standards are quite high.) When the non-L alternatives at a focal length I need are less compelling, I'll spring for the L.
At 35mm, the non-L alternative is really a very fine performer. The 35mm f/2 lens produces lovely image quality in all ways. The only image "flaw" I can find with it is that it can produce a slightly less sharp image in the furthest corners on full frame... but not in a way that you would notice in a print.
The fun irony of this is that the 35mm L looks so damn "pro" and studly next to the (almost embarassingly) wimpy little 35mm f/2 that many simply can't bring themselves to believe that it really performs as well as it does. I often, however, enjoy popping the 35mm f/2 on my camera when shooting around folks trying to impress with their Big Lenses, knowing that the photographic results I will produce will be top notch.
Take care,
Dan
(BTW, I'm among those who is certain that for almost all folks the value of having the 35mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4 is greater than instead owning, say, the 35mm f/1.4.)
Thanks for the comparison. The 35L has better color and contrast (stopped down 1 stop).
Your question about the flare between the lenses, is really two two issues:
The actual flare is the image-wide lessening of contrast, which is worst in the 35/2 example (see the tree on the left).
The second issue is the distinct "ghosting" (related to, but not flare) or rainbow droplets of color from the light source through the axis to the opposite side of the frame. This is more evident in the 35/1.4L, as you noted. This has to do with the lens elements and their design -- you can see the ghosting in the 35/2, but it is more indistinct, except for the blob in the lower left corner.
So, they both are affected by in-frame light source, but the "L" retains better contrast (and color) across the frame.
I would love if you could do another comparison once you get the "L". As suggested by another, could you please show them in similar situations, but at wide open for each lens? f/1.4 for the "L" and f/2 for the other.
I have never owned either, and until the last year or so, no 35mm prime, even going back to my FD days with film. Always went to 28mm and wider, until the old FD 20-35L zoom, then I had this focal length. I recently sold my Zeiss ZE 35/2 (which was excellent) and now rely on the Rokinon 35/1.4, which is manual focus manual aperture, but pretty good and at a good price. I am covered for 35mm by my 24-70L, and others, but always think about what I might be missing from the 35/1.4L -- thanks for giving me more to ponder.
BTW -- Great test shots, and your husband is a terrific and patient model. Nice thread!
wickerprints wrote:
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....Show more →
@wickerprints: TRUE STORY....
I hate it when people tend to judge one's choice over a car, camera system...or even spouse..
It's ok to have opinion,as long as it's based on something....
If I don't have any knowledge in mechanics & engines... I really can't say to a mechanic: "why the hell did you pay 2000 $ on a dumb wrench?".... Perhaps to me it would seem as a dumb purchase, but since I'm not doing his work and using the tool to know how effective his new tool is, I can't find myself yakking this and that about his purchase..
I think there are a lot of people paying lots of money on lenses they don't actually need.....as in : paying extra for a 70-200 2.8 IS II , if you shoot landscape at F4 or F8, paying extra for a 85Lif you don't have the need to shoot at 1.2, and instead you shoot in the studio at F4/8 etc...
twistedlim wrote:
Look at the corners with the 1.4 wide open and the 2.0 open. Besides the fact that the 1.4 is twice as fast, the corners are usable wide open. If you have a 1.6 crop camera the difference is not so noticable. I love the 2.0, it carries nice and is very unobtrusive. It definitly has its place. But it does not really replace the 1.4. Did I mention it is TWICE as fast? Guess so. Look at the corner crops from "The Digital Picture" I am not knocking the 2.0. I have one, use it, and like it a lot.
I think the comments by Wickerprints and JustRuss are spot on. If you enjoy using fine tools or your professional reputation is involved you can always afford the better tool. But there is the Charming Cheapie tool that gets the job done as well. Besides cost, the 35 f2 has two major advantages for me, it weighs 7½ oz and it has a much closer minimum focus distance. I've had this lens over 10 years and its my oldest active lens. I lust after the 35L periodically but since this is a supplemental lens, I've never gotten beyond lust.
Fred Miranda wrote:
According to Photozone's resolution test, the Canon 35mm f/2 seems to be actually sharper in the corners then the 35mm f/1.4L @ f/2 and f/2.8
Based on this review chart, the 35mm f/1.4L looks really bad around the extreme corners up until f/2.8. After that, it takes over.
It would be nice if kellystonelake could do a corner and extreme corner comparison between these 2 lenses. This time with the husband smiling a bit!
I guess it really depends on where you take your samples from then because the Digital Picure corner comparison clearly shows that the corners on the f2 don't catch up to the L (wide open) until about f5.6.
The L is on the right side in all these photos but if I had not shot with both lenses it might not be as obvious to me. At this size in this comparison it's so close it hardly matters, especially with a little post processing.
I think the real advantage of the 35/2 is being (IIRC) the smallest Canon prime and perhaps lightest you can put on a body at practically no cost comparatively speaking. When you don't want any extra weight in the bag (or killing your shoulder with too many other lenses) or need "portable" the 35/2 is hard to argue with for the money (nearly $1,000 less), even more so if compared to a zoom or when you already have similar lenses. While I love my L's and USM lenses (and the Zeiss 35 especially) I find the focus noise to be an issue blown out of proportion with the 35/2. Usually the focus distance is moving so little it's barely noticeable/very short lived and the non camera people I've asked about it (to my shock) prefer the arc form drive noise to the USM. By comparison the 50 compact macro with the same focus motor makes much more noise to me than the 35/2 primarily because of the distance it travels in focusing. For the money and age I think it held up well in this comparison. Everything is a tradeoff or plateau of diminishing returns. I see the 35/2 as giving a quality I want a zoom can't give or when I want to travel light and if I need more than f/2 I'll with to a different prime instead. Given a choice though, I still prefer the Voigtlander Ultron 40 SL II pancake to the 35/2 assuming the 1.4L is not part of the equation and size matters. On assignment or at larger comparison sizes (if money is no object) I'd be more likely to take the 1.4L. Thanks for posting the side by sides !
twistedlim wrote:
I guess it really depends on where you take your samples from then because the Digital Picure corner comparison clearly shows that the corners on the f2 don't catch up to the L (wide open) until about f5.6.
I saw the samples. What I'm saying is that it does not mean it's accurate.
